#developing a cure for cancer

[omarfor-orchestra]

Just realised I'm actually studying cancer cure

[13thpythagoras]

tobacco heheh

Everyone say thank you american indigenous people for cultivating corn, potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, cacao, pumpkin, squash, and anything i missed. Makes life more meaningful globally

[khayal12345]

Swedish Scientists Developed Nano Bots To Target Cancer Cells

[13thpythagoras]

she says, accurately, we're in a multi-front war against cancer... yet she says we can't have a cure. Hm. Beg to differ there but ok. She's only thinking on the level of biochemistry but I'm thinking on the level that also includes physics so ehh checkmate against the never-cure crowd...but she raises a ton of great info in here including about how cancer is a growing cause of death and likely to remain one of the leading killers worldwide until more research is done / until my prototype becomes ubiquitously available to the people worldwide. I mean once it's proven its efficacy it will be marvelous to see the benefactors of old school oncology shrivel away and hiss at the cure per usual, likely I'll have to find new money to make it real

[cannibalisticdespair]

Valve developer voice: Well in this part, we were going to have them explain how to cure cancer. And it really took a lot of time and money, I mean, a just a ton of research. It took us two years to find the cure to cancer, and we were initially really excited to reveal it to the world. But when playtesters played it it, they found it really confusing and complex, so we threw it away. I'm sure somewhere out there we still have the cure to cancer on a drive, but I don't think anyone knows where it is.

[mental-illness-bingo]

Surely an otherwise fictional Russian researcher and technically legally a doctor by space (and thereby military chain of command) rules trying to save the world from cancer and radiation poisoning via murder will solve this issue.

Being a system is so weird like my mummy and daddy didn't like me so now I'm sans the skeleton

[bogleech]

The pharmaceutical industry does many terrible things, yes, but one thing it most certainly does not do is secretly withhold the existence of cancer cures in order to make more money. If they knew an actual "cure" for cancer, you would know about it, because the greedy bad guys would brag about it while they offer it for predatory prices. Meanwhile there would be hundreds of people involved in its research and development who do not stand to profit off it at all and would have already been talking about their progress the entire time.

[ms-demeanor]

My mom has gone full on Youtube Woo "natural cures" and I have no idea how to get through to her. Literally sitting at home in front of the tv playing video after video of pseudoscientific bunk and lapping it up... She's diabetic and a cancer survivor and I fear she's gonna do irreparable damage in her forays into the deep end...

Do you have any tips on reaching folks that are in this deep?

Regular reinforcement of evidence-based medicine as kind as you can make it whenever it comes up.

"Oh I heard about this coffee enema thing..." "There's not really any evidence to back that up, mom, and besides, it sounds pretty unpleasant."

"Oh I heard about how nightshades are poison" "That book doesn't have a lot of great evidence, plus here are the kinds of micronutrients that you can get from nightshades, they're important in your diet."

"Oh I'm not sure about vaccines anymore, the new ones are so scary" "Mom, I'm so glad you got me vaccinated, I think about how kids younger than me are at risk of measles and other issues because of vaccine hesitancy and I worry so much for them, I think you made the right decision when I was a kid and I'm grateful for it."

"Oh, but fluoride in the water can cause IQ losses in young children," "Mom, those studies aren't in areas where fluoride is added, they're in areas where it's naturally high and are way, way above what gets added here, plus look at you and me, we have been drinking fluoridated water and we're both smart."

IDK, it's miserable. Basically you go on natural news and learn about all the lies, then spend twenty times as much time learning about the debunkings for all the lies and then try to be nice when you tell them they're wrong.

Since your mom has had previous successful treatment from allopathic doctors call back to that; "but mom I'm so glad they were able to take care of your cancer - I know it was hard but I think you might not have survived if you hadn't trusted your doctors." "but mom, look at how much the medical science on diabetes has improved in your lifetime; i'm glad it's easier to manage now than it was when you were younger, and that there are better treatments being developed all the time; I don't think they're hiding things from us otherwise they'd still treat diabetes and cancer like they did in the 50s, and things are so much better than that."

