How do you define effectiveness? All that matters is power density (which includes efficiency ) + cost. If an energy production method provides 0.1% of the power density of solar for instance, why would you waste land to build it, or even use it in stead of other types of land use with higher economic output ? Land use is a major ecological issue and low power density energy generation (like biofuel) has massive negative externalities

I'm having trouble believing the power density of anything using atmospheric hydrogen would be cost competitive with any kind of other power production. And using synthetic hydrogen would necessarily be less efficient than through straight combustion. Still an interesting discovery but the application suggestions are clearly sensationalised

That's absolutely not how science works. Give an animal an overdose of any medication or substance and it will die. You can even overdose on water. None of this gives any indication of the potential negative effects of a substance. What matters is to understand the effects of doses actually absorbed by organisms. Nobody would care about a study evaluating the safety of giving 100g of sugar per kg of body weight to children because that doesn't ever happen.

The answer is no. The question is not about detectable levels but about levels comparable to these leading to the effects in the article. The article itself mentions that the levels are not even remotely close to those found in any organism.

Yes that's the point, you're criticizing for zero reason

Doesn't change the fact that these are the actual recommendations

And decrease the risk of killing one's self so there's also that.

Calling antidepressants useless on a science subreddit is plain dumb. These medications have saved countless lives and do so literally every day, while improving the lives of countless more.

What are you calling a genetic vaccine? It uses recombinant proteins, and there is some amount of cross protection for other strains although certainly not immunity.

Yes - but animals which can't cross breed are definitely different species, that's what they meant. It is sufficient but not necessary.

It's unclear - the mechanism is far from understood. We get glycine from almost any protein source so that's definitely not it. But oligopeptides can definitely have hormonal effects so who knows, maybe degradation products of collagen exert hormonal effects which lead to increased synthesis. Obviously totally hypothetical

This is incorrect. Collagen is not fully degraded during digestion and polypeptides do enter general circulation. The implications are unclear but there are several studies and meta analyses which point towards applications.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29467346/

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.6b05679

This is not established. Several studies point towards dermatological or joint health application for instance.

https://europepmc.org/article/med/30681787?crsi=662497074&cicada_org_src=healthwebmagazine.com&cicada_org_mdm=direct&client=bot&client=bot

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12937-016-0130-8

https://www.iomcworld.org/open-access/efficacy-of-oral-collagen-in-joint-pain-osteoarthritis-and-rheumatoid-arthritis-46863.html

The breaking down of collagen in the stomach is absolutely not established. In fact I believe individual collagen molecules are quite stable at low pH. Many proteins are pH stable and resist various forms of degradation during digestion. A notable case is the proteins making up gluten, which freely travel to the intestines and are the cause of celiac disease.

No. All real intervals have the same cardinality

No. The cardinality of any real interval, bounded or unbounded, is the same. You can find a bijection between any of them.

Uh mucosal immunity is one of the most important steps to preventing and clearing infection. Barrier immunity takes care of the bulk of pathogens, complement is then the next biggest protection, and even with the antibody response, mucosal antibodies are the first to be produced. The antibody response takes several days to develop, often too late given the stage of disease. Innate immunity is incredibly important to prevent and constrain the course of disease. Some people can live (tough) lives with total deficiency of antibodies, but not a single human has been born alive without complement for instance. Edit: the same goes for skin infections. The skin is the most important barrier, followed by complement, then peripheral immune cells (mast cells, langherans cells, ...). When bacterial infections reach the blood, you're often pretty fucked.

I think it's not that obvious that the effect is sufficient to reduce transmission of disease or course of disease, would need to be proved. Would also need to quantify the amount of smell which causes immune reaction, or if it is the "psychological" reaction to smells or the compounds in the smell / activation of the associated receptors which trigger it. It may well be that covering the smell still leads to activation of "bad smell" receptors and thus immune response.

Source? There are no differences with no treatment afaik

The antigens carried by antigen presenting cells (dendritic etc) are drained through the lymph from the periphery into lymph notes, where various progenitors live. There they recognize antigens and proliferate. You don't want them to be in the periphery because they might miss antigens, and proliferating requires special structures, for example to avoid tissue damage.

So these lymph nodes are hubs where a huge diversity of progenitors is available to recognize any antigen, and which is able to see antigen coming from a significant area in the body. You can think of it as a scout discovering an enemy, bringing the news back to the local camp where all the officers can decide the best course of action.

Freud is a fraud. None of his work was evidence based, and beyond the concept of speech as a means for therapy, most of his theoretical work has been completely debunked. This man and his disciples have probably set psychiatry back decades and muddled it with theories which match astrology in scientific merit.

Cortisol is absolutely not established as the cause of depression.

There is entirely too much focus on humoral immunity in talk about vaccines. It is clear that antigenic drift in SARS cov 2 is extremely rapid and that antibodies are (thankfully) short lived. We will not generate lasting neutralising antibodies with vaccines. But that doesn't matter, the cellular response is extremely strong and much less sensitive to mutations in binding epitopes. For older or immunocompromised people, where t cd8 response is impaired, boosters or long lasting IG are probably the only option for continued protection.

There are no clinical studies to evaluate the safety, except as a booster. Besides at this point almost everyone has immunity one way or the other.

Just link to studies then jeez.