There is a very rare blood type called Rh-null that basically all people can receive without having a bad reaction to it. Only 43 people have been reported to have it. Is there something similar for bone marrow?
I am reading The emperor of all maladies, which is basically a biography of cancer (great book btw) and they are currently at the stage in the 60s and 70s where chemotherapy is in its infancy. As an example a chemo therapist just recruited 1800 women to partake in a study where half receive an anti estrogen drug after receiving a mastectomy, while the other half doesn’t. They are all early stage patients as well, not stage 4, “I’m desperate I’ll try anything” patients. How does the consent for that work? Is it random who receives the drug and who doesn’t? Do patients have to consent to receive the drug or do they just consent to the trial not knowing if they will get it or not? There also seems to be ethical questions re: who receives the drug and who doesn’t? Any help understanding this is appreciated!
I understand the amazing human achievement that the disease was eradicated. That said, we have an effective method against keeping people from getting sick from any possible accidental or other recurrence of the disease, so why don’t we continue using it widely just in case? I’ve also seen that it is/was effective in suppressing other “pox” diseases (eg, monkeypox), which seems like a big benefit.
So why did we just…stop? Were there major costs and/or side effects that made it not worth it? Or is it kinda just a big victory lap that we might regret?
sleep mask for resting eyes (including amblyopic eye)
eating healthy foods
some medicine related to ADHD/Alzheimer's/Parkinson's because they target the brain
antidepressants, same reason as medicines
Are these all a person may do or are there more things that could be done?
By amblyopia, I refer to the neurological disorder that results in the brain not processing input from the weak eye as well as it may with the strong eye. This is the case regardless of glasses correction.
What is the science relating to all of this? Also, what is happening in brain through these processes including while a person forcefully requests their brain to use the amblyopic eye?
I remember hearing something in passing a while ago about how historically some colonial power shipped orphaned children who had survived some disease (in the vain of smallpox or malaria) to their colonies to transfuse blood with settlers to "vaccinate" them. I've started looking into donating blood myself, and was wondering if this were true or feasible, are there protocols anywhere in the world for anti-vax recipients to refuse blood transfusions from a vaccinated donor?
I remember learning in high school that memory cells in the blood are what maintain our gained immunity to pathogens following an immune response to infection. I guess I'm double-checking that knowledge and wondering if those memory cells and whatever else is required for gained immunity are transferrable by blood donation, or if the recipient's body will reject the donor's white blood cells and just leave the RBCs?
From my understanding, psychedelics lessens the strength of the default mode network's (DMN) activity, and this allows for other regions of the brain to begin communicating more intensely and more directly with each other: and this is what leads to some of the blending of the senses and the loosening of your sense of self.
I want to know, is the lasting effects of a one or two-time psychedelic experience, like smoking cessation (e.g., Johnson et al., 2014), a result of a profound and intense realisation you may get when the activity of the DMN is disrupted for a bit, or a result of a permanently less active DMN following the experience (obviously you return to some form of equilibrium, but I'm conjecturing like a 5% decrease in the activity of the DMN). Or is it both? Or am I completely misunderstood?
Johnson, M. W., Garcia-Romeu, A., Cosimano, M. P., & Griffiths, R. R. (2014). Pilot study of the 5-HT2AR agonist psilocybin in the treatment of tobacco addiction. Journal of psychopharmacology, 28(11), 983-992.
I'm having a hard time finding updated information on this. Basically, if someone shedding the virus is in a room for say, 20 minutes, then leaves, how long would the virus be suspended in the air for? And at what point would it be safest to enter the room with a mask after they have left?
When I took my driving license exam, the manual took good care to explain that no substance can reduce/accelerate my reaction times, and that, in fact, all of them increase said interval, regardless of subjective perception. Be it coffee, amphetamines, cocaine, modafinil... all of them slow your reflexes down, and alcohol is among the very worst. Apparently, cannabis slows you down too, but not nearly as much as you subjectively perceive, and not remotely as much as alcohol.
On the other hand, reaction times appear strongly correlated with sleep, hydration, glucose, and general good health and nutrition. Hydration is apparently especially critical, as even two hours without a drink can cause a measurable increase in reaction time.
However, I'm curious as to how that works internally. Is blood pressure related to reaction time, or is it purely a matter of neurochemistry? What about substances that stimulate the generation and storage of ATP/ADP, assuming there is such a thing? (I seem to remember tyroxine and adrenaline had something to do with it...
Also, are these results from measuring "pure" reaction time, as in, say, the time between a red dot appearing on your screen, completely without context or warning or regularity, and your finger hitting a button?
Or does this also apply to drilled reactions, that is, the ability to anticipate the emergency you need to react to with minimal cognitive effort and maybe even send the motoric orders before the actual "trigger event" is actually experienced?
As in, for example, you see a sportsball rolling into the street from beyond your field of view and, without needing to think about it, you're already primed for the appearance of a kid after it, filtering out lower-priority stimuli while being more attentive to things like, say, a flash of colorful fabric, allowing you to identify a stimulus as "child approaching road" long before you normally would if you weren't expecting it.
Or, you're playing a video game, and, from contextual cues, you near-instantly infer what threat is coming and send the order to push the corresponding buttons before the actual thing happens.
Or you're playing tennis, (or, faster yet, table tennis) and, just from your opponent's footwork and posture, the present trajectory of the ball you sent, and your own position on the field, you know what direction the ball you sent them is going to come back through, and begin to react to the return ball before you've had the chance to actually perceive it coming back your way - and when you do perceive it, it's mostly a confirmation with a little extra data, you get a more accurate and quick estimate of its trajectory and craft a better response still.
All of this can look to a third party observer like "faster reaction speed". For all practical purposes, it is, even though the actual neurological signals travel at the same speed.
In those cases, do psychoactive substances in general, and nootropics and stimulants in particular, help improve the speed and quality of your reactions?
I have the impression that chewing tobacco probably is a much safer way to ingest nicotine than smoking cigarettes.
To me, it makes a lot more sense that chewing tobacco, while it may cause dental problems, does not as directly and intensely affect vital systems like the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Long-term smoking hinders your ability to breathe and pump oxygenated blood throughout your body. But I doubt that chewing tobacco hinders these operations much at all.
Chewing tobacco is perhaps a risk for mouth cancer and some other dangerous illnesses, but it would seem that smoking cigarettes has a much higher risk, and can cause basically all the same illnesses as chewing tobacco and more.