Just. Try to be nice. Try not to attack her. Try to keep it light and offer cheerful arguments before changing the subject.

You don't want her to get defensive, you want her to consider you to be someone she can ask for information who won't make fun of her and doesn't think she's stupid.

Anyway. Life with my mother in law has been fun recently. She watched a youtube video and decided she must have gone into ketosis after fasting for twelve hours so she ordered a bunch of protein strips and I'm cooking for her a few times a week to guarantee that she's eating something other than canned chili beans.

So. You know. I feel you.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Expert agencies and elected legislatures

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/21/policy-based-evidence/#decisions-decisions

Since Trump hijacked the Supreme Court, his backers have achieved many of their policy priorities: legalizing bribery, formalizing forced birth, and – with the Loper Bright case, neutering the expert agencies that regulate business:

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/scotus-decisions-chevron-immunity-loper

What the Supreme Court began, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are now poised to finish, through the "Department of Government Efficiency," a fake agency whose acronym ("DOGE") continues Musk's long-running cryptocurrency memecoin pump-and-dump. The new department is absurd – imagine a department devoted to "efficiency" with two co-equal leaders who are both famously incapable of getting along with anyone – but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Expert agencies are often all that stands between us and extreme misadventure, even death. The modern world is full of modern questions, the kinds of questions that require a high degree of expert knowledge to answer, but also the kinds of questions whose answers you'd better get right.

You're not stupid, nor are you foolish. You could go and learn everything you need to know to evaluate the firmware on your antilock brakes and decide whether to trust them. You could figure out how to assess the Common Core curriculum for pedagogical soundness. You could learn the material science needed to evaluate the soundness of the joists that hold the roof up over your head. You could acquire the biology and chemistry chops to decide whether you want to trust produce that's been treated with Monsanto's Roundup pesticides. You could do the same for cell biology, virology, and epidemiology and decide whether to wear a mask and/or get an MRNA vaccine and/or buy a HEPA filter.

You could do any of these. You might even be able to do two or three of them. But you can't do all of them, and that list is just a small slice of all the highly technical questions that stand between you and misery or an early grave. Practically speaking, you aren't going to develop your own robust meatpacking hygiene standards, nor your own water treatment program, nor your own Boeing 737 MAX inspection protocol.

Markets don't solve this either. If they did, we wouldn't have to worry about chunks of Boeing jets falling on our heads. The reason we have agencies like the FDA (and enabling legislation like the Pure Food and Drug Act) is that markets failed to keep people from being murdered by profit-seeking snake-oil salesmen and radium suppository peddlers.

These vital questions need to be answered by experts, but that's easier said than done. After all, experts disagree about this stuff. Shortcuts for evaluating these disagreements ("distrust any expert whose employer has a stake in a technical question") are crude and often lead you astray. If you dismiss any expert employed by a firm that wants to bring a new product to market, you will lose out on the expertise of people who are so legitimately excited about the potential improvements of an idea that they quit their jobs and go to work for whomever has the best chance of realizing a product based on it. Sure, that doctor who works for a company with a new cancer cure might just be shilling for a big bonus – but maybe they joined the company because they have an informed, truthful belief that the new drug might really cure cancer.

What's more, the scientific method itself speaks against the idea of there being one, permanent answer to any big question. The method is designed as a process of continual refinement, where new evidence is continuously brought forward and evaluated, and where cherished ideas that are invalidated by new evidence are discarded and replaced with new ideas.

So how are we to survive and thrive in a world of questions we ourselves can't answer, that experts disagree about, and whose answers are only ever provisional?

The scientific method has an answer for this, too: refereed, adversarial peer review. The editors of major journals act as umpires in disputes among experts, exercising their editorial discernment to decide which questions are sufficiently in flux as to warrant taking up, then asking parties who disagree with a novel idea to do their damndest to punch holes in it. This process is by no means perfect, but, like democracy, it's the worst form of knowledge creation except for all others which have been tried.

Expert regulators bring this method to governance. They seek comment on technical matters of public concern, propose regulations based on them, invite all parties to comment on these regulations, weigh the evidence, and then pass a rule. This doesn't always get it right, but when it does work, your medicine doesn't poison you, the bridge doesn't collapse as you drive over it, and your airplane doesn't fall out of the sky.

