#rigorous science

[imbibeliving]

Unveiling the Art of Body Contouring: Tools by Imbibe Living

In the pursuit of sculpting our bodies to reflect our inner vitality and confidence, the realm of body contouring has emerged as a beacon of hope. With advancements in technology and a growing awareness of holistic wellness, Imbibe Living stands at the forefront, offering a suite of innovative tools designed to redefine contours and enhance natural beauty. Let’s delve into the essence of these transformative instruments.

Understanding Body Contouring

Body contouring is an art form that harmonizes science with aesthetic aspirations. It encompasses a range of techniques aimed at reshaping and refining the body’s silhouette, addressing areas of concern such as stubborn fat pockets, cellulite, and skin laxity. Imbibe Living approaches this practice with a holistic perspective, acknowledging the interconnectedness of physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

The Imbibe Living Difference

At Imbibe Living, every tool is crafted with a deep reverence for nature’s wisdom and a commitment to harnessing its power for transformative results. Here’s a glimpse into some of the pioneering tools within the Imbibe Living arsenal:

1. Body Sculptor

Designed to stimulate circulation and promote lymphatic drainage, the Body Sculptor utilizes ancient techniques like dry brushing and gua sha alongside modern innovations. Crafted from sustainable materials, this tool encourages the body’s natural detoxification processes while toning muscles and smoothing the skin’s texture.

2. Cellulite Remedy Roller

Say goodbye to dimpled skin with the Cellulite Remedy Roller. Engineered to target cellulite at its source, this roller combines the therapeutic benefits of massage with innovative microcurrent technology. By breaking down fat deposits and encouraging collagen production, it restores skin elasticity and diminishes the appearance of cellulite over time.

3. Contouring Wand

The Contouring Wand epitomizes precision and versatility in body sculpting. Featuring interchangeable heads and adjustable settings, it allows for customized treatments tailored to individual needs. Whether sculpting cheekbones, defining jawlines, or smoothing out stubborn areas, this wand delivers targeted results with unparalleled ease.

Embracing a Holistic Approach

Beyond the physical transformation, Imbibe Living embodies a philosophy of holistic well-being that transcends surface appearances. Each tool is imbued with intention, inviting users to cultivate a deeper connection with their bodies and embrace self-care as a sacred ritual. By fostering a harmonious balance between inner vitality and outer radiance, Imbibe Living empowers individuals to embark on a journey of self-discovery and self-love.

Conclusion

In a world where beauty standards are constantly evolving, Imbibe Living remains steadfast in its commitment to authenticity and empowerment. Through its innovative body contouring tools, it invites individuals to embrace their unique beauty and celebrate the inherent wisdom of their bodies. With Imbibe Living, the journey to radiant self-expression begins – one contour at a time.

[iamthepulta]

How much outdoor experience did you have BEFORE choosing Geoscience as a major? Poll Results and Analysis

Despite total response at 67 people, I think the curve is very interesting. Traveling and being outdoors does seem to be a reason people choose geology.

If I could run the poll again with a larger sample size, I would include Year of Graduation (if possible), to see if there are changing trends over time, and also a Rural Travel/Rural Non-Travel to see if there are specific trends within Rural community responders.

-=- Discussion -=-

Geoscience programs show declining enrollment across the world and many smaller programs have closed due to that lack of enrollment.

I argue from the poll results that this trend might reflect larger cultural trends. The people who choose geoscience are driven by curiosity in the differences of the world around them. Exposure to those differences is enhanced by Travel, second only to the outdoors being readily available in rural areas.

Yet in America at least, travel is often cost-prohibitive except to Middle Class to Upper-Middle Class families. I propose that the decline of geoscience as a major might be connected to a decline in outdoor exposure, whether than be in time available to go hiking, outdoor access, travel being cost-prohibitive, school field trip funding, or suburban areas.

-=- Description of Options Given -=-

Not a lot (grew up in the suburbs/city; no hiking)

Urban Exposure (grew up in the suburbs/city; outdoors a lot)

Travel Exposure (grew up in the suburbs/city; traveled and was outdoors a lot)

Rural Exposure (grew up in a smaller city/town; outdoors a lot)

Familial Exposure (urban or rural community; family member was in geosci)

Familial and Natural Exposure (Lots of outdoor experience with family member in geosci)

[my-fragment-of-peace]

alonso bragging about being the oldest f1 driver while insinuating he'll keep going after this contract ends is so on brand. i hope he breaks every age record and keeps going well through his 70s. good for him.

