I have been intrigued by the idea of “rewilding” my yard for a few years. Lawns are a problem because grass just doesn’t support a lot of insect diversity. The issue is local ordinances surrounding lawn appearance, height, etc.

From what I know of vitamin D, it’s way over-hyped. It’s not the panacea for cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, depression, colds, the flu, etc it’s made out to be.

It is an important biochemical. It does play a role in immunity. It assists calcium in building bone, but increased supplementation does not improve osteoporosis. It does improve beta cell function in the pancreas, but supplementation does not prevent or improve diabetes.

Low levels of vitamin D are associated with increased mortality – but so are high levels.

Most people likely have enough vitamin D and don’t need supplements. You probably get all you need just by eating right and getting outside in the sun.

waterfield wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

The human population has doubled since 1970, the period of time over which wildlife populations have been reduced by half. It took humans 200,000 yrs to reach a population of 1 billion, and then only 200 years to reach nearly 8 billion. The rate of growth is beginning to slow, and eventually we’ll reach a point where births <= deaths, but living on this planet will be pretty miserable for everyone but a select few by then. Different modes of production would impact the environment to different degrees, and the less damaging ones must be pursued, but wherever humans go, we change the environment. It’s unavoidable. That was true even when our population was limited to small bands of hunter gatherers. If we’re going to really stop the continued degradation of the environment, we need to halt population growth.

Overpopulation is a core problem. But how do you even begin to control it without measures that resemble China’s one child per family approach-and even that would have to be adopted world wide.

I don’t know what the answer to that is, W. It’s difficult to overcome the cultural beliefs, and economic/educational inequities that keep this from becoming a priority in the minds of most people. Of course it’s easy to sit on my couch in a country that contains 6% of the world’s population but consumes 25% of its resources and complain about this. People in other parts of the world who lack food security aren’t worried about the world’s dwindling resources due to overpopulation.

I imagine at some point in the future draconian population control measures like China’s will have to be implemented. Hopefully it won’t have to get uglier than that, but I bet it does in some places.

wv wrote:

wv’s video

Overpopulation.

The simple fact is there’s way too many people. There are over 7 billion hairless monkeys flinging feces out there today, and there’ll be 10.5 billion by 2050.

Just about every environmental issue we are dealing with including climate change is rooted in overpopulation, but that isn’t being talked about any more as the video points out.

Until we face that issue, all the environmental ‘fixes’ being discussed now are only addressing the symptoms, not the cause, and are therefore inherently limited and ultimately doomed to fail.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by nittany ram.

On the Downtown Rams draft coverage they mentioned that when the Rams met with Hopkins during Senior Bowl week, McVay told Hopkins he would be excited to pair him with Higbee.

This pick would imply that Everett is likely gone. No point in having two athletic TEs who can’t block, right?

Link: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hydroxychloroquine-not-looking-good-for-covid-19/

We have been tracking the story of the hype surrounding hydroxychloroquine over at Science-Based Medicine, but there is a brief follow up I wanted to comment on. The short version of the story so far is that one very bad French study claimed to show dramatic reduction in detected virus in those treated. This study, however, was not only preliminary, it was a horrible study, so much so that the results are uninterpretable. The big problem was that it did not count patients who became too sick or died. That is a classic way to make a treatment look better than it is. The author is also a climate change denier who initially mocked China for taking steps to mitigate Covid-19. He does not exactly have street cred within the scientific community.

But that one horrible study from a sketchy researcher was enough to spark media hype, at least in certain circles, and capture the attention of a president apparently desperate to make this problem go away. Amid the fear of a pandemic, that was a toxic combination. The notion that hydroxychloroquine (with our without the antibiotic, azythromycin) might fight the SARS-Cov2 virus is not implausible. But most things in medicine that are “not implausible” don’t work out. We need high quality clinical science to ultimately tell.

The big question always is – what is the risk vs benefit? Hydroxychloroquine and Azythromycin both have the same potentially deadly side effect, prolonging the QT interval of the heart, which increases the risk for sudden cardiac death. This is a manageable side effect in the right setting, but is potentially serious. This is not a good drug or combination to be taking just on the chance it might help.

The entire episode is a good reason to remind everyone why science-based medicine is so important, the nature of clinical research, and the pitfalls of falling for preliminary data. After that initial terrible study there were two more preliminary studies, the kind that are done to see if there is any potential for the treatment that deserves more rigorous study. An open-label study in China found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine. There was also a French study attempting to replicate the results of the original study, and could not. They also found no benefit from the drug – no reduction in the virus, directly contradicting the original study.