Expert regulators work with legislators to provide an empirical basis for turning political choices into empirically grounded policies. Think of all the times you've heard about how the gerontocracy that dominates the House and the Senate is incapable of making good internet policy because "they're out of touch and don't understand technology." Even if this is true (and sometimes it is, as when Sen Ted Stevens ranted about the internet being "a series of tubes," not "a dump truck"), that doesn't mean that Congress can't make good internet policy.

After all, most Americans can safely drink their tap water, a novelty in human civilization, whose history amounts to short periods of thriving shattered at regular intervals by water-borne plagues. The fact that most of us can safely drink our water, but people who live in Flint (or remote indigenous reservations, or Louisiana's Cancer Alley) can't tells you that these neighbors of ours are being deliberately poisoned, as we know precisely how not to poison them.

How did we (most of us) get to the point where we can drink the water without shitting our guts out? It wasn't because we elected a bunch of water scientists! I don't know the precise number of microbiologists and water experts who've been elected to either house, but it's very small, and their contribution to good sanitation policy is negligible.

We got there by delegating these decisions to expert agencies. Congress formulates a political policy ("make the water safe") and the expert agency turns that policy into a technical program of regulation and enforcement, and your children live to drink another glass of water tomorrow.

Musk and Ramaswamy have set out to destroy this process. In their Wall Street Journal editorial, they explain that expert regulation is "undemocratic" because experts aren't elected:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and-ramaswamy-the-doge-plan-to-reform-government-supreme-court-guidance-end-executive-power-grab-fa51c020

They've vowed to remove "thousands" of regulations, and to fire swathes of federal employees who are in charge of enforcing whatever remains:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/20/24301975/elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-plan

And all this is meant to take place on an accelerated timeline, between now and July 4, 2026 – a timeline that precludes any meaningful assessment of the likely consequences of abolishing the regulations they'll get rid of.

"Chesterton's Fence" – a thought experiment from the novelist GK Chesterton – is instructive here:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

A regulation that works might well produce no visible sign that it's working. If your water purification system works, everything is fine. It's only when you get rid of the sanitation system that you discover why it was there in the first place, a realization that might well arrive as you expire in a slick of watery stool with a rectum so prolapsed the survivors can use it as a handle when they drag your corpse to the mass burial pits.

When Musk and Ramaswamy decry the influence of "unelected bureaucrats" on your life as "undemocratic," they sound reasonable. If unelected bureaucrats were permitted to set policy without democratic instruction or oversight, that would be autocracy.

Indeed, it would resemble life on the Tesla factory floor: that most autocratic of institutions, where you are at the mercy of the unelected and unqualified CEO of Tesla, who holds the purely ceremonial title of "Chief Engineer" and who paid the company's true founders to falsely describe him as its founder.

But that's not how it works! At its best, expert regulations turns political choices in to policy that reflects the will of democratically accountable, elected representatives. Sometimes this fails, and when it does, the answer is to fix the system – not abolish it.

I have a favorite example of this politics/empiricism fusion. It comes from the UK, where, in 2008, the eminent psychopharmacologist David Nutt was appointed as the "drug czar" to the government. Parliament had determined to overhaul its system of drug classification, and they wanted expert advice:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

To provide this advice, Nutt convened a panel of drug experts from different disciplines and asked them to rate each drug in question on how dangerous it was for its user; for its user's family; and for broader society. These rankings were averaged, and then a statistical model was used to determine which drugs were always very dangerous, no matter which group's safety you prioritized, and which drugs were never very dangerous, no matter which group you prioritized.

Empirically, the "always dangerous" drugs should be in the most restricted category. The "never very dangerous" drugs should be at the other end of the scale. Parliament had asked how to rank drugs by their danger, and for these categories, there were clear, factual answers to Parliament's question.

But there were many drugs that didn't always belong in either category: drugs whose danger score changed dramatically based on whether you were more concerned about individual harms, familial harms, or societal harms. This prioritization has no empirical basis: it's a purely political question.

