Various web links I found to be of interest recently.
The United States does not use more health care than high-income peers like Canada, Germany, France and Japan, said study co-author Liana Woskie, assistant director of the Harvard Global Health Institute's strategic initiative on quality.
Nor does America have too many high-paid specialists. "At least compared to peers, we have a pretty similar mix of primary care to specialists," Woskie added.
Instead, it looks as though the United States pays more because it faces higher price tags for drugs, tests, office visits and administration, Woskie said.
Also related, Why Is U.S. Health Care So Expensive? Some of the Reasons You've Heard Turn Out to Be MythsThere were two areas where the United States really was quite different: We pay substantially higher prices for medical services, including hospitalization, doctors' visits and prescription drugs. And our complex payment system causes us to spend far more on administrative costs. The United States also has a higher rate of poverty and more obesity than any of the other countries, possible contributors to lower life expectancy that may not be explained by differences in health care delivery systems.
The study of 59 samples from 29 brains of people of various ages
found no immature neurons in anyone older than 13,
scientists report online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
...
The finding challenges decades of research suggesting that new neurons
continue to appear in the hippocampus, an area of the brain involved
in memory and emotion. It also calls into question claims that both
exercise and some anti-depressant drugs could boost the production
of new neurons in the hippocampus.
Neurons are born in the brain's hippocampus throughout adulthood in mammals, contributing to the region's functions in memory and mood. But a study now questions whether this phenomenon really extends to humans.
Also somewhat related: Muscle loss in old age linked to fewer nerve signalsResearchers say they may have worked out why there is a natural loss of muscle in the legs as people age - and that it is due to a loss of nerves.
We show that, by contrast, there are significant similarities in the compositions of the microbiomes of genetically unrelated individuals who share a household, and that over 20% of the inter-person microbiome variability is associated with factors related to diet, drugs and anthropometric measurements. We further demonstrate that microbiome data significantly improve the prediction accuracy for many human traits, such as glucose and obesity measures, compared to models that use only host genetic and environmental data.
Also related, Colossal family tree reveals environment's influence on lifespanGenetics explains only a small part of differences in how long a person lives, finds analysis that links 13 million people.
The group concludes that heredity explains only about 16%
of the difference in lifespans for these individuals.
Most of the differences were down to other factors,
such as where and how people lived.
...
Erlich says that "good" genes might extend a person's life
by an average of five years.
Laura Deming's overview for beginners of what could increase healthy human lifespan.
Genetic testing can provide only limited information about an
inherited condition. The test often can't determine if a person
will show symptoms of a disorder, how severe the symptoms will be,
or whether the disorder will progress over time. Another major
limitation is the lack of treatment strategies for many genetic
disorders once they are diagnosed.
...
Inappropriate genetic testing by any health provider is a problem,
but it's particularly worrisome in the case of naturopaths, as
genetic tests are being used to sell patients the latest snake oil
treatments and to promote the illusion that the practitioner is
scientific and up-to-date.
As meticulous as scientists are, inaccurate, false, or even misleading
science claims are surprisingly common.
A 2015 experiment reported over one-third of psychology experiments
are faulty, while a similar test for cancer research indicates
similar trends, though that one is still in progress.
The problem isn't limited to those two fields, either.
...
Behind nearly every piece of science news you read is a magic number:
the p-value. To generate a p-value, scientists run statistical tests
comparing data sets. Their starting assumption is that there's no
difference between the things they're comparing-new drug vs. sugar pill,
power pose vs. nothing-and when they find a result that deviates
significantly enough from "no difference," they report it as a positive
finding.
...
One form of misconduct, called "p-hacking," occurs when scientists
selectively embellish a few, randomly extreme data points,
and conceal many insignificant ones. Their work passes the p-value
threshold and makes the effects of their experiment seem more convincing
than what occurs in reality.
By John Horgan in his Scientific American Cross-check blog.
Two "ecomodernists" (Steven Pinker and Will Boisvert) argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems.
Analysis and tear down of Dershowitz' opinion article,
Trump is right: The special counsel should never have been appointed
Tyler Cowen
My argument is pretty simple: American fascism cannot happen anymore because the American government is so large and unwieldy. It is simply too hard for the fascists, or for that matter other radical groups, to seize control of. No matter who is elected, the fascists cannot control the bureaucracy, they cannot control all the branches of American government, they cannot control the judiciary, they cannot control semi-independent institutions such as the Federal Reserve, and they cannot control what is sometimes called "the deep state." The net result is they simply can't control enough of the modern state to steer it in a fascist direction.