But perhaps most devastating is the most recent study to show results – this was a VA retrospective study comparing patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, and just usual care. They found no benefit on any measure for those treated with the drugs. However, those treated with the drugs were twice as likely to die:

Rates of death in the HC, HC+AZ, and no HC groups were 27.8%, 22.1%, 11.4%, respectively.

That is a huge red flag, the kind of preliminary finding that could kill the prospects for a new drug. That is exactly the reason that small preliminary studies are done, to make sure the treatment isn’t killing people before doing a larger study. Even these results are not the final word, however. This is a retrospective study, which means subjects were not randomized. It is therefore possible that sicker patients were given the drugs, for example. But we can look at all the preliminary data we have so far and conclude that it’s not looking good for the prospects of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19. Further, this drug has a serious potential side effect that may actually increase the risk of death for those given the treatment.

Certainly, this is not the stage when this drug or combination should be hyped or recommended. It is nothing less than dangerously reckless to do so. Further, hydroxychloroquine is a proven treatment for some autoimmune diseases, like Lupus, and some patients who rely it are finding it difficult to get the drug because demand has spiked due to the hype. It’s pretty much a lose-lose all around.

At this point we do need a double-blind randomized placebo controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19 to get some rigorous evidence. One solid negative trial, however, should end it. If the results are promising, then further study should be done. There would be many finer questions about dose, who should get the drug, who should not get it, etc. But at this point the odds are in favor of this treatment not working out, and in fact being harmful. No one should be taking this drug for Covid-19 outside an approved clinical trial.

“This is like a story out of the last days of the Soviet Union,” David Frum wrote on Twitter of the NEJM letter. “This is what it means to be a failed state,” wrote the essayist Umair Haque, echoing him. In the absence of an explanation, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that this is simply mafia government, exerting control for the sake of control, not in spite of but because of the crisis-led demand, and squeezing the American people, as they die in hospital beds and attend — with inadequate protection — to the sick and scared.

Zooey wrote:

Well…I’m gonna just throw this out. I don’t think I’ve said this on this board.

I think the best argument to convince a leftist/progressive to vote for Biden is that it’s quite possibly the last chance to vote meaningfully.

If Trump wins. And the GOP has control. They will not only finish the redistricting job on the basis of this year’s census, they will pass more laws restricting/suppressing the vote, and probably put in more unaccountable electric voting machines, and back all that up with courts they will continue to stack. It will be Over over. You won’t be able to elect a progressive in 2024 even if there is one, and that person gets the most votes. They are THAT close to shutting off life support for democracy.

This country is drowning, and the only thing to grab is a rotten, water-logged piece of old driftwood. But that’s all there is. I mean…it would be better if there was a life preserver, but there’s not.

Yup. There’s nothing about Biden that makes him a worthwhile candidate.

But 4 more years of Trump could essentially end democracy in this country.

waterfield wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

That’s the key. We’re not in court. There’s no evidence available for us to evaluate. No burden of proof has to be met. All we have is the word of a woman who is risking a lot by coming forward vs the word of a man who has a history of inappropriate touching and general creepiness. She may be lying or he may be lying. No way to know for sure. It sucks that it’s this way, but I’m not just going to dismiss it because there’s no way to know conclusively. The crime is too heinous for that. I’m going with my gut. I believe her.

For what it’s worth, the FBI says less than 8% of sexual assault claims are fraudulent.

And I’m still voting for Biden.

But would you still say “I’m going with my gut. I believe her” if the “claim” was made by Biden staffer against Bernie-since the only information you have is her story? I’m thinking that if your totally honest with yourself-either here on this board or alone with your private thoughts-you would truly hesitate before pronouncing as you did referring to Biden: “Politicians who rape their staffers are evil”. You see-to me that tells me that its clearly more about politics than about rape-and does a disservice to actual victims of sexual assault. Maybe we are just different. I simply cannot imagine myself, upon hearing a claim by a Biden staffer that Bernie sexually assaulted her some time, some where, that Bernie is a rapist. I wouldn’t do that. Maybe my real point in all this is anecdotal and that is listening to so many Sanders supporters as it relates to anyone not a “progressive” there is just so much vitriol (almost “hate” ) for those not part of their own crowd and I do not hear the same heated anger toward Sanders coming from moderates. With progressives it gets very personal when it comes to Biden-much like Trump’s “sloppy Joe”-but even worse -i.e. he’s a “rapist”. I genuinely believe that is why so many people that otherwise would have supported Sanders left his camp. And that is truly sad for me because I believe Sanders is a very decent man who plays by the rules.

Finally, your FBI figure (8%) is bogus. The reason is that those in the rape prevention field believe that by far the majority of victims of rape-be they women or men-fail to report the assault. The FBI figure refers to reported rapes that were investigated.

