CharonY

And the crazy bit is that her opponent then claimed that she never conceded, so she had to release an audio recording. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/17/cheney-releases-concession-call-audio-to-refute-primary-opponents-claims-00052593 I am not sure if related, but there are a lot of cases (I see it mostly from the pandemic perspective) where folks are utterly divorced from reality and are not even internally consistent. As such, it is not just US-specific but for some reasons folks do not seem to be able to deal with information anymore and at one point or another seem to just make things up and treat it as reality. And it is no longer limited to political spin or opinions.

In case you are curious, here is the warrant https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-and-inventory/6478c5980764438f/full.pdf

The title refers to Chinese women because the study involved a cohort of Chinese women.

The reason is pretty obvious, isn't it? It has been a repeated talking point of anti-feminist sentiments for quite a while. It is pretty much the only example that folks could think of, by cherry picking data in a very myopic way. Meanwhile, the very same voices ignore the large literature demonstrating medical sexism against women (for an historic perspective see e.g. https://time.com/6074224/gender-medicine-history/ , but there is a lot of peer-reviewer lit out there, too).

It would be great if you didn't just make things up. The differences in lethality between breast and prostate cancer is well documented across various metrics. Take 5-year and 10-year survival rates for example. These are common measures to identify how long patients survive after diagnosis, which includes treatments. It is important to note that the survival rate does not necessarily mean that the patients actually died from the particular cancer. That being said, in the US using SEER data (you can find them on the NIH website) the 5 year relative survival rate for prostate cancer is 97% (or 3% die) whereas in breast cancer the 5-year survival rate is about 90% (10% die). So from there we can already see that that the death for breast cancer is about 3x higher for a 5 year period (funding is roughly 2x higher, so as @swansont pointed out, prostate cancer is actually overfunded relative to breast cancer, and both relative to other, deadlier cancer forms) . Looking at longer survival it is even worse. 10-yr prostate cancer survival rate is basically the same as 5 -yr (97%). As I mentioned before, more folks die with rather than of prostate cancer. In comparison, the 10-yr survival rate of breast cancer drops to 84%. So if we look at longer-term survival, the difference increases to ~5-fold. An interesting aspect is to look at untreated effects. While the data is a bit spotty, there some data for breast cancer suggesting a 5-yr survival rate of 19.8% and 10-yr survival of 3.7%. There were some interventions when symptoms presented, so not all patients were left entirely untreated, but it shows that breast cancer left untreated can have significant impact. (https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(200004)73:4<273::aid-jso15>3.0.co;2-h) In contrast, the 10-yr survival rate with untreated prostate cancer was 86%, showing that interventions in breast cancer are more important than for prostate cancer. Also just as an anecdote, way back we proposed to develop a simple urine-based diagnosis for prostate cancer and while there was some interest, ultimately it was canned as the attitudes were changing regarding prostate cancer. Physicians started to doubt that early diagnosis of most forms of prostate cancers would be beneficial to patients. The reasons is that most interventions would be more harmful than just let it be, unless they develop into some of the more rare aggressive cases. I.e. unless an assay is able to distinguish these forms, it can add to mental stress to the patients, whereas in breast cancer early diagnosis is more likely to save lives.

I think the confusion comes from a difference how literature uses the term "status threat" and your interpretation of the term. Status threat in the lit (see also e.g. https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/150/2/56/98322/Status-Threat-Moving-the-Right-Further-to-the) refers to a perceived threat to personal or group status. It does not matter as such whether hierarchies are changing or not or whether an actual threat exists. The key here is that status threat can be enhanced by a number of factors. One of them is the observation of upward mobility of folks which, in a particular mindset, should not be moving up, which is then seen as evidence of a challenge to ones own status. Conversely, upward mobility of the in-group is much less likely seen as a status threat. Both effects are independent of the actual impact in a given hierarchy. Or to put in a concrete example, a black woman moving in a white men dominated area is more likely to be seen as evidence for status threat than a white woman or a visible minority man (details can be very group-specific), whereas a white man would be seen as "normal" (i.e. no threat). Again, regardless on whether any of those hires would have a real impact on existing hierarchies or not. A well studies aspect is for example a subset/variation called racial threat, in which the perceived threat (again, regardless of actual impact) by any given racial group can be increased by factors simply as being a bigger group or more prominent in everyday life. While the foundations are still valid, the overall attitude has changed a bit in some societies if you compare the studies from the 70s with more recent one for example. Or to make it short: what I am referring is the perceived threat to status, not any actual economic or social impact.

I read your comment with an emphasis of the first part, that everyone is affected by status threat. The difference here is context, status threat is experienced due to a mismatch of how hierarchies should be in ones imagination and differences encountered by it. Not all perceived hierarchies are the same. Especially among younger folks the idea of diversity is getting more accepted, and while minority and women are more comfortable with a shift which puts them further ahead, which was not always the case, also white men are increasingly comfortable with a re-arrangement of hierarchies in certain areas. So here the status threat would not apply as the mismatch does not occur. You are correct that structural changes, on average, do evoke status threat, or even by the perception of structural changes. However, it is not something that necessarily affects everyone.

