I wonder if someone could give me feedback on this. I heard that basically all cancer cells switch over to aerobic respiration, ie fermentation, and that in this metabolic mode they can use glucose and the amino acid glutamine as fuel but not ketones. So some people have treated their cancer by eating zero carbohydrates and taking a special drug that disables glutamine, doing so intermittently, and they have seen incredible results from that.
A ketogenic diet or even a less restrictive lower carbohydrate diet can contribute to a slowing of the cancer growth for some cancers because cancer metabolizes large amounts of glucose. But keep in mind that many cancer patients cannot afford to lose weight, which makes such dietary changes very difficult.
The incredible stories that you hear are often true (stage 4 cancer remissions do occur) but usually involve selection bias. Usually it is hard to know what exactly worked, and it isn't going to work for everyone else.
If you are interested in looking more deeply into complementary cancer treatments I would recommend looking into the work of Ralph Moss.
There are many successful examples with such a diet. Here's an account from a person who successfully treated inoperable and aggressive brain cancer with his own protocol, with only animal foods:
I urge people who are tempted to downvote to look up "Zsófia Clemens" and "Paleomedicina", and look into the "paleolithic ketogenic" protocol. Paleomedicina is run by researchers and doctors, and they are treating many "incurable" diseases, including cancer, with a very high fat ketogenic diet based on animal foods.
The most succint explanation I have can give about how it works is that it resolves gut permeability, and puts the patient in a very ketogenic state.
I myself am in remission from multiple sclerosis with such a diet.
I think people need to reconcile with the fact that California is for people who have very high power careers or are career protected. Either that or work in service. It was too good to last very long. Just move somewhere else and embrace the weirdness.
I was watching a presentation given by the MGT project manager at cal tech and he mentioned that the MGT has a lower diffraction limit than the JWST. I think “diffraction limit” was the term he used, I don’t remember. The idea was that the images are supposed to be sharper. I was very confused about that. Why build JWST if MGT is going to maker cleaner images?
The diffraction limit is the fundamental resolution limit of a telescope. This is the size of "spot" that will be created on the camera sensor for a single point of light like a star [1].
Its easy to calculate, just take the wavelength of the of light you want to observe and divide it by the diameter of the primary mirror (and multiply by ~1.2).
For example, for JWST observing in the mid-infrared, say 4micron, with a 6.5 meter diameter mirror, has a resolution limit of:
4e-6 / 6.5 = 6.15e-7
Or about 0.6 micro-radians (astronomers would normally use arcseconds but leaving in radians for clarity).
This is just the theoretical limit though, it's reduced by any imperfections in the optics, and for telescopes on the ground, it's limited by the blurring of the Earth's atmosphere to about 4 micro-radians.
For narrow fields of view, however, ground-based telescopes can use adaptive optics to compensate for this shimmering/blurring in real time and reach close to their theoretical diffraction limit. Plus, they can be much bigger since we don't have to launch them into space. I'm not familiar with the MGT but this might be how it will surpass JWST in terms of resolution (which again also depends on the wavelength).
For infrared observations though, a huge effect that can't be compensated for is sensitivity. At mid-infrared wavelengths, the Earth's atmosphere actually glows and makes it much harder to see faint sources. This is one of the ways JWST will really shine.
[1] Note however that you can still do things like measure the position of an object to less than the diffraction limit using e.g. centroiding. But you can't tell if there are two objects or one below this limit.
I'll add to this that resolution is not the only metric by which you can judge a telescope. One major advantage that space telescopes have is that their environment is much more stable, making calibration (for example, of the flux of a source) easier. On Earth, the weather changes from night to night, or even from minute to minute. You're effectively looking through a constantly changing, semi-opaque filter - the atmosphere.
Ground-based telescopes have their own advantages, like the fact that they can be much larger and therefore can collect much more light.
This is just to say that both space- and ground-based telescopes are useful, and have their own strengths.
I'm just a rube but in general there are two issues:
1 - the atmosphere distorts and filters out a lot of light in various wavelengths. MGT likely has better resolution, but only for light that reaches it.
2 - JWST is primarily for infrared. Given blackbody radiation of the equipment itself can create a bunch of noise there, it's important to keep the equipment as cool as possible.
MGT is limited to the light that filters through the atmosphere. JWST will be tuned to longer wavelengths (redshifted older objects) that can only be seen in cold space.
Maybe MGT isn't limited by diffraction but rather by atmospheric distortion (or residual distortion, because presumably they do what they can to correct it)? Just a guess, I'm not an astronomer.
Pain has been localized to a particular region of the brain? When?
I’m sure that the location of pain processing in the brain has been known for a long time. Opto-genetics has been around a long time too. I’m sure that this has already been done. Just like neuralink and neural pixels.
Every time you mess with the brain you are messing with a tuned system of interdependencies. There will be counter-intuitive consequences from doing something like this. It might interfere with your ability to go into shock after injury. It might perturb fundamental bits of your brain resulting in psychiatric injury. The only way to find out is to try it. Sign me up. There will be winners in the basket of simple electrode interventions.
People need to wake up and face the fact that we are being monitored by an alien race. A trained observer and fighter pilot doing exercises off the coast of Santa Barbara has gone on record saying that he saw an alien moving at thousands of miles per hour. The craft actively jammed his radar which is an act of war. The New York Times and other major news outlets have reported on this.
Except the fact that lots of things can move that quickly, like an atmospheric plasma phenomenon. When they say “actively jammed his radar,” all they are saying is that the object emitted a scattered signal of radar light which lots of things could do, including things that don’t have anything to do with sentient life.
Watch "Phenomenon". Many countries have experienced similar issues. Soviet Union was very worried about UFO reports near its nuclear sites. Also the NYT story about the F18s didn't really go into much detail but Mexico also had similar experiences.
A plasma can produce a lot of noise on the RF spectrum. Something of that size and that distance from the surface can clearly jam quite a lot of equipment. I wonder if radio amateurs caught interferences on those days.
