> Also, the evidence isn't slam dunk
That was my impression too. I don't know who did it or even if someone did but all you listed is clearly circumstantial and the only thing they've got is the story they've made up and that's not in any way evidence of guilt. Any half competent lawyer would show that.
I'm also amazed at the number of people here who actually seem to think this kind of stuff is evidence of guilt.
> The Left has a real violence problem, and no matter how you try to hide it.. it's starting to really show.
I get you could have that impression and there has been a strong rise of far left violence in recent years but there has also been a strong rise in far right violence, and though there have been year to year ups and downs in numbers, all studies seem to show that the prevalence of far right violence has always been and still is, on average, much higher than far left violence.
"US justice department removes study finding far-right extremists commit ‘far more’ violence" - https://www.theguardian.com/us...
"The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States" - https://www.csis.org/analysis/...
"this exploratory study seeks to address this gap in the literature by assessing the differences between far-left and far-right ideologically motivated fatal violence between 1990 and 2020. Results indicate over the past three decades the overall prevalence and deadliness of far-right extremism far outweighs that of the far-left, even though far-left violence has increased over the last five years. The implications of these results and corresponding policy suggestions are discussed. Results indicate over the past three decades the overall prevalence and deadliness of far-right extremism far outweighs that of the far-left, even though far-left violence has increased over the last five years. The implications of these results and corresponding policy suggestions are discussed." - https://ccjls.scholasticahq.co..."
Grok's response, with references, to the question "Are people on the left or right more likely to commit acts of political violence" - https://x.com/i/grok/share/9Ip...
> Are you concerned about phytoestrogen overload?
Overload ? Like what plants for example ? I've read that foods like tofu aren't a risk and are thought to be associated with lowering breast cancer risk.
> Always the same solution: give people free money.
Yeah, and it's not working very well, we've been moving more and more money upwards for the last half century and wealth disparity has only increased.
As nightflameauto wrote:
My solution would involve wealth redistribution in the form of actual taxes, along the lines as the higher tax brackets paid back in the 1950s that so many "conservatives" seem to believe was a golden age, and using the funds collected to give tax breaks to those who actually need the tax break, rather than those who have plenty and then some.
> Why if I claimed to be female is it completely different?
It seems to me the main different is that Napoleon refers to one specific individual that died a while back and the term women is used to refer to about half the current population of the earth.
I also wouldn't equate the terms female and woman.
> Scientists haven't lost interest. They're still publishing papers on the topic. You linked to some of them!
Yeah, that's the point of my first comment, and I what I underlined in my second comment.
> Your thesis is the tired old conspiracy theory that drug companies aren't interest in the research "because it's not patentable." But it is patentable, if someone ever comes up with something that actually works.
Not sure why you're misreading what I wrote. I've been arguing against the "Theory that drug companies aren't interest in the research "because it's not patentable."
I wrote: There ***wasn't*** research worth a deeper look but then once big pharma didn't see potential profits everyone lost interest
> "Interperitoneal perfusion" means they injected directly into the abdominal cavity, for an ovarian tumor. That's generally classified as surgery. It's not an IV, and would only work on specific kinds of tumor. And it's one very experimental patient. AND if it worked well, and you did a proper trial, you could patent it.
So they injected it, it's a case study, it went well, scientist are interested and looking forward to further studies and patents are fine, and I'm not disagreeing.
Not sure about what your arguing with me.
> Your links are all to interesting pre-clinical work in petrie dishes or injecting mice.
If you'd read the third paper I linked to you'd see there also about human clinical results, see my last comment above.
> You can't just eat baking soda and cure your cancer.
Why bring that up, it's childish and no one said it or implied it.
> You also can't just inject it. Doing either of those things in the quanity required to affect a tumor would overwhelm your body's homeostasis and you'd die too.
Maybe not "just" but you can if your a professional. The patient also didn't die, see my last comment above.
From the third study I liked to:
"We also performed a case study of a patient with ovarian cancer malignant ascites resistant to previous lines of chemotherapy who underwent intraperitoneal perfusions with a sodium bicarbonate solution, resulting in a significant drop of CA-125 levels from 5600 U/mL to 2200 U/mL in and disappearance of ascites, indicating the potential effectiveness of the treatment. The preclinical and clinical results obtained using sodium bicarbonate perfusion in the treatment of malignant ascites represent a small yet significant contribution to the evolving field of tumor alkalization as a cancer therapy. "
Tumor alkalization therapy: misconception or good therapeutics perspective? – the case of malignant ascites - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
> If you actually read those papers
Why are you being contrarian. I read those papers enough to know they're relevant to the point I was making and you don't seem to disagree.
