CharonY

The situation is complicated, and to a large extent it is because the boundary between ROS activities on the cellular level (including in cancer) are often mixed up with dietary antioxidants. It is often not quite clear, for example how much and in which form a dietary supplement reaches a particular tissue and how it might act once there. Studies in beta carotene have shown that once oxidized it might have pro-carcinogenic properties and in radical-rich environments (e.g. where inflamed tissues, lungs) it might increase cancer risk. However, that is actually very difficult to track in-vivo. I think for resveratrol there is some of largest of evidence with regard to anti-oxidative and -inflammatory actions, but hepatoxicity and other issues limit their usefulness. Many studies are cohort-based, i.e. you compare folks taking supplements vs those that don't. But here the issue is that we often only see outcomes and can only speculate on mechanisms. The closest we get to mechanisms are often animal studies, but then there is always the question is how to translate the metabolic differences. I do agree that the data on anti-oxidants is incredibly vague and again is mostly based on cohort outcomes, and especially in humans we have so many variables that we would need huge effect sizes(which we typically do not have) to be certain of a true effect. I am not an expert in this field, and all I can say is that I have not come across a "killer" paper that erased all doubts on effectiveness. Rather, as outlined in OP, we see some papers with positive, some with negative effects (and I am sure a lot of unpublished ones with no effect).

I am still bitter about this. When I read the Watson & Crick paper as an undergrad, I was confused as there was so little (no) data in it. But for a long time I simply assumed that I was just to stupid to understand it properly. Only later, when I wanted to use it for teaching myself (and dabbled a bity with crystallography), I realized that Franklin actually published a paper with the data the way it should have been. It also highlighted the limits of interpretation based on the resolution she obtained. But I never heard about it during my time as a student. It is was kind of a watershed moment for me realizing disparities regarding selling a narrative and following the data in science (and especially for women).

For legal reasons that would be my wife.

I'd say it is adjacent but looks at something else. The RNA world hypothesis (and its many problems) mostly concerns itself with the steps towards the current DNA-protein paradigm. There are relative few concerns about metabolism, as anything remotely complex likely would not have been present. Catalytic properties of RNA are very limited, and require fairly complex RNAs, so folks have looked at other potential precursors of metabolism.

Assuming you actually locked yourself out. I mean, it is a cat, after all.

Actually it depends. There are two competing theories regarding the origin of life. What I have mentioned falls under the autotrophic origin of life, which makes a lot of intuitive sense. However, there is also the heterotrophic theory, which argues that prebiotic activities can result in organic compounds such as simple amino acids could have been consumed by early cell-like organisms. This theory has been buoyed by the discovery of new biosynthetic pathways that might have existed in primordial times.

Photosynthesis definitely came later, though I am not sure whether we got a good idea whether fermentation or anaerobic respiration came first. There is a good reason to believe that respiration of inorganic substrates (i.e. chemolithotrophy) such as metals, sulphates, nitrate etc. are an early strategy to obtain energy. As to OP, plants and animals split over a billion years ago (and all extant animals are basically . And no, if something resembles something else (especially if it is mimicry) they do not suddenly become related. A hairy person is not closer related to a bear than a non-hairy person, for example.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged.

So here is where you go wrong. You don't call it a donation, but an opportunity.

You can refute the assumption rather easily by not cherry-picking examples. Turtles have longer lifespan than most mammals of equivalent size. Many simpler animals have incredible lifespans (e.g. corals) or are virtually immortal (hydra). A part that is connected to lifespan is metabolic activity, but that does fully correlate either. Moreover, animals with very short lifespans simply do not have enough time to accumulate more biomass, so even theoretically there would be a limit on how big they can get. But even if we limit ourselves to a narrow group of animals, we see exceptions. Bats, for example are tiny, but some species have lifespans beyond 20 years. Considering what you wrote following that start, it does not seem that you are quite clear on what a scientific explanation is. Instead of providing literature that supports your notion you write some new-age inspired random thoughts that are based on nothing but gut feeling perhaps (and again, starting from a wrong premise, to boot).

Moreover, Russia already invaded Ukraine a few times. They annexed Crimea, have an ongoing war in Donbas. Integrating Ukraine into Russia either fully or as a puppet state is part of an overall strategy. NATO membership would put a stop to these ambitions, which ultimately is why the the issue might have escalated. Of course you one might argue that if Ukraine decided to fully join Russia's sphere of influence, then the invasion likely could have been prevented, which is basically just blackmailing on a massive scale. It is rather that Russia put a gun to their head and that stop struggling and do as we want.

