CharonY

I am certain that there is a more direct way, but my first inclination would be to align all translated variants.

First, it would be good if you provided a reference for the paper (i.e. what is missing is author, ideally volume and issue, too). Second, you will find papers indicating that something kills or reduces viability of cancer cells on an almost regular basis. Most of them are in vitro or animal experiments, and many are difficult to translate into something clinically useful. There are myriads of reason why folks do not follow up, including that the effects cannot be reliably reproduced or they figure out that it is too toxic and so on. Sometimes it is simply because no one got around in further testing it, because there are so many other better candidates in the pipeline. The rule with cancer seems to be that basically everything causes cancer and everything kills cancer cells.

I think there is a systemic issue going on. It may be different in Ivy leagues, but I have worked mostly in smaller institutions and what I have observed is that folks are way more focused on good grades and the degree rather than the topic. Over time, it seems, folks are have more and more a kind of optimization mindset, in which they want to figure out how to get the best grades in the most efficient amount of time. You often hear a lot of questions trying to figure out what may be in exams, rather than about the topic you have been just talking about. To many, this endless learning of facts, is the most effective way, as it takes a bit until things click. Many kids are too restless to get to that point.

! Moderator Note This is not a discussion or even an invitation to discussion. It is a long rambling post with seemingly little purpose than to connect mysticism, a dash of history to... the US? It is like six degrees of Kevin Bacon with an Adderall overdose. Kindly explain what you try to discuss here. Ideally using a much shorter post for starters.

If only it was just ignorance. At this point we see full frontal insanity. And I do not mean that in a partisan way. I mean taking what kids post on a trolling board seriously and make it mainstream, kind of of insane. I mean, there are just so many things just over the top (A prophetic internet troll? Satanic child sacrifices?), it is honestly scary that folks think them to be true and effing run for congress.

! Moderator Note Thread closed pending moderator review.

Narf.

Then either you express yourself poorly or do not understand what you came across. Puberty is defined as the process in which sexual maturation occurs. "Associated with childbirth" is in so far relevant as prior to entering puberty reproduction is not possible. The rest of your post has basically nothing to do with puberty.

It would help if you do not start with assertions that are made up, rather based on what is known. The rest is then wild speculation based on almost entirely wrong assumptions.

Please provide actual evidence (i.e. a report or any large-scale measurements) that describe that women have two distinct builds rather than having a distribution of body shapes. If you do not have that information all the rest of the speculation is rather moot.

It occurs to me that we should amend the common example of shouting "Fire" in a packed cinema, with the example of: tweeting "COVID-19 (or whatever outbreak we have at any given time) is harmless. Go out and get exposed"

*Sigh* if all your information you is from the media it may be the reason you are confused. Textbooks are what you need to check out how our energy metabolism works. There are specialized cells that use glycolysis predominantly but again, they require the help of other tissue to stay alive. Look what you are doing here is basically what you accuse media to do: propagate false information. On a topic that is extremely basic, no less. Why, do you think then is the brain so highly dependent on oxygen? Another part you do not seem to understand is that our body acts in concert. Parts of it can do anaerobic fermentation, but then requires other tissues to support them, which do oxidative phosphorylation. It is one of the perks of being multicellular, the ability to have specialized cells. Parts of the metabolism can be shuffled between cells, where intermediates are exchanged so that the whole process is not limited to a singular cell. This is also the case for the brain where e.g. certain cells for example do more NADH shuffling than other cell types. But as a whole the brain is powered by oxidative phosphorylation. Similar to muscle cells the glycolys to ox-phos ratio can be temporary out of whack, but it is then balanced out with the help of mitochondrial actions. Saying that mitochondria is taking us hostage is basically like saying that the heart is a useless organ. We need to treat it nicely or it will give out and kill us by depriving us of nutrients and oxygen, that bastard.

Same goes for Biology, but the issue is that fewer folks are not that motivated to understand anymore (and of course there was always a bit of selection regarding what folks are motivated about, but I do think that the system as a whole is shifting). OP was specifically referring to cramming and of course everyone's advice would be not to. But also that advice will be ignored without a doubt.

They are not our friend. They are essential. I am basically just replying to make sure that other folks are not possibly getting confused.

Not only that. If you only think about answers, you may make mental shortcuts that you are not aware of. When you verbalize (or write the answers out fully) you will note if have problems expressing certain things (indicating you did not quite get that).

I think the first full publication was Lu et al. (Lancet 395:10224 2020).

It shows that you do not understand the purpose and energy requirements of the Cori cycle. Are you saying that critical thinking requires you to remain ignorant?

I don't understand You missed (again) the fact that the Cori-cycle costs energy. Each regeneration of lactate costs two more than glycolysis can provide. There is a name for it: oxygen debt. This is why after running you keep being out of breath, your body needs the oxygen to produce enough energy to get rid of the lactate. It is like taking a loan. You look at the boost of money and think great, endless cash! But you forget that you need to pay it back with interest. Here is the thing, we pretty know all about this. We know which transporter move ATP across the mitochondrial membrane. It is obvious why mitochondria relinquish the energy, they do not need it, their metabolism is coupled with the host cell. We know that damages to mitochondria lead to disease and damage, and that most eukaryotic cells types need them to function. Listen, it is fine not to know a particular topic, even a rather common one as it may depend on how it was taught. But it is a bit silly to assume that this partially formed view is indeed the scientific state of knowledge. Mitochondria are one of the best investigated organelles due to their importance and there is an incredible amount of literature out there. So it is fine to be ignorant, but there is little excuse in wanting to stay so.

Here is a pretty good article with regard to the US response (or lack thereof): https://www.jsonline.com/in-depth/news/2020/10/14/america-had-worlds-best-pandemic-response-plan-playbook-why-did-fail-coronavirus-covid-19-timeline/3587922001/ While not exhaustive, it does provide a few insights into responses elsewhere in the world.

Let me reverse the question, why do you think that those markers are inadequate? You'll have to be more precise as there are different tools for different purposes.

If you insist in not understanding how the energy is generated, I cannot help you. However, do you realize: a) how much energy can be gained with from glucose using oxidative phosphorylation vs just the anaerobic pathway? b) how just conducting glycolysis is not sustainable and c) why therefore we need mitochondria? (as these all relate more closely to the question in title ?)

Yeah, he was certainly the safe choice. But honestly you would have thought that if folks were sane, a random duck would have been a show-in. I mean how much worse can one mess up short of accidentally nuking Nebraska?

I think why many folks liked Biden is that he is able to project empathy (which I think would be considered a common human trait, but apparent not nowadays). However, in the past I had the impression (though I do not follow US politics that close, so may misinterpret it) that he tended to be light on the details and policy side. That being said, during the townhall one could clearly see that he did his homework. I actually liked that (and one of the reasons why I liked Warren, she seemed pretty on the top of her game when it came to these specifics).

Sometimes it is also about simple things that one might be wondering about. Like how does your hand move? Why is it moving in that certain way? Why do I need to eat? What happens to the food? Of course many of those things are not precisely crucial, but science was always more about curiosity rather than about filling an urgent practical need (with exceptions, of course).

I suspect for some that would be the only reason to watch it. The fact that a "boring", i.e. typical political townhall gets better ratings kind of shows how folks have enough of the drama show. At least somewhat encouraging.