[voidartisan]

In further news of my grad school research adventures, I looked into a school today that instead of sending me to any kind of normal social media page to see the places where their students had interned, linked to a pinterest board

[sleeplessphantom-0]

I just had 2 midterms today

Calculus 2 and Computer Science

Fuck me

[vizthedatum]

I think a lot of us who are queer, spiritual, neurodivergent, and cultural (outside of Western/European/colonial norms)… get very cast aside by our use of language to describe phenomena in the world.

Language is a tool. So are symbols, actions, and other forms of expression.

These tools evolve and shift - people can describe the same set of phenomena in so many ways.

I see people describe the human condition so rigidly using the DSM-5 and *completely* disregarding any other form of language to be “not clinical” enough to be “real.”

And don’t get me started on biomedical ontologies and standards (of which there are many).

Knowledge curation, organization, ontology, and definition… is an extremely complex problem. It is largely determined by the use of the English language with European colonialist roots (with biases from particular religions).

It’s really upsetting to me that other forms of knowledge base organizations aren’t considered.

Do people understand that modern science is yet another construct used to understand the world? Yes it can be rigorous, and I fully participate in it - but it’s still full of bias… and it’s certainly not infallible.

As a scientist, it’s really discouraging and disheartening to see.

Much of scientific work and innovation/research/development is to keep pushing the boundaries of what we know… and to figure out different ways to measure, test, understand, and explain what we observe.

I think science could benefit from integrating other forms of thinking - and hold it up to various forms of scientific rigor.

[forensicfield]

[fantabulisticity]

Posted July 19, 2022

By Christopher Lane, Ph.D; reviewed by Vanessa Lancaster

Key points

Surveys indicate that 85-90 percent of the public believes low serotonin or a chemical imbalance causes depression.

Among 237 psychology students interviewed, 46 percent had heard the chemical imbalance explanation from a physician.

The serotonin hypothesis has been challenged repeatedly and found wanting, even as it remains popular and influential.

A comprehensive, well-powered, high-quality umbrella review now determines that the theory is “not empirically substantiated.”

Almost as soon as it was floated in 1965 by Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Schildkraut, the serotonin hypothesis of depression—reduced and simplified by pharma marketing to the “chemical imbalance” theory of depression and anxiety—has been subject to critical research and found wanting.

The poor standing of the hypothesis in the scientific literature, however, barely dented its afterlife in textbooks, across clinical and treatment settings, and on mental health apps and websites. Nor has it dispelled the continued use of the phrase as “shorthand” between doctors and patients and in everyday settings, including for quite different mental states and conditions.

The “Chemical Imbalance” Metaphor Takes Root

Revisiting the history of this controversy raises several still-relevant details. In December 2005, as advertising for SSRI antidepressants flooded American magazines, talk shows, and network TV, the result of multibillion-dollar campaigns pitched in this case directly to consumers, Florida-based professors and researchers Jeffrey Lacasse and Jonathan Leo asked pointedly in PLoS Medicine, “Are the claims made in SSRI advertising congruent with the scientific evidence?”

The answer in “Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect Between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature,” their well-researched article, was a resounding no. The resulting “incongruence,” they determined, was “remarkable and possibly unparalleled.”

Lacasse and Leo found repeated evidence that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved the marketing of SSRIs with two phrases still heavily in the subjunctive—that depression “may be due to a serotonin deficiency” and that SSRI efficacy, “modestly” outcompeting placebo, was “presumed to be linked to potentiation of serotonergic activity.” However, the research itself could not identify the precise mechanism.

The FDA had accepted aspirational language that the drugs “help to restore the brain’s chemical balance” and “bring serotonin levels closer to normal,” even though both claims were, and remain, scientifically meaningless.

“There is no such thing as a scientifically established correct ‘balance’ of serotonin,” Lacasse and Leo cautioned more than a decade ago, joining numerous other experts then and now. Additionally, both aspirational claims rest on a hypothesis that follow-up studies would end up contradicting repeatedly. In short, both the hypothesis and the expensive marketing that pushed it into American living rooms rested on a hedge: “Scientists believe that it could be linked with an imbalance of a chemical in the brain called serotonin.”

A Multibillion-Dollar Error

The hedge proved highly effective, even though, as David Healy explained in 2015 in “Serotonin and Depression,” in the BMJ, in practice, it entailed embracing or tacitly accepting “the marketing of a myth.” Through further oversimplification, a revised metaphor of a “chemical imbalance” took root as folk wisdom for multiple, dissimilar conditions listed in the DSM.

