Open Thread

The China-US meeting in Switzerland is NOT a trade talk. There will NOT be a “substantive” trade deal anytime soon as Trump has claimed, (i.e., he lied.) Here is an overlooked but important detail: China has recently appointed a seasoned trade negotiator, LI CHENGGANG, to be its top negotiator specifically for trade talk. Li is NOT in NOR going to Switzerland this weekend. There will NOT be any trade talk when the person China has appointed to be its head trade negotiator is not even present. The media should pay attention to the detail.

“Nothing in this world is harder than speaking the truth, nothing easier than flattery.” ― Fyodor Dostoevsky

“private capitalists inevitably control the main sources of information. It is thus extremely difficult for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions” –Albert Einstein

“You can’t operate a capitalistic system unless you are a vulture. You show me a capitalist, I’ll show you a bloodsucker.” –Malcolm X

———

A study with a 50,000 sample size looking at genetic association with depression found:
“no gene or gene set produced a statistically significant result after correction for multiple testing. None of the genes or gene sets with the lowest p values appeared to be a biologically plausible candidate.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032720331141

A 2019 study tested genes that had been reported in the scientific literature as being associated with depression or anxiety.
The study was funded by an organization with conflicts of interests. It was performed by a department with conflcits of intersts and the authors containted conflicts of interests.

Result: “No clear evidence was found for any candidate gene polymorphism associations with depression”

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070881

————

A 2019 meta-analysis was performed which included only studies that found any association among genes and a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Table 1 shows that no gene sets were replicated in every study. The gene set with the highest association had a 75% replication rate.
Replication is a primary principal of science. Even when cherry picking out the studies showing no association no genetic association achieved replication.

Figure 3 shows the total association of all genes to be 2.3%. Meaning at most 2.3% of schizophrenia
could be explained by genetics. To put this another way at least 98% of schizophrenia has absolute nothing to do with genetics.

Random genes were also tested by the authors in order to see if perhaps even these results were simply due to experimental error, sampling error, statistical chance, or other biases. They found an association
“in every random subset of genes.” This provided support for the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis being that this tiny genetic association is due to error/chance and is not whatsoever causative (supplementary figure 2).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-019-0410-z

A 2020 study done after the 2019 meta-analysis found similar results with only a 0.5% genetic association with schizophrenia (3% of 17%).

https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/46/6/1353/5872550?login=false
——-

45 years ago the rate of autism was 1 in 10,000.
Today the rate of autism is 1 in 30.
The proposition that in such a short time the populations genes have dramatically changed that much is an extraordinary claim.
Not even the people and children from survivors of our two nuclear bombings experienced genetic changes anywhere close to that magnitude.
But let’s be good curious scientists and take a look.

From a 2019 study which is the largest done.
Previously studies –that have not been replicated– that found associations could at most explain “<5% of the overall liability and far less of the heritability" Any genetic causation would be less than that paltry amount.
The previous largest genome-wide association study to date before the 2019 one "did not conclusively identify single variants at genome-wide significance"

The results of the 2019 study:
"We obtained replication data… An overall replication of the direction of effects was observed (53 of 88 (60%)"
"The observed mean variance explained by PRSs (polygenetic risk for autism) was 2.45%"
If the association found in this one non-replicated study is causative it could at most explain 2.45% of autism.
To put that number another way trying to use someone genes to predict if they have autism is as accurate as making a random prediction.
Bluntly, what genetics has to do with autism, is as a scapegoat and distraction from the mass poisoning going on. Wonder who benefits from that…

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-019-0344-8
—–

As always sci hub can be used to get past paywalls.
https://sci-hub.se/
——

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” ― Richard Feynman

“The very desire to be certain, to be secure, is the beginning of bondage. It’s only when the mind is not caught in the net of certainty, and is not seeking certainty, that it is in a state of discovery.” –Jiddu Krishnamurti

“Truth always rest with the minority because the minority is formed by those who really have an opinion, while the majority is formed by gangs with no opinion.” –Soren Kierkegaard

“Face your fears or they will climb over your back.” –Dune

About Ukraine- skirmishes, encounters, battles are generally won and lost on chance, and the equipment, training and experience levels of individuals. Wunderwaffe (wonder-weapons) do have an effect here. But, campaigns and wars are won and lost on synergies: everything they do has to work together. Actions reinforce each other. Continuity of command and a minimum of mutual sabotage in the command ranks are necessary. By this metric alone, Ukraine is doomed.

As to why this small war has taken this long, compared to the great wars of 100 years ago: back then all sides had legions of surplus farm boys to throw at the front. Now, not even China has this advantage.

A key scientist of ASML, the head scientist who led the teams to create the LPP light source for EUV, he was… *surprise!* a CHINESE. (Okay, maybe it’s not that much of a surprise.)

Dr. LIN NAN. He personally holds many patents for ASML’s EUV.

He is back in China. He is currently leading multiple teams at the Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics to develop SSL, an alternate and more advanced light source for EUV.