There wasn't some research worth a deeper look but then once big pharma didn't see potential profits everyone lost interest.
> This is part of the problem
Not sure what you're trying to say? How is showing scientists haven't lost interest part of the problem.
> I recall a Dutch research team which found that baking powder could be helpful for treating certain types of cancer. They abandoned the research because they could not find any way to patent backing powder anymore.
Maybe there were also other reasons they abandoned it, I don't know when that was but I found a lot of recent studies on sodium bicarbonate, here are a few from 2024 and one from 2023:
Sodium bicarbonate potentiates the antitumor effects of Olaparib in ovarian cancer via cGMP/PKG-mediated ROS scavenging and M1 macrophage transformation - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...
Sodium bicarbonate nanoparticles modulate the tumor pH and enhance the cellular uptake of doxorubicin - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
Tumor alkalization therapy: misconception or good therapeutics perspective? - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
Sodium Bicarbonate Nanoparticles for Amplified Cancer Immunotherapy by Inducing Pyroptosis and Regulating Lactic Acid Metabolism - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
> Um, no...
Looks like you might be mixing up numbers from different sources:
The following link gives numbers for California and Florida as of march 10th 2023:
Florida 404 per 100k
California 256 per 100k
> Your own linkn shows
I used the same link as Archtech and I posted the conclusion of that report in response to Archtech, because after reading just his comment one could think the GBR was doing just fine. But as the report's conclusion states that's not justified, at least partly because health indicators other than 'hard coral cover, like frequency and severity of bleaching events and of crown-of-thorn outbreaks, need to also be considered.
> shows 2024 as peak for Central and Northen reefs since 1986...
Yes, on the measure of 'hard coral cover' for the north and central parts, while the south section has done worse for the same period (in the south I suppose it's at least partly because of the high water temperatures, but I'm just guessing).
https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/...
"The prognosis for the future disturbance regime under climate change is one of increasingly frequent and longer lasting marine heatwaves. The consequences of climate change are evidenced by multiple mass coral bleaching events since 2016 in the three GBR regions. Such bleaching events were rare prior to the late 1990s but have become a biennial occurrence in the last decade. Simultaneously, the continuing risk of tropical cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and chronic stressors such as high turbidity, increasing ocean temperatures and changing ocean chemistry, can all negatively affect recovery rates. Additionally, more frequent acute disturbances mean that the intervals for recovery are becoming shorter. Enabling coral reefs to survive these stressful conditions requires a combination of a reduction in global greenhouse emissions to stabilise temperatures, best practice management of local pressures, and the development of interventions to help reefs adapt to and recover from the effects of climate change."
I pointed out that in your original comment that you made two specific claims that as stated seem to be clearly false:
1) "The EU banned GMO"
2) "proteomics is just yet another field that they're well behind the rest of the world"
The first, is partly true, though as stated false.
The second, you've made that claim before, and all I can find on that specific topic shows it to be false.
> What market means to me specifically isn't relevant and that map isn't really saying much about whats going on on a global scale.
> >Well, you might want to read your sources more before linking them.
I did read them. I was speaking specifically about the specific map you told me to look at when you wrote "Do a ctrl-f on your link for "Global Proteomics Market By Geography"
In short, I think my links support the idea that proteomics isn't "yet another field that they're well behind the rest of the world", but if you can explain why you think that's wrong or if you can provide support that as far as proteomics is concerned the EU is well behind the rest of the world, I'm curious.
> This is why we use median rather than average. Median measurements can still hide a little, but a lot less than averages (means).
Yes, but that can still hide a lot.
> But if you look at the population by deciles what you see is the same thing;
I usually want to see finer grained numbers because deciles can also hide a lot.
> even the poorest 10% of Americans have gotten ~50% richer in the last 50 years
50 %, any references ?
What of numbers like these: The 10th percentile saw a 5% drop in wages (see figure 4) ?
"Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts" - https://www.epi.org/publicatio...
> That implies that there's some social benefit to redistributive policies... and IMO the US needs to do more of that
Agree, it would be even nicer if the level of unequal distribution of wealth, and gains in productivity, weren't so marked in the first place.
"The Productivity–Pay Gap" - https://www.epi.org/productivi...
> But we want to be careful not to go so far that we reduce the incentive for innovation and entrepreneurialism that make everyone richer
Yes, but I think it's clear that for a while now the US has tipped much too far towards unequal distribution, even Canada is into unhealthy territory.
"Income inequality hit record high at start of 2025, Statistics Canada says" - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi...
"Oh my! An `inflammatory attitude' in alt.flame? Never heard of such a thing..." -- Allen Gwinn, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM
