Recommended Posts

 I never said 100% match. that's a straw man. If you want to see why mice and rats are used you can go and study it for yourself. I sure as hell don't get paid to educate you and I am not going to sit here and write up why mice and rats are used and why they are appropriate when you will probably not even bother to read it anyway. Go use google.

 

So you can prove that the entire scientific community which as been using mice and rats for decades have been wrong this whole time?

 

you are misunderstanding what I mean,read below.

 

What field do you work in again? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion would I be willing to be money on the fact it isn't a scientific one?

 

i work in tech, but I worked in the dietary supplement industry while completing my degree. ive probably read a million studies in my day.  

 

 

 

vcfan demands others offer proof of their claims, makes claim of proof, doesn't offer it. :s

 

I don't disagree. The tobacco industry used to hire scientists to dispute claims about cancer. The climate change denialists hire scientists of obfuscate the reality of man-made climate change. But all of this has nothing to do with the fact you can't prove this study or this group has any ulterior motive nor does it have anything to do with your assertion that the testing method is flawed because it uses mice.

 

Try to stay on the point you're defending.

 

 

you know the first part doesn't need proof. its not something you have to go far and wide to get. if you haven't been living under a rock you would have heard and seen such examples already. it takes a few seconds to get your proof. asking for proof for something a little obscure is totally different.

 

And I just think youre missing my point entirely. nobody is disputing why mice are used for testing. I said this study means nothing in that because it hasn't been tested on humans,it may or may not apply to us, NOT because its a waste of time for testing or scientific purposes. I never said such a thing,and this is what you're accusing me of,which isn't true. I just said we don't match up 100% to these animals we are testing,so test results shouldn't be taken as truth until we test on ourselves.

 

People are going to read this and to them it will become a fact that will get spread around. I don't even smoke marijuana so its not like im using illogical points to defend something I like.

You should try getting out more often. Steve Jobs, Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson, ect. all bright pot smoking people. 

 

 

 

Like everything else in life, moderation is key.

 

Pot smokers is not the same as "tried pot a few times in school"

Pot smokers is not the same as "tried pot a few times in school"

 

I am fairly sure Carl Sagan was a recreational pot smoker. I cannot speak for the rest.

 

 

 

you know the first part doesn't need proof. its not something you have to go far and wide to get. if you haven't been living under a rock you would have heard and seen such examples already. it takes a few seconds to get your proof. asking for proof for something a little obscure is totally different.

 

 

 You said "animals testing means absolutely nothing". That is absolutely false. I then invited you to do and read why animals are used for testing. If you did you would see why your "absolutely nothing" statement was false.

 

 

nobody is disputing why mice are used for testing.

 

You said "Animal testing means absolutely nothing". If you think it means nothing than you obviously think testing on animals has no benefit. This is demonstrably false. You then said "if you believe mice and humans match 100% gene expression patterns then you are out to lunch" - a claim I never made - but one which made it seem as if you beleiuved because we don't match identically no results from an animal study is valid. Again, false.

 

 

I said this study means nothing in that because it hasn't been tested on humans,it may or may not apply to us, NOT because its a waste of time for testing or scientific purposes. I never said such a thing,and this is what you're accusing me of,which isn't true. I just said we don't match up 100% to these animals we are testing,so test results shouldn't be taken as truth until we test on ourselves.

 

People are going to read this and to them it will become a fact that will get spread around. I don't even smoke marijuana so its not like im using illogical points to defend something I like.

 

 

The kind of testing they would be doing on mice wouldn't be ethical to do on humans. They're exposing them to lots of the active ingredient of the drug then administering other drugs to counter the effect. After the experiment they no doubt dissect the animals and study them. In this case they would study the brain of the animal.

 

Mice are used because their genetics and biology are very close to humans and we can easily replicate conditions that effect us in mice and then conduct tests on them. If you read the title it says "may cause brain inflammation" -- because of our shared genes and biology something that has an effect on mice may effect us in the same way -- No one is being asked to take this as wholesale truth. If people on the internet or the idiot mainstream media misinterpret the findings and spread nonsense, which I entirely agree with you that they sometimes do, it has no bearing on the validity of the study.

Depending on the country, there will be a different number of pot smokers.    I have seen people who make $1000000+  smoke pot on regular basis.

Entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, etc.   Extremely bright people.    

 

 

It can dumb you down, true, but everyone is affected.  I have also seen tons of people overdo it and loose all the motivation and act dumb, but those people were not much motivated and/or smart in the first place!

 

comparing to the damage alcohol does, weed is much safer.  yet a lot of smart successful people drink!

 

 You said "animals testing means absolutely nothing". That is absolutely false. I then invited you to do and read why animals are used for testing. If you did you would see why your "absolutely nothing" statement was false.

 

 

You said "Animal testing means absolutely nothing". If you think it means nothing than you obviously think testing on animals has no benefit. This is demonstrably false. You then said "if you believe mice and humans match 100% gene expression patterns then you are out to lunch" - a claim I never made - but one which made it seem as if you beleiuved because we don't match identically no results from an animal study is valid. Again, false.

 

 

The kind of testing they would be doing on mice wouldn't be ethical to do on humans. They're exposing them to lots of the active ingredient of the drug then administering other drugs to counter the effect. After the experiment they no doubt dissect the animals and study them. In this case they would study the brain of the animal.

 

Mice are used because their genetics and biology are very close to humans and we can easily replicate conditions that effect us in mice and then conduct tests on them. If you read the title it says "may cause brain inflammation" -- because of our shared genes and biology something that has an effect on mice may effect us in the same way -- No one is being asked to take this as wholesale truth. If people on the internet or the idiot mainstream media misinterpret the findings and spread nonsense, which I entirely agree with you that they sometimes do, it has no bearing on the validity of the study.

 

I explained what I meant. it means nothing as in, this isn't tested and proven to happen to humans,as things in the past that worked on animals didn't translate to humans. I agreed that they can gain insight testing on animals, but it still doesn't give us definitie answers because these animals are not humans,and there are differences in how some of their cells function. I do realize no one is asked to take this as a wholesale truth, but how many times have you read articles in magazines and online about how scientists cured cancer, or HIV, or diabetes?  that's my beef, not the actual testing on animals. 

I explained what I meant. it means nothing as in, this isn't tested and proven to happen to humans,as things in the past that worked on animals didn't translate to humans. I agreed that they can gain insight testing on animals, but it still doesn't give us definitie answers because these animals are not humans,and there are differences in how some of their cells function. I do realize no one is asked to take this as a wholesale truth, but how many times have you read articles in magazines and online about how scientists cured cancer, or HIV, or diabetes?  that's my beef, not the actual testing on animals. 

 

Actually never. I have seen articles about shrinking tumors and increasing resistance but I have never read articles saying "Scientists cure cancer in rats".

 

Even if they do exist that would be magazines exaggerating breakthroughs to sell magazines or sites creating click-bait for page views.

Actually never. I have seen articles about shrinking tumors and increasing resistance but I have never read articles saying "Scientists cure cancer in rats".

 

Even if they do exist that would be magazines exaggerating breakthroughs to sell magazines or sites creating click-bait for page views.

 

Oh it happens, but only in tabloids.  And tbh, if someone believes anything they read in a tabloid, they probably ARE whacked out on something causing them brain inflammation! :p

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!