So Nutt and his panel said to Parliament, "Tell us which of these priorities matter the most to you, and we will tell you where these changeable drugs belong in your schedule of restricted substances." In other words, politicians make political determinations, and then experts turn those choices into empirically supported policies.

This is how policy by "unelected bureaucrats" can still be "democratic."

But the Nutt story doesn't end there. Nutt butted heads with politicians, who kept insisting that he retract factual, evidence-supported statements (like "alcohol is more harmful than cannabis"). Nutt refused to do so. It wasn't that he was telling politicians which decisions to make, but he took it as his duty to point out when those decisions did not reflect the policies they were said to be in support of. Eventually, Nutt was fired for his commitment to empirical truth. The UK press dubbed this "The Nutt Sack Affair" and you can read all about it in Nutt's superb book Drugs Without the Hot Air, an indispensable primer on the drug war and its many harms:

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/drugs-without-the-hot-air-9780857844989/

Congress can't make these decisions. We don't elect enough water experts, virologists, geologists, oncology researchers, structural engineers, aerospace safety experts, pedagogists, gerontoloists, physicists and other experts for Congress to turn its political choices into policy. Mostly, we elect lawyers. Lawyers can do many things, but if you ask a lawyer to tell you how to make your drinking water safe, you will likely die a horrible death.

That's the point. The idea that we should just trust the market to figure this out, or that all regulation should be expressly written into law, is just a way of saying, "you will likely die a horrible death."

Trump – and his hatchet men Musk and Ramaswamy – are not setting out to create evidence-based policy. They are pursuing policy-based evidence, firing everyone capable of telling them how to turn the values espouse (prosperity and safety for all Americans) into policy.

They dress this up in the language of democracy, but the destruction of the expert agencies that turn the political will of our representatives into our daily lives is anything but democratic. It's a prelude to transforming the nation into a land of epistemological chaos, where you never know what's coming out of your faucet.

[spookberry]

The Boy^ btw

This is so dumb but i just realized I could make one of my ocs trans and just got So excited. like he's my child who just came out to me so we're gonna go buy him some new clothes together, maybe get his haircut

[g3tj1nx3d14]

caitvi / violyn headcanons part two !! both NSFW and SFW !!! please do not read if past the warning after the SFW you are uncomfortable with NSFW topics !! as usual, will contain spoilers up to act three season two

SFW

• Post season two, Caitlyn helped Vi organize funerals/memorials for everyone she’s lost. Her mom and dad, Vander, Mylo, Claggor, Loris, and everyone else. Not Jinx because she’s not dead (i’m delusional)

• Vi rarely ties her hair up, but she’s gotten accustomed to putting a hair tie on her wrist for whenever Caitlyn needs it. She loves acting all smug when she hands it over, like she’s handing over the cure to cancer.

• Vi is NOT illiterate like some people claim. She has a genuine love for reading, although she didn’t get the opportunity to get her hands on many different books as a kid. So, when Caitlyn and Vi decide to begin using the Kiramman wealth for good, Vi takes a special interest in helping start a free library in Zaun. She loves reading to kids and helping them get the same love she has for reading, although she tries to keep it a secret because it’s “dork behavior”.

• Vi thinks that she’s really funny when she holds up something in front of Caitlyn’s blind eye and asks what it says. Absolutely hilarious. The bit never gets old. Never.

• Vi struggles to accept gifts, given that she’s sort of developed a “never throw anything away, my stuff is mine forever” mentality from her childhood of rarely having anything. So, Caitlyn adapted to doing things for her that didn’t involve anything monetary. One time, Vi caught Caitlyn sewing up a rip on Vi’s favorite jacket— something Caitlyn could’ve easily bought a hundred of, but respected that Vi had an intense sentimental attachment to it— and almost cried.

•They��re both stubborn, so communication can be difficult, but even when they bicker, they’re still wives. Even in arguments, Caitlyn makes sure that the fridge is always stocked and never looking a little empty, as the full fridge reassures Vi that she won’t go without basic necessities. Even in arguments, Vi makes sure to randomly hold and squeeze Caitlyn’s hand at random moments to let her know she still loves her. It’s the little, nonverbal things with them.

okay freaky time

NSFW

don’t read if you don’t like NSWF !!!