I’m gonna make some speculations — by connecting the dots of tech news and information that are publicly available, extrapolate from the connections, and then conjecture with a bit of logics and imaginations:

In China, the trial production of its LDP-based EUV lithography machine is set for Q3 2025 by Huawei + SMIC. Mass production is set for 2026. (LDP is another light-source technology for EUV, more advanced than LPP but less than SSL.) By this time next year, China will have broken through ASML’s EUV monopoly and America’s lithography blockade.. That’s full 12-15 years ahead of what the ASML CEO arrogantly said it would take China to catch up with the West in lithography.

Initially, China’s LDP EUV will not be as good as ASML EUV, but it will be “good enough” to neutralize America’s blockade of ASML’s EUV (and older DUV) to China, i.e., China will achieve self-sufficiency in lithography from America + the Netherlands. China’s LDP machine will also provide a “jump point” for China to take its time to catch up and surpass ASML, most likely in another 3-5 years… which is why China will unveil its SSL-based EUV. Then, it will be game over for ASML: China will make BETTER and CHEAPER lithography machine than ASML, (because the foundations of LDP and SSL are simply superior to ASML’s LPP for EUV,) then China will flood the market with cheap SSL-based EUV and cheaper LDP-based EUV to compete ASML’s overpriced EUV.

Here is the irony: China will bankrupt ASML in 12-15 years. That’s the amount of time that the ASML CEO claimed it would take China to catch up with his company, except, it’ll turn out to be the amount of time for China/Huawei/SMIC to bankrupt ASML.

The US will panic and move on to the next logical escalation: America will try to cut off German optics to China… but it’s already too late, because China has already anticipated this eventuality and inevitability. Zeiss has already been investing in R&D in China for about 3-5 years, and China itself has also been pouring money and resources into researching and developing high-tech optics. China will become self-sufficient in lithography optics in a short few years as well.

All you have to do is to pay attention to the tech news coming out of China, and connect the dots and extrapolate to know America will lose the tech war.

Abbreviation Notes:

LPP = Laser-produced plasma

LDP = Laser Direct Patterning

SSL = Solid-State Laser

They are three alternate/competing light source technologies for EUV.

SSL > LDP > LPP

RE: difficult clue’s GMO’s and pesticides/glyphosate

Several juries have found that not only does Glyphosate cause cancer, but that the manufacture knew and covered it up. They’ve lost in court multiple times, and a bunch more lawsuits are on going. Now the manufacture has warned they may have to stop selling the product because the settlements are too expensive.

In a study comparing Glyosphate concentrations in pregnant women and cognitive effects on their child
“glyphosate is associated with adverse early neurodevelopment”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935124000185

In a study looking at glyphosate levels and teenager’s cognitive skills the results were:
“(Glyphosate) was negatively associated with all neurobehavioral domains,”
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP11383

“In the new study, the dosing of the mice ran for 13 weeks, followed by a six-month recovery period”
“Even a low dose, close to the limit used to set acceptable doses for humans, had harmful effects”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/glyphosate-persistent-damaging-effects-brain-health-cg/

“Our study used a cohort representative of the U.S. adult general population and found a significant negative correlation between urinary glyphosate levels and cognitive function test scores.”
“the odds of having severe depressive symptoms were significantly higher”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393512301664X

Mexico in response to America wanting to force them to be plied with the pesticide issued a report with 140 studies showing the pesticide causes a wide range of harms to human health.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/harms-gmo-corn-glyphosate-mexico-cg/

But don’t worry the experts say the science has proven pesticides are safe! Anyone rejecting this is a dumb conspiracy theorist who should be ignored stat.

@Oakchair
It may be that Glyphosate causes cancer. I do not by any means find that a hurdle too high to jump. But to depend on juries to make that determination is idiotic. I have served on several juries, and if I ever have to go to trial I will decline a jury and leave my fate up to a judge.

@didderent clue
I strongly suspect that the increase in diagnoses of autism has less to do with GMO’s or Glyphosate that it does with the amount of money to be made diagnosing autism.

Re: That California study

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4232964/

“In California, persons diagnosed with autism (and other developmental disabilities) qualify for services administered by the statewide Department of Developmental Services (DDS). In 1999, the California DDS reported that from 1987 to 1998 the number of individuals served under the category of “autism” had increased by 273% (California DDS, 1999). Alarmed by this 273% increase, the California legislature commissioned the University of California Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (M.I.N.D.) Institute to determine whether the increase could be explained by changes in diagnostic criteria. The M.I.N.D. Institute (2002) concluded, on the basis of data we describe next, that there was “no evidence that a loosening in the diagnostic criteria has contributed to the increased number of autism clients served by the [California DDS] Regional Centers” (p. 5). Although this unrefereed conclusion made national headlines and continues to be articulated on innumerable Web sites, it is unwarranted.

