Ah, the old effect size vs significance issue, thanks for clarifying. I perused the link you sent, I didn’t do a deep dive. The authors could have used more precise language.

Here’s a second paper from 2017, https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/151483/1/151483.pdf , which looks at duration of breastfeeding and SIDS. Not sure if you’ve come across it, but I was surprised to see the potential protective factors don’t begin until breastfeeding has gone on for at least 2 months.

Unfortunately I think the odds that we get a randomized clinical trial looking at breast vs formula are low - I didn’t find one in my brief Google Scholar search, but I’m also not a pediatrician.

But, ultimately, the first link i provided includes breastfeeding as part of a larger suite of recommendations for co-sleeping that, if all are followed, bring the risk of SIDS down to a comparable rate with modern safe sleep recommendations.

I’ll agree that there’s a lot of conflicting information when it comes to parenting, it’s called the mommy wars for a reason. But, I’ll disagree with you that I provides pseudoscience. I’ll direct you specifically to references 11 through 13 in the link I provided. They are dated, but peer-reviewed.

I’m also confused by your link, it appears to be a meta-analysis which “found ample evidence that both breastfeeding and [pacifier] use reduced the risk of SIDS.”

Overall, I like Cribsheet’s stance again - the best baby is a fed baby, the difference between a breastfed baby and a formula-fed baby are very minor and do not result in any persistent, dramatic differences.

Surprisingly, that’s not the entire story of SIDS - but it is one of the biggest contributing factors to why co-sleeping can be unsafe. It’s also why alcohol consumption dramatically increases the dangers.

I’ll plug some work done by La Leche League, a non-profit that provides resources for breastfeeding mothers. Now, this resource is for babies who are entirely breastfed - no bottles whatsoever - so it’s not for everyone unfortunately.

Their research has shown seven factors that, if addressed, can reduce the risk of SIDS in co-sleeping arrangements to be equal to modern safe sleep arrangements. https://llli.org/news/the-safe-sleep-seven/

I would also encourage people to read Cribsheet, which provides a fantastic deep dive into the specifics of SIDS risk. Understanding more about SIDS, and learning why safe sleep guidance exist, put my mind at ease as a new parent.

It’s less about managed culls and more about raising funds for conservation.

Hot take, I’ll offer an alternative perspective. Obviously, poaching is one of the most disgusting crimes. Sourcing animal parts for folk remedies is reprehensible.

Responsibly managed hunting generates a ton of money, some of which which gets invested into the local community and into conservation efforts.

The key word here is responsible. If a land manager shared wealth in an equitable fashion with the locals, and demonstrates careful management of animal herds by close monitoring of populations, that’s responsibility. I wouldn’t want to hunt on lands owned by, say, a literal nazi in South Africa. But, unfortunately, as long as we live under capitalism, I have a hard time imagining a different way to encourage the world to preserve our natural resources.

Because, I shit you not, it’s cheaper than adoption in the US.

That’s not quite the same thing - the 7 digit phone number has more to do with short-term memory capacity than visual perception. Miller’s Law of short-term memory is we can store 7 +/- 2 items at a time, depending how complex they are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

PhD in neuroscience here. I didn’t specifically study musicology, but i did study the neuroscience of music.

The theory that holds the most water, in my opinion, is that music activates all the same parts of the brain as motor processing. It makes us want to move, and to make predictions about what’s coming next. People like makimg predictions. It’s also a pro-social activity that encourages bonding and communication. These are typically positive experiences.

Edit: you mentioned we like the breaking of patterns in music. Very true, we love syncopation. But we don’t tap our foot to the rhythm, we groove to the beat.

Have you tried learning Japanese / English after learning the other? I studied Japanese and learned how to pronounce the /r/ in Japanese correctly.

For some people, the difficulty is less in production, and more in interpretation for someone who is native Japanese speaking and later learned English.

Chiming in with more context, my PhD was in neuroscience and I worked in a language lab. As others have stated, there is a critical window for learning a language. The biology behind it is fascinating.

As early as about 9 months of age, your brain begins to decide what speech sounds are important to you. For example, in Japanese the difference between /r/ and /l/ sounds doesn’t matter, but in English it does. Before 9 months, most babies can tell the difference between the two sounds, but babies living in Japanese-speaking environments (without any English) LOSE this ability after 9ish months!

Language is more than just speech sounds, though. Imagine all these nuances of language - there are critical moments where your brain just decides to accept or reject them, and it’s coded somewhere in your DNA.

It proved there were benefits, read the article.

Very few things are proved definitively in science. You test a hypothesis with statistics, which always carries a margin of error. Usually, it’s 5% - the probability that your data randomly supports your hypothesis, even though there’s no true relationship.

Personally, I prefer when journalists coach their language to avoid overstating the truth.

Great, now I have to start proof-reading any communications I get from the FDA to make sure it didn’t hallucinate a scientific article in the citations. There’s going to be so many Vegetative Microscopy proposals.

Good point, I’m assuming all monitors are as good as mine.

Fair point, but a lot of the article talks about how many studies aren’t meeting all four pillars of clinical trial design - that’s where my issue comes in, I think reporting that X% of trials do not meet all pillars is a bad metric.

And, not all medications these days are pills or IV infusions - some medications and treatments, which are governed by the FDA, are more invasive and more complicated.

The consent process for clinical trials has a ton of guidance (ICH GCP), but the onus is on the clinical monitors and hospitals to make sure it’s done correctly. Many trials now generate supporting documentation in which hospital staff are required to describe the circumstances in which consent was acquired. If the documents are generated, then it’s auditable.

Things get a bit hairy when you look at trials in Alzheimer’s and other cognitive disorders, because the patient may not be coherent enough to withdraw from the trial. In those cases, a legal guardian is responsible for the decision.

Unfortunately, this was an issue before Trump and will continue to be one afterwards. Assuming there even is an afterwards…

The article brings up some great points, some of which that I, an industry insider, weren’t even aware of, especially the historical context surrounding the AIDS epidemic. I’ll jump into the thread to critique an issue within the article.

One of the four pillars recommended by the FDA (control groups) are great in theory but can lead to very real problems in practice, specifically within indications that have an unmet treatment need or are exceptionally rare conditions.

If you have a disease that is 99% fatal but has 0 standard of care treatment options, is it ethical to ask a participant to enroll in a clinical trial and potentially not receive the study treatment/be on placebo? Or, what if the trial involves an incredibly invasive procedure like brain surgery - is it ethical for people to do a placebo procedure? Food for thought - and an explanation for why so few trials meet all four criteria proposed by the FDA.

Happy to answer questions about the industry if anyone has them.

Hey, the NHS in the UK sometimes does things, too!

Looks like the WHO also leads vaccine strategy meetings, according to the ECDC. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/prevention-and-control/vaccines/vaccination-strategies

So I think the odds that no vaccines are available in the US are low, but I don’t know if the same flu strains are targeted across the pond.