• Canonically, Vi is an eater. On certain days, she couldn’t care less if she gets any stimulation at all, she just enjoys eating Caitlyn out. The type to insist “C’mon- just one more time!” about seven times. (with consent, ofc!)

• They tried to roleplay once, but Vi said something really stupid and they both laughed so hard they ended up just cuddling and going to sleep.

• Caitlyn likes to try to impress Vi a lot with fancy, lacy lingerie. Vi likes that, solely because she likes ripping it off and destroying it. “Was it really good if nothing got destroyed?”

• You’d think Caitlyn would also like Vi in lingerie, but, the most attractive outfit ever worn was much different. One time, Vi walked into their room in just a tank top and sweat pants, sweaty from working out with Jayce. Caitlyn never pounced on her so quickly. Seeing Vi in a wife pleaser, casually man spreading on expensive furniture like she owned the place… Caitlyn learned a lot about herself after seeing that.

• Caitlyn tends to start out talkative, but end up going quiet, scarily focused on whatever she’s doing besides light moans and heavy breaths. Vi is loud the entire time- panting, groaning, moaning, especially some random dirty talk. She likes to talk her through it.

•Vi broke the bed once. Caitlyn was mortified. Vi bragged about it to anyone she could for months.

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week - March 18

1. FDA to Finally Outlaw Soda Ingredient Prohibited Around The World

An ingredient once commonly used in citrus-flavored sodas to keep the tangy taste mixed thoroughly through the beverage could finally be banned for good across the US. BVO, or brominated vegetable oil, is already banned in many countries, including India, Japan, and nations of the European Union, and was outlawed in the state of California in October 2022.

2. AI makes breakthrough discovery in battle to cure prostate cancer

Scientists have used AI to reveal a new form of aggressive prostate cancer which could revolutionise how the disease is diagnosed and treated.

A Cancer Research UK-funded study found prostate cancer, which affects one in eight men in their lifetime, includes two subtypes. It is hoped the findings could save thousands of lives in future and revolutionise how the cancer is diagnosed and treated.

3. “Inverse vaccine” shows potential to treat multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases

A new type of vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) has shown in the lab setting that it can completely reverse autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes — all without shutting down the rest of the immune system.

4. Paris 2024 Olympics makes history with unprecedented full gender parity

In a historic move, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has distributed equal quotas for female and male athletes for the upcoming Olympic Games in Paris 2024. It is the first time The Olympics will have full gender parity and is a significant milestone in the pursuit of equal representation and opportunities for women in sports.

Biased media coverage lead girls and boys to abandon sports.

5. Restored coral reefs can grow as fast as healthy reefs in just 4 years, new research shows

Planting new coral in degraded reefs can lead to rapid recovery – with restored reefs growing as fast as healthy reefs after just four years. Researchers studied these reefs to assess whether coral restoration can bring back the important ecosystem functions of a healthy reef.

“The speed of recovery we saw is incredible,” said lead author Dr Ines Lange, from the University of Exeter.

6. EU regulators pass the planet's first sweeping AI regulations

The EU is banning practices that it believes will threaten citizens' rights. "Biometric categorization systems based on sensitive characteristics" will be outlawed, as will the "untargeted scraping" of images of faces from CCTV footage and the web to create facial recognition databases.

Other applications that will be banned include social scoring; emotion recognition in schools and workplaces; and "AI that manipulates human behavior or exploits people’s vulnerabilities."

7. Global child deaths reach historic low in 2022 – UN report

The number of children who died before their fifth birthday has reached a historic low, dropping to 4.9 million in 2022.

The report reveals that more children are surviving today than ever before, with the global under-5 mortality rate declining by 51 per cent since 2000.

---

That's it for this week :)

This newsletter will always be free. If you liked this post you can support me with a small kofi donation here:

Buy me a coffee ❤️

Also don’t forget to reblog this post with your friends.

