A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Not just ageing either. The reason that a lot of medications say not to take if you are pregnant is not because they studied it and determined that it could be dangerous. It's because they didn't bother to study it at all.
A lot of studies will choose to only study men because women are likely to have periods, get pregnant, etc. You know, normal human life.
And it should surprise no one that it's mostly white people, too.
When designing safety features like seat belts or safety harnesses: "Women have these weird anatomical quirks, seems complicated, let's just ignore it."
Why sex bias in labs means women are the losers in research into ~~ageing~~ virtually all medical issues
FTFY
Apparently menstrual cycles (and the resulting fluctuating hormones) make the female body tOo CoMpLiCaTeD for researchers and they'd rather stick to the "default human model." Bitch study some fetal developmental science: female is the default model!
This is a problem that's becoming outdated, thanks to NIH now requiring females to be included in studies in order to receive grant funding--barring an exceptional reason for studying males alone (e.g., male-specific problems). They are even requiring cell lines for in vitro studies to be derived, at least in part, from females, rather than from males alone.
Now ... in the 21st century you mean ... after over 80 years of clinical trials.
The best time to start was decades ago, but at least they've started.
But even though researchers know female mice react differently to drugs to males, there have been zero studies on separate interventions that could help women live healthier, longer lives.
Imagine my surprise. Well, with the way things are going women are probably going to be consigned to being birthing machines and sex toys
I mean, men don't live as long as women. Seems natural to focus on the group who has a bigger problem dying younger.
The expert quoted has had quite a life:
After earning a BA in English literature from UCLA, Austad left academia for a number of years during which among other things, he drove a taxi cab in New York City, worked as a newspaper reporter, and trained lions for television and movies.
He sounds pretty cool.
I admit I looked him up only because his view challenged what I've been seeing in reporting on studies done in this area. I've seen what seems like a trend in studying and comparing changes in lifespan and healthspan in male and female subjects (in both human and mouse). I suspect I am suffering from some recency bias, but it really does seem to me like studies in this area are better at teasing out sex differences than in non-longevity lines of research.
Anyway, thought I'd mention the expert's colorful past
Science builds upon itself. Find an answer with the simpler case, and then work towards the more complex ones once we understand some of the mechanics. It's like being upset that more funding is going to fighting specific cancers instead of generalized all-cancer treatments.