CharonY

So rather trivially that is very unlikely to be true. Metabolites are regulated by a complex interplay of genetic and non-genetic factors. What is true is that the role of specifically dietary cholesterol has been revised significantly. I.e. the simple assumption that high dietary cholesterol intake translates directly in high blood values, does not hold true. However, it is not clear why. Some studies suggest that dietary cholesterol can modulate the de novo synthesis of cholesterol, whereas others point to components other than cholesterol in the diet. The genetic factors are also not well understood, either. Some variations of apolipoprotein genes, for example have been shown involved in clearance, and mutations appear to increase variability of LDL cholesterol levels. There are a couple of GWAS studies showing certain loci potentially involved in lower blood cholesterol levels, but with unknown mechanism. As a whole the genetic factors are poorly understood and there is little evidence indicating that genetic factors would even the major determinant of blood cholesterol level (though they will certainly play a modulating factor, with all else being the same, which would be a highly artificial situation, of course).

I should also noted that in contrast to some other plans to making college debt free (e.g. Warren, Sanders, Clinton), there is not provision for that specifically. The goal seems to lower tuition a bit or at least couple it to wage development (somehow) and check that folks make the money back eventually. However, he also has a loan forgiveness plan where debts will be bought by feds and after 10 years of payment (10% of the salary) it would be eventually forgiven (and other provisions that would be easier to forgive debt). It is not certain what the net cost would be in comparison to, say Warren's debt forgiveness plan. However it seems to have caught less media attention (positive or negative). It is similar to plans proposed by Trump, but with different thresholds and will be a higher burden to lower income folks (who struggle most with student loans). Personally I do think that addressing student loan is too late, it should not come to that in the first place. It seems to me that North Americans (I am including Canadians here) seem to be so used to high education cost that only few consider alternatives "normal".

! Moderator Note Folks, how about we do not make this personal and perhaps discuss the system instead?

No, I am saying it is not the sole focus (as it is in Yang's outline), and especially not focused on later income returns. Otherwise unis would end up being law, medical and engineering schools. Moreover, it would kill the research enterprise as the returns in academic research jobs are low. Throughout his policy proposal. As I said, he is not coherent enough to make a specific case, but the fact that he wants to monitor debt in relation to future salaries, limit tuition to wage growth, wants uni presidents to talk to students regarding their careers, heavily implies that he sees a link between wages and expected return relative to tuition. What he neglect (except the administrative part) are the actual mechanisms of tuition cost (I have mentioned them in a different thread). The only thing to be control cost is for unis to slash services, and replace faculty with sessionals (which is already happening). Administration has potential for more efficiencies but alone would not drive down tuition cost to the required levels. And as I said if future salaries are to balance it out (rather than actually having a proper vision for investing into education) then we we will go away from broad integrative education to extended job training (i.e. where the private sector offloads training cost to public education centers, a trend started sometime in the 60s). Perhaps I am being unfair, but often the private sector is a bit myopic when it looks at things related to public goods (if all you got is a hammer and all that).

Well that is the thing, Yang has some disconnected ideas on this matter and after what to me looks like a superficial read on the matter. That does annoy me perhaps because it reminds me of student reports. I have read a paragraph and am going to expound my thoughts on that matter on several pages. I would have preferred either acknowledging the matter and say that it requires some work, rather than throwing out ideas and pretend that they are well informed. I rather have a leader acknowledging that they need to read up in things rather than pretend to have solution. You see, to me the passage reads like pure narrative (link tuition to expected return and all will be well) does not only have no actual policy ideas, but is a horrible talking point which misses the purposes of higher education entirely.

In this case it does, unfortunately, shows that his thoughts are not terribly well informed, which in turn makes me more skeptical about his thoughts on subjects that I know less about.

I actually checked the Yang website where he proposes to reduce tuition fees, and it seems that for the most part he is barking up the wrong tree. He wants universities to reduce administrative positions, but quite a few studies indicate that while it contributes to cost, it is not the main driver and also it is not clear how he wants to force unis to restructure that way. He wants to collect additional data and somehow link tuition fees with salary outcomes, but it is absolute not clear how that is going to work. University costs are distinct from the salary potential of graduates so one would need to change uni from a teaching/research environment to vocational training system mostly run by sessionals. There a few other points which do not make sense whatsoever (wants presidents to discuss job prospects with alumni- why?). As such it is not clear how that is supposed to increase teaching quality at the same time. And the biggest missing bit is that there is no serious element of federal funding (other than investing in innovative and growing schools??), which is actually one important driver of tuition costs. That section is a bit symptomatic why I have some issues with Yang on certain topics- it reminds me too much of a techbro sales pitch- it propose relatively easy solutions often targeting superficial issues, but failing to actually address the issues it promises to solve.