[abbyfmc]

Yandere story idea #14:

Yandere Doctor! x Cancer Patient! Reader:

The yandere doctor was a very hard-working man in his office as a general surgeon, and he had his beloved (Y/n) as his wife. Everything in their married life was beautiful, with the occasional stumble. They have known each other for many years, and since then he fell crazy in love with her.

Everything was going well until (Y/n) starts developing (any kind of cancer) and this devastates both her and him. The yandere doctor tries to support her and take care of her, which makes him develop paranoia, because he believes that his beloved (Y/n) is vulnerable to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE around her, so he starts treating her as if she were made of glass.

Depending on the severity of the cancer and the chances of a cure, different outcomes can occur:

Happy Ending: (Y/n) is cured and she and the yandere doctor can be happy again.

Bad Ending: The yandere doctor has to watch as (Y/n) slowly loses her strength, vitality, and things like hair due to chemotherapy while the cancer progresses. He refuses to accept that his wife is going to die, and does everything to try to cure her or at least give her a peaceful end with him.

Whichever ending you decide on, the yandere doctor will take care of (Y/n) as if she were a glass doll.

-A/N: Yes, you can use my ideas, just give me credits.

[scientia-rex]

I also spend a lot of time trying to convince people to prevent problems, because prevention still works better than cures. Don't fucking smoke! I would instantly become the best doctor who ever lived if I could just convince all my patients to quit smoking. Avoid alcohol! Don't do meth! Don't do fentanyl! Things that are poisons will poison you in ways you understand, in the short term, but also ways you can't really understand until you've watched dozens of people die from it thirty years later, struggling to breathe from their COPD or weak and nauseated beyond bearing from their end-stage liver disease. I watched a man take 3 weeks in the ICU to die from what meth did to his heart. Your heart isn't meant to beat 145 times a minute for weeks on end. Your liver isn't meant to metabolize 5 shots of gin a day. You aren't going to be able to use denial and willpower to repair the damage your own habits did.

I drink a lot less now than I did before I went into medicine. Lot of different reasons, including that I'm older and more settled. But I can't look at it the same way I used to; I can't brush off as a "fun quirk" what I know is alcohol use on a level that risks withdrawal seizures if they were to suddenly stop, like some of my family members do, nervously asking me about their loved one's drinking when we're alone because beneath the jokes they know it's a problem.

If you're having more than one, maybe two drinks a day on average, over a long period of time, you are damaging your body in ways you don't understand. You're setting up a permanent heightened inflammatory state. Your heart cells don't like alcohol; Google "alcohol-induced cardiomyopathy." Your esophagus and stomach respond to incessant bathing in poison by first developing wounds and then cancer. Your liver, of course, doesn't like it. Your liver not only converts poisons to harmless substances you can excrete, it also makes your platelets, so your blood can clot. It makes albumin, a protein that's essentially for keeping water in your blood vessels and not letting it leach into your tissues. So people who are dying of liver failure are in pain and weak and tired and sad the whole fucking time! And the only solution, a liver transplant, will come with a lifetime of medication and specialist check-ups and the knowledge that if you fuck up and kill this liver, too, no one is going to be eager to give you another try.

I don't guilt-trip my alcoholic patients with liver disease. I don't guilt-trip my smokers with COPD. They chose to cope with substances for reasons, even if I disagree with their reasons, even if those reasons are opaque to me. They will suffer the natural consequences of those actions whether I guilt-trip them or not. I want them to continue to see me, I want them to be honest with me. Other people will lay enough guilt on them. And nothing I can say or do would ever compare to the physical and mental suffering that goes with those diseases.

But if you can prevent these diseases in yourself, prevent them. Quit smoking. Do it now. Your lungs are going to look better starting almost immediately, with positive changes continuing for many years. Drink less alcohol. Sure, it's fun, sure, it's a longstanding human tradition, but it is also unfortunately a straight up poison and your body knows that no matter how persuasively you argue about the obvious failure of Prohibition. You can't argue with a cell. You can't convince your kidneys that high blood pressure shouldn't damage them. They are a system; they do what they do; they existed long before prefrontal cortex existed to justify what we want to do but know to be harmful.



[covid-safer-hotties]

Global Emergency Compounded by the AIDS-like Features of SARS-CoV-2 Infection - Published Sept 1, 2024

Over a million people in the US are being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) every day.

