151–160 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People tend to forget just how important hormones can be and just assume everything is because of genes.
That's an odd comment since hormones are the result of gene expression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, fair point. In order for genes to have any impact on an organism they need to be expressed. And it's expression that creates the enzymes that create hormones. So it's hard to separate those two. Environmental exposure can change how genes are expressed and thus hormones.
But hormones are one of the things that affect gene expression in turn. There aren’t really many straightforward causal relationships in biology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've asked you numerous times to avoid this topic on HN, since you've inundated threads with it in the past. That request stands, and if you keep breaking it, we're going to have to ban you again. I don't want to do that, so please refrain from going there here.
I don't have a dog in this fight, however, I am curious. Who exactly are you? Who is this "we" you are referencing? And why does this comment need to be avoided?
Sometimes there are users who go rogue on a particular topic that for whatever reason they're obsessed with, and post way too many comments pushing an agenda on that point. This is bad for the site. If people overdo it repeatedly, we ask them to stop and ban them if they don't. Sometimes they create a series of accounts that we ban in succession. Eventually, sometimes, they manage to avoid the topic while participating on HN in other ways. In that case they're welcome here. But if we notice relapses, we remind them to stop and ban them if they don't. We do that because past experience teaches that going a little down that road usually ends in going the whole way.
In other words, this is a way to avoid banning a user by selectively banning only a (user, topic) pair instead. It's extra work, but it seems fair to allow someone to participate in the site as long as they avoid the destructive pattern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a medical practitioner and that sounds a little silly to me too. I don't diagnose autism, though. I leave that to the paediatricians. The main reason that diagnosis is a big deal here is it's related to funding packages. I suspect that's also why ability comes into it. The other thing is that autism is somewhat nebulous and it's in part a condition of not being able to cope socially in this world. So because of t…
Adults can be autistic and can have great quality of life improvements from diagnosis and treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People tend to forget just how important hormones can be and just assume everything is because of genes.
That's an odd comment since hormones are the result of gene expression.
Would be interesting to see what causes high estrogen in the studied women. My guess would be obesity, and potentially plant-based diet high in soy products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an odd comment since hormones are the result of gene expression.
Not necessarily, for example, the very thing in the article title - high levels of oestrogens in the womb - is about hormone levels not caused by expression of your genes but influenced by outside environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't know what autism really is, beyond it's symptomatic effects and correlations like that of TFA. It's not clear that there is a meaningful notion of being autistic but asymptomatic. Typhoid, on the other hand, is a bacteria that exists independent of its symptoms.
"Asymptomatic" just means poor or absent testing, not an inherent property. Better diagnostic tests can detect low visibility symptoms. It's like saying that someone with nearsightedness is asymptomatic and therefore not nearsighted because someone is good at squinting. There are still symptoms if you know what to check for.
> There are still symptoms if you know what to check for.
What are these in autism? Are you sure they exist? It may be that "inability to mask" is just what autism _is_.
Hello everyone am Sharon from Australia, i am here to give a testimony of how i was cured from CANCER i never thought Dr.ALABI MOHAMMED can cure my cancer, until i was cured with his herbal medicine, I have tried almost everything but i couldn’t find any solution on my disease, i have spend a lot of money to buy CANCER drugs from hospital, and several medications but to no avail, until one day i was browsing on the Internet just like you are doing now when i came across a great post of mrs Diana from USA who truly said that she was diagnose with CANCER and was cured by Dr ALABI that very week through the help of his herbal medicine, so i really wonder why people called him the great healer, i never knew it was all because of the great and perfect work that he has been doing, so i quickly contacted him, and he ask me some few questions and he said a thing i will never forget that anyone who contacted him always get his or her healing in just three weeks, so i was amazed when i heard that from him, so i did all he ask me to do and he prepare the herbal medicine and send it to me through UPS courier service, and i received the herbal medicine after 3days,and he instructed me on how to use the herbal medicine, just 3 weeks of usage i was healed from cancer which he said i will be healed from, so after 3 weeks all the strength that left me before rush back and i become very strong and healthy, this disease almost kill me, so i went to the hospital for test and the doctor said i am negative, i was very happy about the healing of Dr.ALABI MOHAMMED who is from the ancient part of Africa, thank you sir for your great work. If you also need his help in any kind of diseases you can reach him on his email address dralabim5@gmail.com or you can call or Whatsapp him on +2348155011610.
DOCTOR ALABI MOHAMMED CAN ALSO CURE THE FOLLOWING DISEASE:
1. HIV / AIDS
2. HERPES
3. CANCER
4. ALS
5. Hepatitis! B
6. BRING OF EX LOVER BACK TO LOVE YOU AGAIN
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like this is evidence for that view then. Why is the researcher's theory relevant to results that support that theory?
The scientific method is not generally served well by people seeking to find a particular answer, as opposed to the truth. Not saying that is the case here, but I agree with the parent-it inspires some scepticism from me.