Recent comments in /f/askscience

Gyrosoundlabs t1_j79x5re wrote

I like this test. The red dot is moving from right to left, and a green dot flashes exactly at the point where they are aligned. But your brain projects the red dot past the green dot because that's where it thinks it SHOULD be. Weird stuff.

https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/reality-constructed-your-brain-here-s-what-means-and-why-it-matters

3

bonkly68 t1_j79scmq wrote

Human development is so complex, with so many influences, it's quite likely that a cloned "Einstein" would not be the same person, may not necessarily be drawn to the fields or acquire the abilities that distinguish the original. But someone will have to try before we know.

2

Lingering_Louse t1_j79r2b6 wrote

I’m a doctor. Medications act on enzymes or receptors. These medications can activate receptors, de-activate them or turn on/off chemical pathways.

The question becomes which pathways, when activated/inactivated cause I disruption of homeostasis (the bodies ability to regulate itself). If a drug turns on/off a receptor and the body senses that as a disruption of homeostasis, then the cell will make more receptors so there is more activation or stop production of those receptors. These are the medications that cause tolerance.

Some medications don’t affect a pathway where upregulation or down regulation by receptor expression is possible, these are the drugs that do not cause tolerance.

13

iayork t1_j79ik7f wrote

Probably not.

In 2017 there was a flurry of media reports claiming that infection with the pandemic H1N1 virus ("H1N1pdm09") might cause diabetes. These were all based on an unpublished presentation, not a paper and not peer-reviewed, from a Norwegian group.

The group subsequently published a more complete study, which was inconclusive:

>Overall, we could not demonstrate a clear association between clinically reported pandemic influenza infection and incident type 1 diabetes.

--Pandemic influenza and subsequent risk of type 1 diabetes: a nationwide cohort study

To help explain what "inconclusive" means, similar studies were able to conclusively link a 1 in 20,000 risk of narcolepsy to a specific vaccine. So presumably if there's any risk it's lower than 1 in 20,000; more likely it’s zero.

As far as I know, no subsequent studies have found any link.

657

doc--t t1_j79bww9 wrote

You can go back forever trying to rationalise what causes the next step in this complex chain of events. Probably, calling it a chain is misleading as well as I can only imagine how many feedback loops might be involved. Ultimately, it is just written in our genetic code, what makes us human.

1