CharonY

A couple of things to note. Animal study results are often not easily transferable especially when it comes to dose-depend results (and especially long-term effects). That being said, many drugs can affect fertility (and antibiotics also have other wide-ranging effects). But for the most part they are dose-dependent and really difficult to assess in humans. Especially as folks are at the same time impacted by many many chemicals and other potentially contributing factors. To give an example, inflammation and presence of certain bacteria have been implicated with reduced fertility. In these cases antibiotics treatment has been suggested to get sperm count up again. In other words, if we look at one specific measure, such as sperm count, we have to consider the thousands of factors that will affect that number. There is decent evidence that certain antibiotics can cause cellular damage in testes and, if damaged sufficiently enough it might be permanent. But if that is actually happening in a given individual, we do not know. As in the above example the primary issue is an infection, then antibiotics treatment might add to the damage, but there might be a net benefit. Or to put it differently, biology is complex and especially for effects that are not acute (e.g. total infertility) figuring out what exactly is happening generally requires a decent understanding of the underlying mechanism as well as the quantitative contribution of the many mechanisms related to a particular outcome. In medicine, we are often lacking this information and have to rely on empirical population data. Animal models provide supporting information, but but play a secondary role (they are important to suggest mechanisms, even if they end up not being found in humans). This is all to say that the question in OP is likely not easily answerable (or at all) with human data. Any reduction of sperm count throughout the life of a person can be caused by many, many factors. Piecing together and pinpoint exactly how much a particular treatment added to that is almost impossible to say unless the effects are dramatic (which they aren't as otherwise they would have been identified).

Students cannot recall what you told them 5 mins ago.

This position paper cites a couple of research outcomes regarding health impact of DST https://doi.org/10.1177/0748730419854197. The main argument is based on misalignment between body clock and what they call social clock.

I guess it is because of a change in rhythm. Also, I am mildly certain that this is not only for kids, but also adults.

I think it is obvious that context matters. In campaign tour, it is appropriate to be folksy. In the context of a state of the union address and rebuttal you would expect things to be more formal.

I don't understand the thought process in filming the rebuttal in a kitchen. Also boo to geolocks.

The issue here is that we have to distinguish the level of complexity here. Cells and arguably protein complexes are capable of sensing and processing information. But what they are able to do is limited. More proteins can sense and act on more cues and with a cell surrounding them can process signals of larger complexity. Multiple cells then can further specialize and become better at processing and so on. The question here is really how you define mind. If it is really just sensing something, molecules could have a mind. But it is really different to what is used in common (or even scientific language). It is like equating a transistor with a supercomputer. Both have similar principles, but what they can do is very different. Also I have the feeling that you are a bit confused what action potentials are and their role (which is primarily transmitting signal over longer distances without loss).

If you are talking about the human (as in the extant species) Y-chromosome, this is not correct. The studies looking at gene loss are rough and look at degeneration over millions of years. Shorter estimates are AFAIK extrapolations of the the larger calculations. Short-term comparisons do not see any gene loss between close ape species, I believe. There is more variation in the non-coding regions, but this is also not a linear decline. Recently, the Y-chromosome has been fully sequenced and there is marked difference among individuals. These are mostly caused by repetitive regions, which vary in the number of duplications and sometimes losses of them. Edit: cross-posted.

I honestly would have gotten a flip phone (the non-smart ones), if I wouldn't be pegged as a drug dealer.

I'd rather read a book in a book-sized format. But then I only use my cell phone to call (maybe 10x a year?).

Yes, I believe that was discussed with Nriagu as proponent and Scarborough disagreeing (in the 80s). Recent articles tend (see e.g. Villiers and Retief) suggest that levels did not rose to widespread health problems.

There are vaccination records in various formats in many countries, but you are right, they might get lost. In newer centralized systems (e.g. UK, Canada etc.) there is often a database, but if you are older or in a decentralized system, they might not be present. However, there is an international version created by the WHO that has been around since the 70s or so. It is very recognizable yellow booklet in which vaccinations are recorded and which is internationally accepted. For many vaccines, additional vaccinations have not shown any adverse effects (and some require refreshing anyway), so in doubt and especially if at risk, it might be worthwhile to update and document new vaccinations. Also note that vaccination schedules are different for infants, children and adults, so an unvaccinated adult generally is not just given an infant dose.