The study involved two samples of children who had been served under the California DDS category of “autism”: One sample was born between 1983 and 1985 (the earlier cohort); the other sample was born between 1993 and 1995 (the more recent cohort). Both cohorts were assessed with the same autism diagnostic instrument (an interview conducted with care providers). However, the autism diagnostic instrument was based on DSM-IV criteria—criteria that were not even published until 1994. When the same percentage of children in the earlier and the more recent cohort met the more recent DSM-IV criteria, the researchers imprudently concluded that the “observed increase in autism cases cannot be explained by a loosening in the criteria used to make the diagnosis” (M.I.N.D. Institute, 2002, p. 7).

To understand the fallacy of the conclusion, consider the following analogy, based on male height and graphically illustrated in Figure 1. Suppose the criterion for “tall” was 74.5 in. and taller in the mid-1980s, but the criterion was loosened to 72 in. and taller in the mid-1990s. A diagnostic instrument based on the looser, more recent criterion of 72 in. would identify males who met the 74.5-in. criterion as well as those who met the 72-in. criterion.1 Although a perfectly reliable diagnostic instrument based on a looser criterion would identify 100% of the individuals who meet the looser criterion along with 100% of the individuals who meet the more restricted criterion, a highly reliable instrument might identify about 90% of each group; this is the percentage of each cohort in the California study who met the more recent autism criteria.

Most crucially, broadening the criterion will result in a dramatic increase in diagnosed cases. For instance, census data allow us to estimate that 2,778 males in McClennan County, Texas would be called tall by the more restricted 74.5-in. criterion, and 10,360 males would be called tall by the broader 72-in. criterion; if those two criteria had been applied a decade apart, a 273% increase in the number of males called tall would have emerged—without any real increase in Texans’ height. In the same way, the 273% increase from 2,778 versus 10,360 California children who received services for “autism” in 1987 versus 1998 could well be a function of broadened criteria.

As we have already detailed, the commonly applied diagnostic criteria for autism broadened nationally from the 1980s to the 1990s; thus, it would be unusual if the criteria used for eligibility in California had not also broadened during this time. Two further aspects of the California data suggest that the criteria must have broadened. First, children in the more recent cohort were dramatically less likely to have intellectual impairment: Whereas 61% of the children in the earlier cohort were identified as having intellectual impairments, only 27% of the children in the more recent cohort were so identified. The lower rate of intellectual impairment in the more recent cohort matches recent epidemiological data, and the difference between the two rates suggests a major difference between the two cohorts (e.g., that the more recent cohort was drawn from a less cognitively impaired population).

Second, on two of the three dimensions measured by the autism diagnostic instrument, the children in the more recent cohort were, on average, less symptomatic than the children from the earlier cohort. The researchers stated that although these differences were statistically significant (i.e., they exceeded the criterion of a statistical test), they were likely not clinically significant (i.e., they were likely not of significance to the clinical presentation); therefore, the researchers suggested that these differences should not be taken as evidence that the diagnostic criteria had broadened. However, refer again to the tallness analogy: Comparing two cohorts of males in McClennan County diagnosed according to our more restricted (74.5-in.) versus our broader (72-in.) criterion would probably result in a statistically significant difference between the two cohorts’ average height—but the difference would be just about an inch (i.e., most likely not a clinically significant difference).”

It is true that a lot of people are making a lot of money fearmongering and spreading misleading information about an autism ‘epidemic.’ Weirdly those groups keep telling everyone to be afraid and to keep sending them money and engaging with their content so they make even more money.

mago not magic, not that it matters

DMC: Broadening of diagnostic criteria and better diagnosis are certainly large factors in the increase in autism rates. Another factor is that children who are born prematurely are at a higher risk for autism, and 50 years ago, a lot more premature babies simply didn’t survive. So with more of those premature births surviving into childhood and adulthood, we’re going to see more autistic people as a result of that as well.

@NR
Let’s go through the link posted. We’ll play baseball three strikes and it’s out.
—–
“Although this unrefereed conclusion”
—–
27 Ph.D’s, scientists and researchers along with UCLA and UC Davis conducted a multimillion dollar study funded by the CA government. Likewise, they sourced how their study replicated previous studies on the same topic.
Strike one.

——-
“Both cohorts were assessed with the same autism diagnostic instrument (an interview conducted with care providers)
However, the autism diagnostic instrument was based on DSM-IV criteria—”
—–
“Data for the study came from four main sources: 1) CDER data; 2) Regional Center
charts; 3) The Autism Diagnostic Interview — Revised (ADI-R)*; and 4) a detailed
study questionnaire”

These were different as anyone who bothered to read past the first page would know:
“The Regional Center designation of full syndrome autism, CDER status 1
autism, closely matched DSM-IV criteria”
Strike 2.

The link mentions how the DSM 3 was used for the older groups and the DSM 4 for the newer. It goes for two pages with an analogy.
However, if the authors bothered to actually read the DSM 3 and 4 they’d notice that the DSM 4 made the criteria for autism harder to reach. Meaning this critique strengthens the conclusion that the increase it autism was not due to different diagnostics.
Strike 3.