So the data on that is a bit unclear, but the there has been at least one larger study that suggests that although rare some men had persistent erectile dysfunction and the risk increased with length of treatment. A few more things, though. Finasteride has been associated with increased suicide ideation, so especially if one is prone to depression or similar episodes one should not take it. There is also mixed evidence regarding prostate cancer, with some showing lower rates of low-grade cancer compared to placebo groups, but an increase in high-grade cancer. AFAIK it is not clear why that is the case.

That is not necessarily true. Status threat in this context does not refer to a general fear of loss of status, but rather due to specific perceived threats (with emphasis on perceived). There is a bit more on racial status threat (related to immigration) than on gender-based status threat, I believe. For example, studies in Europe and US indicate that white folks (men and women) perceive visible minority immigrants as a higher threat to their status for a range of reasons. These include the assumption that immigration would harm the economy by being a drain, that they outcompete and are given unfair advantages over native workers. I cannot clearly recall the papers, so I might be a bit off, but I think that a similar effect was also seen in male-dominated spaces (management but also e.g. engineering and IT) where women were not seen as a competition unless they rise up the ranks, at which point a similar attitudes were seen (e.g. unfair advantages, disruptiveness etc.) though I don't think it was framed as status threat per se (but looks fairly similar). Edit: I should add that in either case status threat arises from a mismatch in imagined hierarchies (e.g. white men on top) with the actual situation (e.g. successful women). It should also be emphasized that these perceptions are not limited to white men, as we all are exposed to stereotypes (and colonial histories) which form our worldview.

I think that might be a bit of a stereotype in itself. While there are some studies showing that certain female groups might be more egalitarian, I do not think that it does not seem to be an universal trait and in many cases it may just happened because folks expect it to be as well as because women often were not in a situation to set up power structure (i.e. they were egalitarian because they had to). I think both genders are affected by status threat. It is more that women generally are associated with lower status and the discrepancy of what folks perceive what their status should be to where they are can exacerbate the status threat. E.g. a black woman in power is seen as a bigger threat than a white woman and this applies to both genders. I would have to look but I *think* that the perceived threat was a bit lower in women compared to men, but I am not sure how consistent it was. There is, however, a strong association between gender stereotypes (especially those supporting the strong man stereotype) and perceived status threat by minorities. This applies to both, men and women. I.e. there is considerable overlap and in my mind we are clearly looked at learned traits.

There are also competing hypotheses regarding exposure. There are studies (e.g. the LEAP-On study) which showed that exposure to certain allergens can reduce allergic reactions. It has been embedded in the toxin hypothesis to some degree. I.e. the allergic pathways are necessary to deal with harmful substances and indeed, many allergenic proteins in peanuts have defensive properties which work against certain bacteria and fungi. Based on bee venom studies it was found that these allergic pathways are also the same that are involved in developing resistance against toxic substances in general. While it is not clear under which conditions this detoxification pathways overreact (i.e. result in a harmful response) the fact that low-dose exposure seems in many (but not all) cases reduce the response might be just a built-in flaw in the way our immune system works. Similarly this is why with certain pathogens we only get mild symptoms while it tries to eliminate them, whereas certain pathogens in certain individuals can cause severe immune reactions (e.g. cytokine storms). It is an imperfect system to begin with and a lot of factors, environmental and genetic, influence the overall outcome. As I tried to allude to above, the distinction between those are not necessarily clear. Non-cytotoxic substances can cause inflammation, sometimes even severe ones. Sometimes it makes sense, non-toxic bacterial proteins or other components could be used as recognition for foreign substances that need to be addressed, for example. In others it is simply not clear. But then, a system that is capable of identifying and dealing with new substances is almost by default less categorical. That is, the system has to learn how to react. As such there is always the risk that the response is not ideal relative to the risk of the exposure in the first place.

I don't know whether there are larger studies with immunocompromised patient cohorts, but small-scale studies show that the vaccines were well tolerated, but immunogenicity varied quite a bit. While some of the patients might have selective IgA deficiency, I don't know whether there are studies focusing on this conditions specifically. Generally speaking though, they would expected to have similar or better outcomes than compared to other immunocompromised patients. See e.g. Ponsford, M.J., Evans, K., Carne, E.M. et al. COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Efficacy in a National Immunodeficiency Cohort. J Clin Immunol 42, 728–731 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10875-022-01223-7 Some other studies seem to show some level of protection, but it looks a bit different than in non-immunocompromised individuals and breakthrough infections (pre-Omicron) were a bit more common.

This sounds like a variant of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It works best in conjunction with an erosion in trust of actual experts (or oversaturation in media of folks who claim to be "experts").

