there’s no learning involved in the immune response in the brain. the brain is limited to the innate immune system, of which TLRs and their binding to conserved domains are basically the major component. there’s no adaptive immune system that does “learning” here (and by learning in the adaptive immune system we mean recombination of antibodies, presentation of contents of each cell on the surface of the cells for antibodies to try and bind to, and the preservation of cells that carry antibodies that bound to something successfully as memory cells to enable long term immunity)
is this a joke? yes, there is obviously a loss of energy and material as waste when go a step, just like in real ecological networks where one animal eating another does not absorb everything its body has to offer for nutrients
We aren't so starved so as to have to prioritize eating efficiently, people will eagerly prioritize aspects of taste and eat inefficiently, and it's great that they can do that - it would be horrific and a symptom of unacceptable overpopulation if people couldn't afford to eat "inefficiently" and would have to resort at eating whatever as long as it has sufficient nutrients.
I got curious and went checking a bit deeper USRTK, haven't found much to discredit their reporting.
Don't think we will get a well thought out argument given the user's comment history, a bit of a loony with a taste for hot takes with weird hyperbole.
As far as I can tell, there seems to effort to discredit USRTK citing how some major prior donors to USRTK (such as Organic Consumers Association) have become antivax organizations pushing conspiracy theories, but it seems the most this has resulted in is USRTK investigating lab leak theories of Covid-19's origin and a few events in collaboration with the antivax funders. All and all, it seems like some cause for scrutiny, but not anything close to discrediting the organization.
> Dr. Kathleen Jamieson [professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania and author of a recent article on conspiracists’ exploitation of uncertainty in COVID-19 science] argued USRTK’s work deserved scrutiny because of its funding and affiliations. But she also noted that the organization’s published research stopped short of open conspiracy theorizing on the virus’ origins.
Why are you conflating antivaxing with origin investigations? At best it seems like Dr. Jamieson is trying to do narrative shaping. I'd prefer to hear from experts in virology on that topic instead of a professor of discourse manipulation.
The comment you made is obstinate and vapid. It does not refute my point and does not even address it. The article you posted has nothing to do whatsoever with the topic at hand. Neither does it discuss toddlers, nor does it discuss the influence of screen time.
If you don't have anything useful to contribute, please be silent. This is not Reddit.
Please do your own research next time.
> The review indicated that an increase in the amount of screen time and an early age of onset of viewing have negative effects on language development, with older age of onset of viewing showing some benefits. Video characteristics, content and co-viewing also influences language development. This study demonstrates that the negative influences of screen time appear to outweigh the positive influences.