Originally named after the acute respiratory syndrome it can cause as a consequence of blood vessel damage in the lungs, SARS-CoV-2 is actually primarily a blood vessel virus that spreads through the airways. It causes a complex multisystem disease (1). It is airborne (2). It can persist in the body, and is detectable in body and brain tissue even at autopsy of “recovered” patients (3).

Each infection ages the body, causes damage to the blood vessels and the immune system, and affects organs including the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, bones, etc. (4, 5, 6)

Each infection ages the brain. Specifically, it reduces gray matter and cognitive ability (7), and potentially IQ score (8). It increases the risk of psychiatric disorders (9). SARS-CoV-2 has also been identified as contributing to accelerated dementia (10).

The potential post-acute phase impacts of SARS-CoV-2 include long COVID, some manifestations of which are chronic conditions that can last a lifetime, including heart disease, diabetes, myalgic encephalomyelitis and dysautonomia (11).

The Economist has estimated excess deaths from the beginning of the Pandemic through May 2024 at up to 35 million people worldwide. (12)

In Addition, Many Scientists Are Now Issuing Warnings… SARS-CoV-2 triggers a new airborne form of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (13, 14, 15) (some are proposing specific terms such as “CoV-AIDS”).

This is not AIDS as we know it from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, it is a new type of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome with different deleterious effects on immune function (16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), but both resulting in increased vulnerability to infections (22). Immune system deficiency and other COVID properties also suggest a potential link to greater risk of cancers (23, 24, 25, 26, 27).

The “original” AIDS caused by HIV takes up to around 10 to 15 years to make its presence felt, with the initial infection usually barely noticed and often resembling the common cold or a flu-like disease until its damage manifests itself leading to death in the absence of treatments (28, 29).

With SARS-CoV-2, immunodeficiency develops in the weeks and months following infection. It involves reduction and functional exhaustion of T Cells (30), enhanced inhibition of MHC-I expression (31), downregulating CD19 expression in B cells (32) and other evidence of immune dysregulation (33, 34). In one study, the dysregulation persisted for 8 months following initial mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection, the length of the study (35). There is no “cure” for any of the damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 including immune dysregulation.

Did You Know? Repeated infections are leading to prolonged immune dysregulation, and increase the risk of progressive disability and death.

Long COVID is a multisystem disease with debilitating symptoms, which has had a profound impact on society and the global economy. In the USA, economists have estimated that long COVID will incur cumulative future costs of more than US$4 trillion (36, 37).

The worldwide devastating economic consequences of this mass disabling event have been measured in terms of total work hours and GDP lost around the world (38).

It theoretically only takes a single viral particle to initiate an infection, and most infections are initiated by very few viral particles (39).

Despite current popular belief, the immune system is NOT a muscle, and does NOT benefit from being repeatedly challenged with disease-causing microbes. In fact, its finite resources are depleted with each new infection.

Herd immunity is unattainable for a rapidly mutating, immune-disrupting virus, and there is no basis to believe that a vascular infection will evolve into the common cold. Continuing to ignore SARS-CoV-2 will not make it go away. Depriving the virus of publicity does not deprive it of its continuing lethal effects.

SARS-CoV-2 is continuing to evolve and mutate – it is not running out of evolutionary space. It is not a cold or the flu, but primarily a blood vessel disease. It is damaging society as we know it.

How many repeated infections can we expect young people to endure and survive? Even if they get only 1 infection each year, that’s 10 infections in 10 school years. This is not compatible with health and a long life. Repeated infections can lead to long COVID and shortened lifespans.

How Do We Protect Ourselves, How Do We Protect Our Children, When Government Public Health Advice Has Failed?

By reducing transmission so that R0 remains less than one (meaning that each person infects less than one other), we can suppress and gradually eliminate the virus, targeting a safer return to pre-2020 normal.

Handwashing is helpful, but it is not the main way to stop the spread of this airborne virus.

Respirators can block 95% or more of virus particles through electrostatic action, and are therefore highly effective at reducing infection even if only one person in a conversation is wearing them. They are far more effective if all people are wearing them (40).

