Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
Tetracycline antibiotics are known to cause Intracranial hypertension as a side effect. I wonder if there could possibly be a graded response where blood pressure is being increased, thereby improving blood flow to certain areas of the brain?
Stimulus possibly, but health care probably not.
I suppose a big chunk depends on what it is exactly you want or expect a politician to do. If the only things that matter to you are that power is decentralized, freedom increased, & less violence is done at the decree of government officials, then it really does not matter who you vote for. The differences between politicians are largely in what way power be further centralized, freedom decreased, & more violence be done. Those differences are not significant to me so long as one politician is not much more likely than another to launch a nuclear bomb or declare martial law.
Here's a solid source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3124861/
I am a bit skeptical of this though because it is all epidemiological & therefore ripe for confounding factors. I'm sure people who brush their teeth and/or floss differ from those who neglect oral hygiene in many other ways.
According to this site Obama has not kept more than 50% of the promises he made during his campaign. To me that is evidence that what a politician promises to do is not a reliable indicator of what a politician will do.
Many Diabetes drugs, like PPAR agonists, stimulate Insulin sensitivity, but where do they do it? The body has PPAR receptors pretty much everywhere EXCEPT in the Muscles, so patients taking these drugs & continuing to consume excessive amounts of Carbohydrates are basically switching on every mechanism they can to make sure all of their calories are being stored as Fat.
These drugs were approved by the FDA based on surrogate endpoints (they reduce Insulin resistance!) but they increase the risk of having a Heart attack by something like 28%, so I think we really need to question whether decreasing Insulin resistance without any finer specification (ie, in Muscle vs. Fat, Fasting vs. Post-prandial) is the goal we want to have in mind. Maybe it is just solving 1 part of a bigger problem & exacerbating other parts of that problem.
I always thought that Insulin resistance was bad, always & forever, & that anything that increased Insulin sensitivity was good. But now I've realized this isn't necessarily true. When fasting, the peripheral tissues (fat & muscle) SHOULD become Insulin resistant so that Glucose is spared for the brain. Further, high insulin sensitivity in the morning could be BAD because Insulin is either going to help calories get stored in Fat or Muscle, & 1st thing in the morning, who has produced the proper stimulus to preferentially target those calories to the Muscle? What we really want is a selective Insulin sensitizer and/or timed Insulin sensitivity (eg, after a heavy workout).
If you want to take about resource efficiency, we should probably start by eating what we produce. A quick Google turned up this report that 40% of the food produced in the US is thrown out as waste.
I think we're thinking about it differently. The rate per dollar calculation is so linear. I'm thinking of things more like an ecosystem. Yes, at this moment in time you would get a better return on your investment, but there are costs to that decision that aren't taken into account in the equation. There are also benefits to the other path (investing in local, sustainable, ethical farming) that show up down the line as the movement picks up momentum. There are also potential harms to vegetarianism, such as vegetarian parents starving their children to death.
Just because many animals are living on factory farms doesn't mean that they have to. I would rather use my money to encourage things like free ranging chickens, grass fed cattle, etc. than to be someone proudly paying others to "Do as I say, not as I do."
That part is interesting, but the author basically concludes in the 1st paragraph that people who take morality seriously are vegetarians. That implies that people who aren't vegetarians don't take morality seriously, doesn't it? Aside from that, another aspect that is ignored is that our actions don't exist in a void. The person I'm paying to not eat meat can see that I'm still eating meat. My family, my friends, my coworkers, etc. all can see that I'm eating meat. This also has consequences as far as influencing the opinions & future behavior of others.
All it takes is a username and password
Already have an account and just want to login?
Forgot your password?