KarenBrown has been banned as sockpuppet of another sockpuppet.

I would have to look at the lit again, but I am fairly certain that Thimargarita most species had elaborate internal membrane structures which, including vacuole-like structures. I am fairly certain that the DNA in the earlier detected species was also well localized, and something similar has been observed in another giant bacterium (Epulopiscium ep.). It is quite likely that membrane structures are involved, but they might be difficult to properly visualize (as e.g. TEM or other techniques often are do not preserve those structures well). It is therefore possible that either the newly developed species is more compartmentalized or that the compartments are easier visualized as they are larger. It should also be noted that it is sometime reported that DNA in bacteria are free-floating. This is actually not the case as high-resolution analyses (as well as some indirect evidence) does suggest that bacteria organize their internal organelles to quite some degree and are bound to the membrane in a specific way. This is more obvious in large, elongated cells, but is likely somewhat universal, if underappreciated. Thus larger bacteria with internal membrane segmentation to that degree are certainly rare, but we see the basic principles that might be related to that level of organization in most bacteria. I have to say that sub-cellular anatomy might be one of my weaker areas when it comes to bacteria as I have not been doing these types of projects for quite a long time now, and I am not sure where the current literature is at.

While it is sometimes used in lit as an analogy, I think it is severely misleading for many folks, unless very technically versed in the subject. As it is clear from OP, it may confuse things more than it helps. Edit: crossposted with several others.

Thimargarita have been found in various habitats and are not unique to mangroves. IIRC they were originally isolated from ocean sediments. They have a predominantly anaerobic metabolism using among others hydrogen sulfide as electron donor and nitrate as acceptor. The ability to gain that size is based on at least two important factors. First, they are sessile, so mobility is not an issue as for many other bacteria. The second is that are able to store nutrients which allows them to survive nutrient fluctuations, despite being sessile.

The common ancestor of all humans were black, as that is the population were humanity came from different skin colours developed later after dispersal from Africa. Nationality are a modern construct, so it really does not figure into the biology here.

There is no way to predict how humans will look like or whether we will still exist in 50 million years. Being ugly is likely the least of our worries.

Fair enough.

They do have the power to overturn laws that are deemed unconstitutional.

As you said, the case study did not determine that, and they often don't in these studies, if they do not have an epidemiological angle. Typically, Neisseria meningitidis spreads via direct contact (e.g. kissing or extensive close contact). And these narratives with vaguely xenophobic undertones get high interest. I did a quick google search and even articles that mention the causative agent, still added lines about dangers of leftover food. That is is just annoying.

The report in OP is also severely misleading. The case under discussion is this here: N Engl J Med 2021; 384:953-963 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcpc2027093 And the final diagnosis is Which is not a food-borne disease. The report linked in the article in OP was part of a diagnostic survey where folks could try to perform a differential diagnosis based on all the information provided. The article then heavily suggested a food-borne disease (and I can only speculate that the "Chinese food" angle was just to tempting to pass up). The full case was then reported in the article I indicated and revealed Neisseria mengitidis as culprit. Sources, sources, sources...

Specifically for interdisciplinary papers I often try to find a reviewer with background on methodological side of things to makes sure that the approach is sound and ideally someone in field from for which conclusions are drawn. That is not always possible as you often have to go through a lot of potential reviewers before you find someone who agrees to review it, as Arete already mentioned.

! Moderator Note This seems like a slightly repacked topic posted elsewhere already. The same issues also exist in this one, so please consider the previous comment before goin on yet another rant:

It is one of the weird arguments I started to keep hearing recently, and I think it is based on a misconception of what a vaccine does. Fundamentally, it is a stimulant of the immune system, helping us to fight off an incoming infection. It is not an one or all situation, but mostly a vaccine is considered effective if the overall outcome is improved compared to an unvaccinated cohort. I think part of it is how immune is being used, and the idea that being resistant against infections should equate not being able to be infected. It does not help that the language is a bit loose in that regard. Herd immunity, for example refers to stopping spread, but the situation can also dependent on non-immune system related measures. I.e. by reducing the effective reproduction number of the disease (e.g. by reducing contact time between individuals).

! Moderator Note I see no biological science in that OP. The topic is moved to speculations and OP is requested to provide evidence for their assertions. If none are delivered and this post remains a blog style, it will be locked.