Gosh, I forgot Voyager. But according to my wife TNG is what counts.

So Tom is too mundane but Michael, Joseph, Janice, Christine, Pavel, Bev, Wes, Amanda and Carol ain't? I think that should be a pointed question at the next convention.

Perhaps replace "more" with "better". I was alluding to the increasing information we have of molecular and organelle dynamics, organization and trafficking.

You are right, it was my mistake. I was thinking of capsids as I am more familiar with those as vaccination targets and have muddled up things, including the fact that coronavirus is in fact enveloped. My apologies. Recombinant envelope proteins have also been used but often are trickier to handle. And again, the issues are the same, even in native form they may not be recognized well, a synthetic form may not correspond well to the native form (i.e. your "fake virus" may not result in the desired recognition) and it may actually be harmful. So at this point I can just re-iterate that synthesizing a protein in vitro does not necessarily make it the same as what the virus does in a cell. This is why we still have attenuated vaccines rather than just taking a pathogen protein and call it a day, for example. The target folks are focussed most on in coronavirus are the spike proteins that target ACE receptors. But even then, getting the antigen just right is difficult. So to re-iterate, taking a protein (envelope, capsid, or whatever) based on its DNA sequence does not make it suitable vaccination substrate. Jesus, that should be criminally persecuted, no doubt.

These questions are not easy to answer in a short post- one could hold a full lecture on it in depth. Based on the questions I think you have still a "static" view of the cell, which is typically taught in highschool and often in the first semesters of uni. But be prepared to modify it quite a bit, in order to better understand what is going on. Obviously only short pointers can be given here and only a deeper reading will provide you with the proper context. 1) depends on you define specific. Certain glycosylations of membrane proteins are generally only added in the Golgi systems before directed to the cell membrane. However, other forms of glycosylation are also added elsewhere. 2) obviously you have the sponteneous folding in an aqueous environment, but there are also plenty of chaperones in the cytosol- they are highly abundant proteins. 3) technically all eukaryotic ribosomes are cytosolic- they are either free or associated with a membrane. The pathways proteins can take are complex but they can e.g. be directed via endosomal pathways to the Golgi. However, proteins synthesized in the cytosol can also be directed to the ER and from there to the Golgi. There are also a number of non-canonical vesicular pathways, but let's just say that understanding intracellular protein trafficking requires serious reading. 4) There are again multiple models for how ER-localized translation works. In the classical, mRNA-ribosomal complexes are directed to the ER after initiation utilizing so called signal recognition particles. In other words, initiation is assumed to be a fully cytosolic action, the translocation to a membrane occurs afterward. However, there is recent evidence that ER-bound ribosomes also produce non-membrane targeted (i.e. cytosolic) proteins, which challenges some prior assumptions. As a whole, there is more recognition of ribosomal dynamics, which respond to a vast number of cellular cues (such as stress).

I may not understand you correctly, but you may have a number of misconceptions regarding viral surfaces. A couple of points: - virus envelopes are typically formed by elaborate protein structures and they do not have a membrane as such - these proteins have complex three-dimensional structures (as other proteins) and often require additional proteins to be folded correctly and can be decorated - as such, the interplay between different viral proteins (and host mechanisms) are required to give viruses their final shapes - the immune response is dependent on the recognition of specific shapes (epitopes) - producing a viral part in vitro does not guarantee to provide the correct shape to recognize a life virus In addition, as mentioned you have to make sure that whatever you use as a vaccine does not induce harmful events. So again, just pulling proteins from a sequence and then releasing it into the bloodstream does not easily work, rather it would need quite a long process to make sure that it works and that it is not harmful. On the other points, eukaryotic cells do have free ribosomes but are also part of the rough ER. There are various options for RNA delivery including liposomes. That being said, I think while there are quite a few clinical trials for mRNA vaccines, they have not been approved yet (but some are fast-tracked).

Just adding a random virus protein does not guarantee a useful immune response, and it can also cause adverse effects as mentioned. In quite a few cases it is necessary to modify the virus capsids in vitro in order to make them useful as vaccines. In vitro synthesis of viral particles can result in quite a different structure than in vivo, but for the latter you need to isolate and propagate the virus. Moreover glycosylation can make them difficult to be recognized and conversely, viral particles injected in significant amounts can lead to adverse inflammatory responses. mRNA only needs to be delivered to the cell. The nucleus is not the area where translation happens.

Of course, that is why it is such a powerful tool. There is no need for actual facts to back those fears up. As such, there are also only few, if any, effective ways to address it. It is also a key instrument to right-wing populist power, which is worrisome and which is why identity politics is such a key element in their strategy.

