Recent comments in /f/science

Gotanyfunkopops t1_j9gczwt wrote

Reply to comment by shooter_tx in The case of a patient who had COVID for 318 days helped scientists discover a new route for dangerous coronavirus strain emergence. They found mutations enabling T cell escape. Keeping track of mutations is crucial for understanding, monitoring, and controlling the pandemic by Skoltech_

Just testing for the active. We tested for the full panel about a year ago, and it came up negative. Haven’t done one ever since.

3

dboygrow t1_j9g8cnk wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Current, Lifetime Cannabis Use Associated with Lower Blood Pressure by Defiant_Race_7544

Some problems I see right away. First, these studies were done during prohibition and I think we all know you can find studies to support a certain narrative if you manipulate some of the parameters and sample size. The first pubmed link, I can't even see the study itself unless I'm missing something which is possible. The second link had a sample size of only 14 and it doesn't detail when they got gyno, and as far as I can see all you can see is the abstract notes, but I'm no expert at reading studies either. How did they know these volunteers for the study didn't use anabolics or eliminate other outside factors like terrible lifestyle and diet?

I just think correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And tbh, I don't think it directly correlates either. I've known a lot of heavy smokers including myself and the vast majority of them don't have gyno, so it leads me to believe that this is due to something else, maybe low physical activity and terrible diet, lots of things that affect androgens and hormones.

I think we would need more current research with a far larger sample size to actually treat this as a fact. We all know there was plenty of anti cannabis propoganda back in the day and people had a certain mindset against cannabis, could've affected the findings and parameters of any studies.

8

ghostinthekernel t1_j9g6sat wrote

Reply to comment by EmpathyZero in Unlike most mammals, female naked mole rats develop new eggs throughout their entire lives – a finding that could lead to improvements in human infertility research. by chrisdh79

It has nothing to do with incentives, incentives like giving land or money to make children only work on the lower strata of society, the strata that already makes too many children. You think the reason why a successful lawyer does not make more than 1 or 2 children is because he/she is not getting enough money or wants a piece of land? The more educated and wealthy a society is, the fewer its population reproduces. That is because more educated people are more cautious with sexual intercourse, they also tend to be more knowledgeable on and inclined towards the use of contraception, and they are also more aware of the long term investment and commitment associated with having children.

If you want to generally have people make fewer children, you have to educate and raise from poverty to a wealthy standard of living the rest of the world population. However this will probably cause those countries to have a baby-boom at a certain point, like the west had, and so the global population will increase for a few decades even more before the following generations start reconsidering making children because the cost of living is too high due to the too many retired people.

You would end up anyway in a bad scenario, like many European countries are in right now, where there are not enough young people to pay taxes to the government to cover retired people, so the younger generations will have to work and pay huge taxes until they are 75.

5