Transmission can be reduced with HEPA filtration and ventilation of indoor air.

The virus spreads more quickly in indoor settings, but also spreads outdoors.

For medical facilities, it is essential to clean the air with ventilation and filtration and require universal high-quality masking (with N-95/ FFP3 respirators or better) to protect medical staff and patients.

For workplaces, clean air will reduce transmission; and encouraging employees to test and stay home when infectious is essential. High-quality masking should be encouraged in the case of symptoms, a sick person at home, or any other suspicion that one could be carrying the virus. Remote work should be normalized and encouraged wherever possible.

For entertainment venues, events should be held outdoors when possible; and if indoors, clean air is key to protecting audiences. Audiences should also be encouraged to wear respirators to avoid getting infected and infecting others. Digital streaming options should always be offered.

For restaurants, an emphasis on outdoor dining will substantially reduce transmission. Patio service should be encouraged, and indoor dining areas should be well-ventilated with a high level of air-exchanges. Home or curbside delivery offers a safer alternative.

For schools, clean air will reduce transmission; encouraging students to test and stay home when infectious is essential to preserving their health. Masking or remote learning should be initiated whenever a case is detected or the incidence in the general population sharply increases. A permanent hybrid model / digital option can accommodate children with disabilities or those who simply do better learning from home.

Teachers and medical professionals may prefer to use transparent masks, or to wear HEPA-filtered headgear equipment that may be more universally tolerated/accepted.

To track our progress, we need sustained wastewater and population-level testing.

With just 60-70 percent of people taking mitigation measures such as masking, testing and isolating when infected, we can dramatically reduce forward transmission of the virus.

Even with very imperfect measures, as long as one infected person does not infect more than one person on average, the virus will eventually die out. The fewer people each person infects on average, the faster it will happen.

We still have a window of opportunity. Protecting ourselves and our families is in fact protecting the economy and the continued orderly functioning of our society.

[v1bri]

I don’t think people talk enough about Bert’s reason to be a warrior.

It’s never stated in the anime, but like every other warrior, Bertholdt has a reason as to why he’s there: to treat his father.

Obviously, that tells us that his father’s sick. But that’s it. We know nothing else. Does he have a chronic illness that needed treatment to maintain? Or did he develop a disease such as cancer that can be treated but not cured? It’s unknown.

We know that he must’ve been sick for a long time, as Bertl has been a warrior candidate since toddler stages (Magath states this in Season 4 Episode 3) therefore ever since he was young all he’s wanted to do it treat/save his father.

We also hear nothing about his mother. Unfortunately I don’t think she’s alive, as I really doubt Bert would’ve been enrolled into the Warrior program as I feel like his mother would’ve helped treat his father. So, maybe Bertl had no choice but to enlist due to the lack of support.

But, did Marley start treating his father the minute Bertholdt sign up and get accepted, or when he went off to Paradis? Again, it’s unknown.

We know that unfortunately his father passed not long before the events of Season 4, with Karina and Mr Leonhart talking about his passing and how he was extremely proud of his son for doing what he did. Did his illness turn terminal, or did Marley cut off his treatment when they found out Bertholdt didn’t come back and he was slowly deteriorating ever since?

I know all of the candidates have tragic pasts and shouldn’t have gone through the things they did at all, but Bertholdt’s story sticks out to me because he was just a little kid who loved his dad so much and would do anything to make sure he lives. But unfortunately they both couldn’t get what they wanted.

In my opinion, I believe that Bertholdt only has had his father in his life; his mother rather passed away or left them at a young age. His father must’ve already been sick (due to a chronic illness), and the poor treatment only caused him to become more susceptible to more diseases such as cancer or infections. Marley treated him not long before Bertholdt left to Paradis, however after not making it back home, they rather cut off the treatment immediately or slowly until he passed.

Marley is a cruel, cruel nation and I really wouldn’t put it past them to do such a thing. They did not care about the children or their families, they cared about their titans. Thats it.

I really wish we got more on Bert’s backstory, learning about what happened whilst he grew up and what caused him to become someone that followed so much he lost his sense of humanity.