Pretty much. It's one thing if you are confident enough in your own work to dose yourself, but you definitely want to know the efficacy and safety profile before you dose millions of people with it, so we do kinda need the regulatory stuff, even in a pandemic we still had essentially the bare necessities of it. I'm convinced that it was slower than it could've been at "bare necessity" speed because they were also proving the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines for the first time, so in the future we wouldn't need to go as slow.

Please tell me you explained the Dunning-Kruger effect to him.

Because it's an easy source of glucose. You have to process something into glucose, it isn't a naturally occurring sugar in large quantities in plants, so since sucrose is literally just glucose and fructose stuck together, why wouldn't you? It's one of the many ways it's made at industrial scale efficiently.

This short article describes the process and the various feedstocks commonly used, if you're curious.

Edit: While the most dominant feedstock is starch, processed sugarcane (i.e. once the sugar has been largely removed) is used as a feedstock for glucose since it would otherwise just go to waste. Interesting research article here.

Yes, but he said derived from sugar cane, so you take cane sugar, sucrose, which can then be (either by your body or through industrial processes, usually using enzymes) split into fructose and glucose.

Like the other poster said, it's impurities in that from the cane sugar that would cause that, not the glucose itself. To put it mildly, if you're allergic to glucose, I don't think you could live. (Yes, the body can digest other forms of sugar for energy, but energy storage is done as glycogen which is a linked branching polymer of glucose molecules, and when it releases those from storage, it's glucose.)

The processes involved in extracting sucrose from cane sugar and then breaking it down into it's components, fructose and glucose, and then purifying just the glucose are likely not set up to purify it to 99% purity. Obviously, if they did have glucose from cane sugar that was purified to a significant enough degree (say 99.99% or LCMS grade), they'd get no allergic reaction to it unless it was nocebo/psychosomatic.

I mean, it's like saying you're allergic to the letter L in light but not in any other word. It's ridiculous. The letter L is the letter L, glucose is glucose, therefore glucose cannot be responsible for their allergy.

I mean... Epinephrine is epinephrine. It looks like this regardless of if it comes from a cow, a sheep, a human, a lizard, or synthesized in a lab.

I suppose it's like asked if caffeine in a Coke has a different effect to that of caffeine in a Pepsi. No, it's caffeine. Provided the dosage is the same, it's identical (barring tolerance and something weird like the molecule degrading to not be caffeine anymore.)

That's 0.44 psi per foot, which at 6ft is 2.64 psi, which doesn't sound like a lot, but considering it's going through blood vessels, that's absolutely insane.

>Also you can apparently pay to “Become a Lord or Lady” by buying a presumed title for prices like £195. Not sure its very legally binding, but this seems like a cheap route

Yes, and you can also have bridges and stars named after you, too. All of them are scams.

Stupid question, but what is AuDHD?

Edit: First time I googled it it just showed results for ADHD, but it turns out that's because I accidentally typed ADHD. AuDHD seems to be Autism and ADHD. Didn't know that was a term, cool!

Guess I'm in the same camp.

No, I understood what you were saying. I agree with you to a large extent.

I'm simply saying that ethical difficulty and technical difficulty are intrinsically linked. When you have to jump through more hoops for ethical reasons, it makes it more technically difficult.

Yes, we are primates. That's why we call non-human primates "non-human primates" when referring to them in a technical capacity, not necessarily when casually discussing something on Reddit, to avoid confusion.

It is, though, due to ethical reasons, much more practically and technically difficult to work with primates than, say, rodents. Getting any procedure approved on primates is going to be infinitely harder, and involve far more precautions, extra steps, difficulty, etc. than a similar procedure with mice, and be far more limited in number of subjects.

Of course, but it's very long down the line before it becomes undetectable much less low enough to be baseline.

That is actually useful in determining how many cell divisions have happened.

Not particularly, not in humans, no. It's even one of the misconceptions/myths on cancer.gov not specifically that story you mentioned (I googled my best and couldn't find it), but that cancers are contagious.

If what you remember reading is actually what you read and it's actually true (not a knock on you, just far more likely for your memory to be your brain trying to confabulate a story from something different, possibly vaguely related. Our memory sucks, especially fuzzy ones, and our brain just fills in the gaps), perhaps it was a cancer caused by a virus or bacteria (which is very possible, some decent percentage -- I've read 15-20% but can't find a citation for that exact number -- of cancers are linked to viruses or bacteria) and said pathogen spread, then causing cancer. The cancer itself would not spread in that manner.