John Cuthber

No, your bizarre idea that resistance is an "all or nothing" thing is wrong. So, you don't mean receptors when you say receptors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose_transporter

It makes much more sense to ask th epatients. It does work. Most tissue isn't explicit;y sensitive to glucose. The tissue with the most obvious sensitivity is the cells in the pancreas. If those are dead then restoration of their response is hopeless. If the various sensors are present, but not responding well then the usual treatment is metformin "Metformin is a biguanide antihyperglycemic agent.[6] It works by decreasing glucose production by the liver, by increasing the insulin sensitivity of body tissues,["

It does work. I think that's why it's banned.

It isn't.

Increasing the levels of insulin in type 2 diabetes works. So, it's associated with a deficiency. Also Yes they do- notably with sulphonylureas. In any event, we know how to prevent and treat type 2 diabetes. It's just that people find it very hard to lose weight. That's still the best available medical treatment- and it works.

https://xkcd.com/285/ But, more importantly, we have (accidentally) done the experiment with humans, so who cares about rats?.

You have not looked. "Sulfonylureas (UK: sulphonylurea) are a class of organic compounds used in medicine and agriculture, for example as antidiabetic drugs widely used in the management of diabetes mellitus type 2. They act by increasing insulin release from the beta cells in the pancreas.[1]" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfonylurea It really would be better if you checked that what you believe is at least nearly correct before posting. Take what into account?

We have medicine; we don't have magic. If someone's pancreas is damaged by an autoimmune disease we can not go back in time and stop that. Nor can we build them a new pancreas. (we might be able to give them a transplant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancreas_transplantation ) We can provide insulin from an external source. Whether that is treating the symptom or the cause is a matter of definition. It really isn't that simple.

I Thought the most interesting bit was where he said he didn't know about Qanon. Isn't that a rather major oversight for him? Surely, he should know about groups like that- at least the big ones..

I'm not responsible for whatever nonsense you believe. However, in the real world, people keep spiders as pets. https://www.thesprucepets.com/pet-tarantulas-1237346 And yes I have known people who had a pet spider.

We would all fall ill and die at the same time too...

Even for molecules that have a dipole it's hard to line them up well except by freezing them. The least bad option is putting less CO2 in the air. Also, for what it's worth, some of the radiation is emitted at right angles to the axis of the CO2 molecule (might be all of it; I'd have to think about it.)

No it isn't. I'm OK with them. Some people keep them as pets. No.

It isn't.

Equality of what? https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2018/12/whats-in-a-meme-equity-equality-and-differences-in-interpretation.html

It's not just the E that makes the difference It's sometimes the lack of a double consonant after a vowel. Mating is not the same as matting. It's entertaining to get a natural born first-language speaker of English to read this: I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough Others may stumble, but not you On hiccough, thorough, laugh, and through. And cork and work and card and ward And font and front and word and sword Well done! And now if you wish, perhaps To learn of less familiar traps, Beware of heard, a dreadful word That looks like beard and sounds like bird. A nd dead: it’s said like bed, not bead– For goodness sakes don’t call it deed. Watch out for meat and great and threat, They rhyme with suite and straight and debt. A moth is not a moth in mother, Nor both in bother, broth in brother. And here is not a match for there, And dear and fear for bear and pear. And then there’s dose and rose and lose– Just look them up–and goose and choose, And do and go, then thwart and cart. Come, come, I’ve hardly made a start! A dreadful language? Man alive! I’d mastered it when I was five.

"Could we be wrong about everything?" Not any more. Not since you, or someone, asked that question. Imagine that we were wrong about everything. If that was the case then one thing we would need to be wrong about was our belief that we were right about things In that case, saying "I am not sure about knowing everything" would be right. In order to ask the question in the thread title, you need to realise that there's doubt and, in that case, having doubt would be the right thing to do.

What's The Point Of Calculus?? It's so we can help our kids with their calculus homework.

I didn't comment on what God can do. I commented on what WE can do. I have no idea. Perhaps it's just a random event ages ago. It's hard to see how it has any relevance here.

It is easy to make something go wrong, but difficult to repair it. Especially when the thing is so complex that you do not know how it works.

It's not clear how that is an example of this If you say "And if We desire, We may return them to that state again", I'm going to laugh at you. Not because the statement is religious, but because it is absurd. We simply do not have that ability or anything like it, no matter hat we may "desire". There are statements in various religious works that forecast an end to the universe. With a bit of care, you may be able to "interpret" them so that they coincide with either a Universe ripped apart by dark energy or a "heat death" as the universe expands and cools. So it does not matter much what view I take, Big Crunch; Big Rip or heat death, there will be a religious text that seems to agree with it. It is therefore impossible for me to "take the postulates which run antiparallel with religious teaching" because religious teachings contradict themselves so frequently. As for " it is quite possible that the rending apart of spacetime from our perspective might as well be wrapping them back together to pre-bigbang state. The ugly part is, if I present this possibility (remember, I am not saying it is so, I am saying it may be so) without the reference to the scripture, I get unbiased, neutral analysis of this" there's a problem. We don't know what (if anything) happened before the BB, but we can make predictions- based in science, albeit rather uncertain science- about what the debris from the "Big Rip" would do. And forming another universe isn't a credible outcome, so you say "it is quite possible" that it might happen. Well, not according to physics, it isn't. And thus, when you say " if I announce that I got this idea from a scripture verse, most laymen instantly denounce it as an erratic assumption simply because whatever is in a scripture can "obviously" not be scientifically valid." Well, the layman might say all sorts of things. But the physicists are likely to say that it's wrong, given the laws of physics.; and it doesn't matter where you got the idea.

Could you show us an example? (quote expanded by mod to add context)

I can see one advantage. At low flow rates drainpipes are sometimes noisy because water drops fall down them and hit the bottom with a thud. That wouldn't happen with this. But I simply can't imagine any way in which putting that spiral baffle in the way will make the water flow faster.

It's an interesting question; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_tetracarbonyl has Ni in the zero oxidation state. And in some cases the oxidation state is pretty much a matter of opinion.

Not usually important with organic acids.