If a member of Biden’s camp claimed that Bernie had raped her, I would tend to believe her. Bernie doesn’t have the history of inappropriate touching that creepy Uncle Joe has, so maybe I’d find it more incredulous than the claim against Biden, but ultimately I would probably believe her. Accusing powerful public figures of rape comes at a huge cost. When women come forward with these claims, they take a huge risk that their lives will be ruined. They often have threats made against their lives like Christine Ford and the women who accused Trump. What do they gain by it? Their rapists won’t be prosecuted. Hell, they rarely suffer any consequences. Trump became president after admitting to sexually assaulting women on tape, and being accused of sexual assault by 17 women. Kavanaugh still gets to sit on the Supreme Court after being accused while his accuser is or was in hiding. Joe Biden might be the next president despite being accused. These women gain nothing by doing this except additional misery. That’s why I believe Biden’s accuser, and why I would most likely believe Bernie’s as well.

Billy_T wrote:

Nittany,

Looks like I failed again to make my point clearly enough.

I’m talking about if a leftist chooses to vote for one major party or the other, and just between those two.

I think voting Socialist, Green or Frisbetarian makes plenty of sense, as does staying home, if that’s what a citizen chooses. It’s up to all of us. Our choice, obviously.

Just saying that any sort of internal debate regarding the two major parties should be easy for leftists. If we’re going to cast a vote, and if that vote is earmarked for one or the other . . . it shouldn’t be a tough decision.

If I’m still being as clear as mud, apologies in advance.

Ok, I get it. I misundertood. I thought you were saying that Biden, regardless of his transgressions, is a slam dunk choice over Trump. I agree he’s better than Trump, but the issue isn’t cut-n-dry. There are other considerations and plenty of reasons not to vote for Biden.

What you’re really saying is that if you had to choose between two major parties, you would attend the one featuring Frisbee activities. I assume you’re referring to games like Frolf (Frisbee golf) and Ultimate (Frisbee football).

It would be surreal to watch an NFL game without fans in the stadium. It would be a real disadvantage to teams that seem to rely on crowd noise like the Seahawks and Saints, so I’m all for it.

waterfield wrote:

I, as a moderate, have never once thought of Sanders as “evil”. But most progressives apparently do feel that anyone outside their small club are “evil”. And I genuinely believe that is what turned off many a moderate Dem. voter who thought Biden was too old and would have preferred Sanders. But the “you play by my rules or I take my ball and go home ” crowd didn’t help Sanders in the end. And that’s too bad in my opinion.

I think politicians who rape their staffers are evil.

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

At about the four minute mark, he alludes to somethin i never thot about: When the Europeans came to America the viruses they brought kilt 90 percent of the Native Americans — but why wasnt it the other way around? Why didnt Native diseases kill the Europeans?

There actually is an answer to that.

The greatest concentration of domesticable wildlife in the world was originally in the Fertile Crescent. Whoever first domesticated those animals also caught diseases from them. That means that that population, over time, essentially consisted of the descendents of the survivors of those diseases. Over even more time that means that wherever those descendents–the original Eurasians–went, they brought those diseases with them as immune carriers. So when Europeans came to the western hemisphere, they were the descendents of the original domesticators, and the new world populations they encountered were entirely vulnerable to them.

There is only one domesticable animal native to the entire western hemisphere–the llama.

It’s not just the natives in north america that were wiped out. That was equally true in central and south america.

BTW taming and domestication are of course entirely different things. Just to get that in.

====

Well, the Doctor in the Vid answers the question too. I’m not sure if his answer is the same as the one you just laid out, or if its different. He didnt say anything about Fertile Crescents.

Anyway, my favorite part of this Vid (and its awfully good, imho) starts around the 36 minute mark. Just watch about five minutes starting from the 36 min mark. I love the part where he quotes the the CEO from Big-Poultry.

w
v

Speaking of immunity, coronaviruses were first discovered in the 1960’s but have been associated with people for thousands of years. There are deadly ones – MERS, SARS, SARS-CoV-2, but most are relatively harmless and cause nothing more serious than the common cold.

However, many of the strains of “harmless” coronaviruses could have been as deadly or deadlier than the virus that’s causing today’s pandemic. They may have decimated ancient populations. They seem harmless to us only because we are the descendants of the survivors that were immune to those viruses when they first came in contact with humans thousands of years ago.

A small (n = 440) Brazillian trial of chlorquine (not hydroxychloroquine) alongside azithromycin has been halted after 20 days because the drug had no benefit for #COVID19 patients and was killing people. https://t.co/omHLJCfQCR Do. Not. Recommend. Unproven. Therapies.

— Brian Dunning (@BrianDunning) April 13, 2020

Hydroxychloroquine trial stopped due to major cardiac risk…

Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-france-heart-cardiac-1496810%3famp=1

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by nittany ram.