My wife had the same thing happen to her as happened to that shark. I'd been working abroad 6 months and she managed to get pregnant completely on her own. Unbelievable.
That's just called a "grudge baby" - someone had it in for you
Why did they study just women? Hint - they couldn't find any post-menopausal men. They started with old, flawed test data from the WHI menopause study and came to new, flawed confusions
Also, even if you get prostate cancer, it's usually so slow that something else will kill you first.
Besides, most of the men doing the studies would rather look at boobs than fingering your prostate.
Ok, so lets talk about work. Have you seen the average farmer, who works heavily all day long? They look youthful for you? How about janitors, cleaners and people with heavy manual work. Do they look youthful for you?
I sit all day, and exercise 1 hour every day. People consistently say I look 15 years younger than I am. So, yeah, I'm taking this study with a spoon of salt.
CAP: aptitude [btw, a great package management tool].
And that old man will probably be able to dig your grave with a hand shovel. Skin aging is normal when your skin is constantly damaged by sunlight.
Too bad the study is bullshit because it's based on the WHI (Women's Health Initiative), a study that had huge design and implementation flaws and bad data analysis.
The WHI claimed to study the effects of hormone replacement therapy on women. However, rather than using bio-identical human hormones, they used Premarin and Prempro (the PREgnant MARe unINe). Hint - human estrogen is not bio-identical to horse estrogen, so we're already off to a bad start. Also, at the time Premarin was approved, the 50+ impurities were allowed by the FDA because the manufacturer didn't claim a therapeutic benefit from them. It would not be approved on that basis today, but rather, its been grandfathered in, same as many other drugs that were approved under less stringent testing requirements. Choosing one drug supplier for all 150,000+ women was a mistake. All it told us was the effects of horse hormones on women. We now know that Premarin is not good for your liver.
Second, the study cohort was mostly too old and too fat to be a representative sample of women in the age cohort, so there was severe selection bias, which the British found negatively influenced the results after repeating the experiments, leading to the opposite conclusion - for women who have been post-menopausal 5 years or less, estrogen (not Premarin) benefits outweighed the risks. The biggest risk factors are controllable - don't smoke, don't be a fattie, and don't take progestins and you can enjoy the benefits of longer life, lower cardiovascular problems, and less loss of bone density with minimal risk.
Menopause is not normal. In the entire chain of mammals, there are only two species (out of more than 80) whales, and humans, who go through menopause. In humans, it's easily explained by our ability to live longer outpacing our ability to evolve to accommodate the lengthened lifespan. Doesn't make it normal, it makes it a disorder that we can and should take whatever preventative measures we can to prevent it's impacting our lives.
The British government has been running a campaign directed at doctors, urging them to discuss HRT with their female patients, hopefully instead of prescribing antidepressants to deal with menopause, as happened after the whole "HRT IS BAD" scare.
Of course, like any big scare, it got headlines. The corrections rarely make the front page, or the news, anywhere. Same as most breakthrough medical studies that are later found to be either not repeatable (+60%) or show only minimal results.
You can't draw conclusions about normal human aging based on a non-representative cohort of women fed horse hormones laced with impurities. They need to at the very least change their data source and re-run their analysis.
Awww, butt-hurt much? I've been white-hat trolling slashdot for 15 years (which you would know if you bothered to look up my account under my birth name - I never hide), and a piece of crap like you isn't going to get one over me. Your purpose in life is to serve as target practice so that when I encounter jerks like you in real life, I already know all their arguments, and the proper counter-arguments.
Unfortunately, you're not providing anything in the way of even remotely half-decent arguments, so what's the point any more? I think I've mined this well to exhaustion. You never really did have much to contribute, and the last few days have demonstrated just how shallow your perceptions of real world human interactions are. So, as they say, "nothing to see here." A troll who's too stupid to realize he's being trolled just isn't fun any more.
No wonder people thought Perl was a good idea...
My brain decides to store things I don't care about and refuses to store things I specifically study.
From your perspective that's a bug. From your brain's perspective it's a feature. Your agenda is getting a good mark in your course. Your brain's agenda is to survive, reproduce, and generally have a good time while doing so.
The thing that you think of as "you" is just a tiny film of consciousness on top of an ocean of unconscious activity. You think "you" live in the present, but actually it takes over 300 milliseconds for your consciousness to become aware of anything, and by then, most of the time, your brain has decided what to do about it. "You" mainly come up with rationalizations for decisions your brain has already made. Which is not to say that consciousness isn't important; it isn't quite as sovereign as it believe itself to be.
Why mention plans to reduce coal use, increase wind and solar use but not mention the plans to also increase the use of nuclear power?
There is a bias in all news.
This is true, but a story not being about what you want to be about is not necessarily bias.
Well, I don't know what's with the scare quotes "rape", but who the man is is important given the role he wants us to think he's playing. If you set yourself up to be the person who whistleblowers turn to you have to be trustworthy and responsible.
Not according to the summary, but let's go with your interpretation of events. He wanted $200,000 in consulting fees for what? Spending literally one minute filling in a web form changing the admin's email address on an account. Still stupid: he should have demanded $2 million, because that's a never-get-hired-again dick move.
Ok, I missed that option and probably others off my list. Gets complicated fast and only a full time research assistant has a hope of mapping it all out.
Yes there is. It's not a right-left test, but there's a near-perfect match between gender and specific neurological features. In a higher than expected number by chance, people who think they are mentally female are female in structural and functional studies. Likewise, people who believe themselves male have a male brain.
I try not to get too annoyed at dogmatic statements, but unless I specifically defer, I have a comprehensive archive of published literature from high-standing sources. Don't rip on me unless you know either my interpretation is wrong (it happens) or you plan on publishing a peer-reviewed rebuttal on each particular of relevance.
The first of those has happened a few times. Let's see if you can bring it up into double digits. Feel free, but remember that you're dealing solely with article facts and my interpretation. Where I used other sources, pick any peer-reviewed paper that covers the same basic aspect of brain development concerned (i.e. neuron type is indicated by chemical transmitter, it is not hardwired into the genome. Doesn't matter if it is the one I used or not. Falsify it. Better yet, falsify it and get the scientist or magazine to retract it for further work.
Ok, you should now be at the point where you accept the data sets I used. That just leaves two options. If the seat of the mind is in the brain, then a female brain must have a female mind, regardless of Y chromosomes, appendages and birty certificate.
The only other option is to falsify that, to argue that the mind is independent of brain. If you choose this, please choose to announce it at a medical school outside the brain surgery department after a very taxing practical, shortly before exams. Contrary views are nothing to worry about.
Finally,You can just let the basis be, the chain of reasoning be, but then you have to accept the conclusion.
Let me know your preference.
The other line moves faster.