The neat thing is that one can often deduce what is meant by those words.

Oh I think he only wants certain folks as slave labour. I would have made a job about folks with names he cannot spell, but considering his failures to spell his wife's name (or his own), not sure whether it would have worked.

In other words, you would like to overturn our entire research on the cognitive role of the brain based on the out of body experience of one person. That is not really scientific, is it? Considering how many people have undergone anaesthesia or induced comas, it is puzzling that there are no regular reports on these events.

! Moderator Note Please discuss the topic without referencing other off-topic discussions.

Do you have source or some more detailed description that substantiate your claim. How was the blood fully drained from the brain and how did they ascertain consciousness while it was drained?

First, please provide specific cases what you are referring to. I am particularly curious about the patient having a form of consciousness with the brain fully drained of blood.

The question is more how you define mind. And if we use the various definitions and concepts of consciousness and cognitive abilities, we do have a good idea where things located in the brain. In part from lesion studies (i.e. parts of the brain that have been damaged and resulting in cognitive changes), but also with animal models and other approaches (e.g. fMRI). These includes functions like memory, reasoning, recognition, emotions, and so on. We also know that these are dynamic processes, more related to activity than just localization. And due to the complexity we have not (afaik) a unified view how these components all work together. But even if I do not know how car works in detail, I can see that it does not work without a motor.

Just to add to that, folks also seem to have a worse memory and attention span (not to mention internal inconsistency). For example: The assumption that Trump would do a better job or even side with Palestinians appears preposterous (they haven't given him enough money to warrant that). Folks in various groups are more likely to think that Trump's policies have helped them more than Biden's policies: At least based on sentiments alone, Trump has a rather clear path to the presidency (and this time he is motivated by the fact of not wanting to go to jail).

I think this is a very US-centric view. I am fairly confident that internationally, critical thinking ability of college students have declined. And those are the ones who are supposed to hone this skills during their studies. There is likely more than one cause but the decline is changing the face and curricula of colleges. Unfortunately not for the better.

It goes back to a discussion we (the forum) had back in 2016 and IIRC, we kind of formed a consensus around assumption that as long as Trump hires competent folks and keeps his fingers from important stuff, all will be fine. And for a while it was, until crises hit (e.g. COVID-19) and he started replacing competent folks. Now he has made it pretty clear that he won't even try to govern normally. Given the whole package and all we learned about him, it is horrifying. And while Biden is a bit older (and let's face it, neither is at peak mental capacity, though one started with a disqualifying baseline), he has got connections and staff who are not sycophants and are able to provide the needed talent and expertise. Heck, if it comes to the worst, Harris would be a good substitute, whereas Trump might run with moldy ham, if it he saw an advantage for himself.

I mean, there were many contributing factors, and while lead certainly would not help, it is questionable to cite it as a major factor. I suspect you might have read either the paper from Jerome Nriagu, or perhaps someone randomly citing it. There have been many papers from various directions showing that it likely wasn't very important. A paper from Delile et al. for example conducted isotope analyses that showed that while domestic water had elevated levels of lead, the concentrations were likely not harmful. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400097111

I actually thought that I OP was a satire post that I just didn't fully get (based on calling something an a-hole). Still not sure that it isn't, actually.

Not a direct continuation there are obviously a range of successor states who claim legitimacy by invoking the Roman empire. This in itself is in indication of the continuing influence of the Roman empire. Defining when something ends or starts is often based on the historical, social and cultural context of the historians defining it. What is proposed in OP is, for example an example that were brought forth by scholars in the enlightenment era. Historiography becomes relevant and can identify gaps in those arguments. The continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was Christian, does not align with an assumption of universal erosion of power due to increasing Christian influence, for example. Or one could argue what the most important characteristics of a "true" successor should be. Is it the geography? Is it the political system? The military system? Bloodlines? For example, during the third century, Rome lost much of its role as political center with power shifted to the military and other cities becoming important administrative centers (such as Milan and Trier in the west and eventually Constantinople in the east).