Well, but that is not all of it. The way our immune system works simply has the room for error. It is inbuilt and unlikely to be weeded out by selection. The hygiene hypothesis is just one hypothesis, others include change in diet. In both cases the assumption is that being exposed to something different to what our immune system evolved to tackle with might cause allergies. However, there are others including the toxin hypothesis, which proposes that allergic response are triggered by our immune system dealing with potentially poisonous substances and that it doesn't always get the balance right. Yet other folks have proposed that having mild allergic reactions is an avoidance cue, telling us get away from a certain area. The big issue is that none of them have ironclad support, owing to the complexity of our immune system.

A bit way back there were a couple of panels on this issue, and generally speaking it appears that if we look at gender specific cancers, some of the more deadly ones that are being underfunded tend to be those in the female reproductive system (especially uterine cancer). There were several things being discussed, but the range of reasons were broad, including difficulty of detecting them in the first place, to lack of good model systems, but in part apparently also biases among researchers. Especially with regard to prostate cancer a common saying is that most men will die with, rather than of prostate cancer. Breast cancer has decent survival rates, but IIRC in contrast to prostate cancer, it actually requires more intervention to reduce lethality. In contrast, improved prostate diagnostics had little impact on health outcomes. Oh, you know, white is the default, including variations is just a woke conspiracy.

Uh, there is a push from some conservative provincial governments that actually go into that direction.

Well, if you want to have absolute certainty, it certainly would be best to get tested regularly with a given diet and then check whether you see a decline of B12 levels over time. Assuming you have a vegan diet, you may be interested in this study: Gilsing A et al. Serum concentrations of vitamin B12 and folate in British male omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: results from a cross-sectional analysis of the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010;64: 933–939 How much you need to take for prophylaxis is probably best guided by your serum levels and some discussions with your health care provider. Generally speaking B12 has low risk of overdosing, so having a regular intake of supplements generally should not have any issues, but again, it should best be discussed with your physician.

A couple of things here. Generally, if you are not B12 deficient (i.e. have enough dietary sources), supplements won't do you much good. Another thing to consider is bioavailability, as generally speaking you only absorb a fraction of anything you ingest. Bioavailability is non-linear, and the higher concentration your given source is, the smaller the percentage becomes that you absorb. So for example if you take in 1 ug, you might absorb 0.5ug, while at, say 1,000 ug you might only get 10ug out. It is not about whether it is needed or not, but rather it is limited to what your body can take up in a given time frame from a given source (from certain foodstuff bioavailability is higher than for others). So why do folks making supplements put such high concentrations in? There are two reasons. One is marketing, a higher concentration might make you feel you are getting more bang for the buck (and in energy drinks they are entirely a gimmick with no benefits). The other relates to my previous comment. If your diet provides you with enough B12, you are literally pissing away your money (and vitamins). However, if you are in even mild deficit (as in your B12 levels are on the low end) you need to fill up your supplies and you need to consume more than you lose to get back to the desired levels. If they are really low, taking supplements won't be enough and you need injections to get your levels back up. But again, without being diagnosed with low B12 levels, supplements are not helpful.

There are quite a number of ways to predict and/or focus on specific drug-drug-interactions, but it is correct that generally a complete knowledge of all potential interactions is not required or even achievable. Very roughly speaking, a focus is on transporters, which determine the transport of substrate to and from tissues, as well as enzymes, that together determine when and where and how much of a given drug distributes through your body. If a drug therefore alters enzyme or transporter abundance, they can the pharmacokinetics of other drugs. One way to look at those is to use known index perpetrators (known substances that are either inhibitors or inducers for certain transporters and pathways) and see if a given drug has changed characteristics. Another way to priorize interaction studies if certain drugs are likely going to be prescribed in tandem. In order to predict issues there are also so-called physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models, which the gold standard theoretical framework to evaluate potential drug-drug interactions, though in recent times machine-learning approaches are on the rise (no idea how they are evaluated by regulators, though). And as you noted, sometimes interactions are only seen after they are already use in practice. In short, there is only so much we know and/or can predict when it comes to drug-drug interactions (and there is also the related area of drug-food interactions) and at least to my knowledge (which is at best peripheral) there is no perfect pipeline to assess those.

Thanks, we had flooring installed and it is now a bit higher than used to be, so we need to cut down the bottom in order to make it fit. All good suggestions, thanks.

Noob question: What would you suggest to cut down a door to size. Table saw, circular saw or is there something better?

It looks like unspecific amplification, especially considering how late in the cycle it comes up.

Well, that would be have been honest work now, wouldn't it? Don't think that is part of the skill set.

You forget that that it is not only about Trump. Rather he is ingratiating himself into the GOP ecosystem which allows him to get things like book deals, pundit and speaker jobs and so on.

Medium composition has a significant impact on the effects of antimicrobial compounds on bacteria. One of the most common effects is presence of salt, as they are assumed to alter uptake of certain antibiotics. Moreover, nutritional differences can affect how bacteria react/survive stressors including antimicrobial compounds. I.e. measurements of MIC or inhibition zones are highly dependent on the media being used and cannot be easily transferred.