What an incredibly based and brave person. The work that her and other Russian pirate comrades like the ppl who created libgen are doing, is so extremely important and worthwhile... Literally 80% of the content of the internet could fall away, and if scihub remains, we'd be better off.
She comments on the media ignoring her too, which shows the hypocrisy of these cultures who claim to be open and love science, but want to keep it locked behind paywalls.
UsesThe main use of trichloroethylene is in the vapor degreasing of metal parts.
Trichloroethylene is also used as an extraction solvent for greases, oils, fats, waxes, and tars, a chemical intermediate in the production of other chemicals, and as a refrigerant.
Trichloroethylene is used in consumer products such as typewriter correction fluids, paint removers/strippers, adhesives, spot removers, and rug-cleaning fluids.
Trichloroethylene was used in the past as a general anesthetic.
There's antibodies as well as the enzymes being produced too, both should lead to advances in immunology and biochemistry. As rough as some aspects of modern life can be, science always improving on whats known is damn cool and fascinating!
Indeed, I expect we'll see a lot of fun discoveries in the coming years as we can apply stuff like LLMs to tasks that are beyond human cognitive capacity to tackle effectively. In particular, these things are capable of identifying really large and complex patterns that we simply wouldn't be able to find otherwise.
Everyone needs a seatbelt! Make them out of cloth, vacuum bags, wear them under your nose, tie em around your neck. Don't buy professional ones though, we only have a few and those are for healthcare drivers.
The study you linked says that it used poor methods and can't draw any firm conclusions
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.
Actually, it was talking about the studies it had available as sources. Bascially, garbage in garbage out. As i read it, they don't disqualify their own used methods.
No, it's very clearly including their methods, and there's no basis for arguing otherwise. You clearly don't care about the actual science and this is an ideological issue for you.
The plain language says that the study can't draw any real conclusions, yet here you are telling everyone that it proves the masks don't work. If you cared about the science you wouldn't be misrepresenting the findings.
yeah, i conclued similar as what your article says about the writer of the link i provided;
“There is just no evidence that they make any difference,” the lead author said in a media interview. This brought an unusual chastisement from the Cochrane Library’s editor-in-chief, who stated it was “not an accurate representation of what the review found.”
if they can't say with certainty that it does/doesnt' work based on all the previous studies. i read it as; There's no firm prove it works against resporatory virusses. That's why i wouldn't bet on it like my life depends on it.
If the methodology in studies is flawed then it doesn't actually show much of anything. Nobody is claiming anywhere that masks provide a guarantee against contracting a virus, what they do is reduce the number of viral particles that you inhale and reduce the chances of infection. There is also literally zero downside to wearing a mask, so this is a really weird hill to choose to die on.
@yogthos@roho also, the whole point of the initial article is to explain that you don't test masks' efficiency via randomized trials (for the same reason you don't test parachutes that way): though it may seem counterintuitive at first, this is actually not really a medical question but an physical/engineering one.
You need to prove that the mask effectively blocks aerosols, that it blocks transmission is then a direct consequence ;)
i dont’ think i can find the source for this one, but; there was a group doing a questionaire under people who didn’t trust the media’s perception. The outcome surprised the group. it seemed that those people having work where they have much contact with people were better of during the pandemic health wise than those having a more secluding life. ofcourse the “more research is required” clause applies.
TLDR: An asteroid doesn't seem to be the cause of the dinosaurs going extinct. The asteroid defintely occurred, yet it seems like the Jurassic extinction was years afterwards while the nuclear winter seems to only have taken place briefly. By focusing on mean temperature and bacterial cell morphology post the asteroid, our current understanding would impact everything from dino's to microbes yet microbes we're thriving years after the impact. Current idea's are revolving around a volcano in India being the cause of extinction, but more research is needed to confirm.
science
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.