One issue is that the vote was seemingly broadly fear driven. Fear of others, fear of losing ones national identity, fear of changing demographics (at least these factors were found to be the strongest predictors of pro-brexit vote in studies following the referendum). Any fact and data is screened through this lens and is filtered out when it runs to the contrary. One can also look at it from a cost-benefit perspective, where Brexiteers see a stronger control over immigration (and often associate it with a means to combat terrorism) as an overriding benefit, where other economic issues take a backseat. Or simply put, there is a belief that if the UK leaves the EU and restricts immigration the economy would somehow be boosted and easily overcome any negative outcomes. But if you mean the leadership, they effectively harnessed these fears.

No, the idea is to have mRNA coding for viral structure expressed by the host and presented as an antigen. Just synthesizing a random viral part in vitro usually has very low success rate. You do not know whether the part elicits a suitable response, nor can you always ensure that whatever you synthesize has still its native form. Even worse, injecting it in relative high concentration can also have adverse effects without actually conferring immunity. That is why when you start designing a vaccine you often have to work with the intact virus and either design around an attenuated form or, if you can, isolate a workable part. But that requires time. Even then, if a good target is known the big time consuming step are the trials. In extreme cases there are accelerated trials where requirements are relaxed. Nonetheless you still need to show that it actually helps. And just sticking a random viral structure in and hope for the best is unlikely to work.

I think the opposite is true, though. Defying Trump is the politically risky step.

There may be a difference between lawmakers and consumers. However, lawmakers and animal welfare groups are about more about the latter. There is also evidence that chlorine baths actually make certain pathogens harder to detect, but dot effectively kill them. I.e. the issue is that the whole meat production line may not be up to EU standards but the chlorine baths can hide this issue. Perhaps going even more off topic (but then we are very way off Theresa May, I'd think). There are also differences between US and EU regarding labels of antibiotics use. According to the US Dept. of agriculture, animals with an organic label generally are not allowed to be fed antibiotics, though there are exceptions when it comes to poultry. The label "no antibiotics used" can only be used if the animal was never fed antibiotics. However, this is not actually inspected and solely relies on providing "sufficient documentation". In the EU the organic label forbids the use of antibiotics but only as food additive. So the regulation (from what I have read) does not explicitly limit the use for treatment purposes. I have not been buying meat in Germany for a long time, so I am not sure whether there are labels in the EU indicating lack of antibiotics. Maybe some European members could comment?

So actually in that case they have to add the disclaimer that it is not allowed in the first place, with the exception for beef. In the US and Canada growth hormones are allowed for beef production, so if they do not add it, they are allowed. One other regulation I have seen (since '14 or '15) is the declaration of mechanical tenderization.

Lamar Alexander is also a no, so there is no real chance for witnesses to be allowed. His justification is basically in line with the GOP strategy: So in other words the "he did not do it" is done and now we are firmly in "it does not matter" territory.

Well, that is why it takes a while, you'll need to figure out what components create an immune response, but you also want to avoid unspecific inflammation and other adverse effects. The last thing you want is healthy folks suffering from the vaccine especially in a case where the disease is still found to be of relatively low lethality. That being said, the fastest development route are probably RNA vaccines, which can produce targets basically overnight. However, safety and efficacy trials would also need to run.

They have been for quite a while, actually. EU regulations have phased out the use of antibiotics as a fattening agents for years now. However, as it turns out the first couple of years after the ban, the use was pretty much stable. What happened was that rather than declaring it as a food additive, farmers claimed medical use. Data has shown that over 90% of ABs were mass administered via drinking water rather than individually administered as you would for actual medical reasons. So overall there was little movement in net use. Only in the last few years AB use for meat production has dropped, as consumer increasingly started to buy more expensive meat that was declared not to be treated with ABs (though the labeling can be deceiving, but that is probably another issue). However, the same trend is seen in the US. Between 2016-17 both UK and US have both dropped AB use in livestock by either 16 or 30% (cannot remember the actual value anymore- but it was significant). I will say that it is possible, if not likely that the per animal use could be higher in the US, but it would be a mistake to just point fingers at US and thereby ignore the tremendous domestic use. A couple of European countries have been doing better, such as Sweden where more AB treatments are carried out on individual animals. Around 2017 there was big push in the EU to end mass medication once and for all, but predictable that push failed. Not sure how things are going forward after Brexit, though.

There is a line indicating that it is not labelled in the US, since the article was somewhat broad, I can see it being missed easily. I note that the article is somewhat misleading in a few instances. For example, antibiotics are overused in the US as well as UK whereas the article made it seem that it is not an issue in the UK.

Standard food labels only include additives and ingredients, and as such are not labelled in the US as such, either. There are special provisions, such as the requirement to declared mechanically tenderized meat, but I do not think chlorination falls under that category either (at least I cannot recall ever seen it declared).