Usually I'd really be ticked off by the snarky rule-breaking comments about how obvious this is. There are good reasons to study things generally considered common sense.

But this...uh, seriously? Seriously? This is pretty explicitly saying x=x

You're thinking of the canned stuff—sugar dissolved in skim milk, with xanthan gum to allow it to retain bubbles. Real whipped cream is much more caloric.

You're kidding, right? Who do you think owns the vaping brands with the biggest market share? Look into that before spouting this nonsense.

Where are you getting that? The methodology doesn't specify sex at all, and the word "male" only occurs once in the entire document, in the title of one of the references. Would you mind please pointing to the section where you got that?

What do you mean by saying "that is easier for the insulin to work on"? Fat and carbs, when eaten together, produce vastly higher spikes in blood glucose levels, so wouldn't that be much more difficult for a diabetic?

Edit: also, be careful with all that rollin' and a wheelin'.

Because size matters! If a manufacturer is willing to pay 10¢ more for a thinner battery that can stay alive as long as the one they used in their last model, well, someone is gonna do the research beforehand so they can try to capitalize on the tech.

Is there actually a difference? One could just as easily say "I tried to make him feel as though he mattered, but he thought my efforts were contrived". They're synonymous.

No but matter is energy. Squares and rectangles situation

I was with you until the end...you didn't seem too haughty until the ad hominems :-p that person just didn't have a real argument. But don't get baited! These people are fanatics. Freud's ideas are easy to understand, which is probably why they're still so popular. Most people don't seem to like being told that their understanding of things is wrong. For some reason laypeople who are "into psychology" get especially defensive about Freud and Jung, even though they've been considered irrelevant by the field for decades and decades.

Believe me, I do, hahaha! It is not the most enjoyable way to be. The years doing physical labor before returning to college were not kind to me.

You don't seem to interpret language in the same way as the rest of the English-speaking world. Most people understand the concept of hyperbole.

It makes for a stronger point to have two separate sentences than to say "everything (except one thing)" in one go.

If that's your entire argument, I guess the overwhelming consensus among scientists is doing pretty well.

Edit: the guy deleted an unreasonable comment; this is a response to it. Just had to call him out on a fallacious argument.

Physical labor invariably damages the body, it doesn't keep it fit.

The opinion expressed in his comment is pretty well representative of the opinion of basically every modern researcher, even in psychology. The only people who still like Freud are Freudian psychoanalysts, who are taking advantage of his continued romanticization in the popular imagination.

For the love of God, if you interpreted that person's comment as narcissistic, read one of Freud's works...you'd think he was touching himself fervently while he wrote it.

Freud would have loved to study that guy, and his unconscious biases (against someone with a negative opinion of him, Freud) and his irrational, fevered brain would have led to him saying that guy really just wants to sleep with his own mother.

There's a reason science ignores him today. Literally the only thought of Freud's that has carried over is the concept of the subconscious mind—that mental events occur of which people are not aware.

If you are not aware of how thoroughly the rest of Freud's ramblings have been debunked, then I'm afraid you haven't been exposed to even a 101-level of information.

Everything Freud ever said (except one thing) has been thoroughly refuted, debunked, and ridiculed by genuine empirical science.

The only thing that has carried over is the concept of the subconscious—the mental events occur of which we are not aware.

And he didn't even start the field of psychology.

Edit: Since you had such a problem with the colloquial language used to write the comment, I added the parenthetical aside.

I also would like to add that modern psychology is not composed of improvements on Freud's nonsense, again except in the case of the subconscious (but only its existence). Modern psychology is basically entirely composed of refutations of Freud's ideas. And yes, that is how science works, and that's precisely why his ideas shouldn't be given attention in popular discourse.

That is why clinical trials are conducted. New drugs don't make it to the market if they are dangerous.

This is pretty clearly only referring to the people who are pregnant.

I think you've misunderstood the vast majority of what you've read. You're making assumptions about the authors' intent and motivations when there really isn't evidence to suggest those to be the case. For example, it's very clear that they weren't trying to say "masks are bad" as you asserted, and the later statement in no way reads as a complaint about government regulation.

I kind of wonder if you just anticipated that someone could try to use this study to say those things and then subconsciously projected that anticipation onto the authors themselves? Because you've read a lot into this paper that just isn't there.

Edit: I do want to add that your criticism of using RH as a proxy is not included in my comments here...that is pretty reasonable.

That's different...it is fiber, so it blocks the absorption of a significant amount of what you ingest

This sort of fits in with how they're still used in the regions where they evolved...for roasted seeds.

I didn't think I even posted that, I'm fairly certain I was going to ramble on a bit (on topic of the post) but maybe that happened in my pocket. Didn't mean to be snarky!

Assuming you mean "inconclusive"?

The post's title is markedly different from the article's title. I think OP has imposed an assumption of causality. Unfortunately, I can't investigate any deeper at the moment because I'll be late for a very important date. I'll leave it to the mods.

SSRIs tend to have a rather broad binding affinity. Most of them bind not only to serotonin transporters, but also norepinephrine, dopamine, and 2,700 other things to a lesser degree. Especially curious are factors like agonism of the poorly-understood sigma receptors, which now seem heavily implicated in depression, and also the fact that many SSRIs have been demonstrated to affect NGF and/or BDNF, which modulate plasticity. So the action on serotonin may well be completely irrelevant. Since depression is a disorder of the default mode network, wherein (essentially) the channels of communication become so well established that it is very difficult to break free, there is a whole lot of chatter in the research community about how we are all but convinced now that the neuroplastic effects are more responsible for improving depression symptoms than anything to do with serotonin. But there is also a very compelling reason to believe sigma receptors might be involved, because many drugs known to work as rapid antidepressants share sigma agonism in common (and very little/nothing else).

It is not true with an unbiased assessor.

This sort of rampant anti-intellectualism is going to lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it.

Godsake, have you actually read the diagnostic criteria? I get the impression that you haven't, especially when considering that there are neural and genetic correlates of NPD.