Returning to the controversy in “Antidepressants and the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression” (2015), Lacasse and Leo found that while the marketing had shifted emphasis from “correcting imbalances” to “‘adjusting’ or ‘affecting’ neurotransmitter levels,” leading psychiatrists were if anything, more wedded to the “chemical imbalance” metaphor than before.

Some had taken to the airwaves to say that it simplified communication with their patients. Daniel Carlat, the editor of The Carlat Psychiatry Report, explained on National Public Radio when asked what we know about psychiatric medication:

We don’t know how the medications actually work in the brain…. I’ll often say something like the way Zoloft works, is, it increases the level of serotonin in your brain (or synapses, neurons) and, presumably, the reason you’re depressed or anxious is that you have some sort of a deficiency. And I say that [chuckles] not because I really believe it, because I know the evidence really isn’t there for us to understand the mechanism—I think I say that because patients want to know something. And they want to know that we as physicians have some basic understanding of what we’re doing when we’re prescribing medications. They certainly don’t want to know that a psychiatrist essentially has no idea how these medications work (Qtd. in Lacasse and Leo).

The point in reproducing Carlat (who has made several such admissions on national media) was not to single him out but to stress how widespread the thinking and practice he shared so candidly. In 2007, as Lacasse and Leo pointed out, Frances, Lysaker, and Robinson found that among 237 psychology students interviewed, “46 percent had heard the chemical imbalance explanation from a physician.”

Inevitably, the problem of spreading false scientific information dovetails with that of medical ethics and the risk of enabling medically-induced harms. Because physicians swear to uphold the Hippocratic oath Primum non nocere (“First Do No Harm”), Lacasse and Leo questioned “the ethics of telling a falsehood to patients because you think it is good for them.”

They asked more broadly of those repeating the discredited hypothesis, whether as metaphor or oversimplification: “Do you believe it is ethical to present a falsified scientific theory as a fact to a patient? What are the possible negative effects of doing so?”

A significant consequence they anticipated at the time was that patients would realistically “conclude that they have been misled.”

Cut to the Present-day

A major new review of the research—the first of its kind exhaustively reviewing the evidence, published today in the journal Molecular Psychiatry—reaches a strikingly similar conclusion. In “The Serotonin Theory of Depression: A Systematic Umbrella Review of the Evidence,” University College London Psychiatry Professor Joanna Moncrieff and a team of five other top European researchers found “there is no evidence of a connection between reduced serotonin levels or activity and depression.”

The peer-reviewed umbrella review—representing one of the highest forms of evidence in scientific research—was extrapolated from meta-analyses and systematic reviews on depression and serotonin levels, receptors, and transporters involving tens of thousands of participants.

Although “the serotonin hypothesis of depression is still influential,” Moncrieff and coauthors noted, citing widely adopted textbooks published as recently as 2020 and surveys indicating that “85-90 percent of the public believes that depression is caused by low serotonin or a chemical imbalance,” the primary research indicates there is “no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations.”

Among other key findings:

“Research on serotonin receptors and the serotonin transporter, the protein targeted by most antidepressants, found weak and inconclusive evidence suggestive of higher levels of serotonin activity in people with depression.” Widespread use of antidepressants is seen as the likely cause.

The researchers also looked at studies where serotonin levels had been “artificially lowered in hundreds of people” (by depriving their diets of the necessary amino acid that makes serotonin) and found that “lowering serotonin in this way did not produce depression in hundreds of healthy volunteers,” according to a 2007 meta-analysis and several recent studies.

Numerous other reviews on re-examination were found to provide weak, inconsistent, or nonexistent evidence of a connection between serotonin and depression.

The researchers also probed well-powered studies involving tens of thousands of patients that focused on gene variation, including the gene for the serotonin transporter. These found “no difference in the genes between people with depression and healthy controls.” As such, “high-quality genetic studies effectively exclude an association between genotypes related to the serotonin system and depression, including a proposed interaction with stress.”

The researchers also looked at “the effects of stressful life events and found that these exerted a strong effect on people’s risk of becoming depressed—the more of these a person had experienced, the more likely they were to be depressed.”

Legacy Effects of a Discredited Theory

“The popularity of the chemical imbalance idea of depression has coincided with a huge increase in the use of antidepressants,” note Moncrieff and coauthor Mark A. Horowitz in the study’s press release. “Prescriptions for antidepressants have sky-rocketed since the 1990s, going from being rare to a situation now where one in six adults in England and 2 percent of teenagers are prescribed an antidepressant in a given year.”

The practical ramifications of the umbrella review are thus vast and consequential, involving millions of people across multiple countries because the findings are tied to a discredited theory that is still fueling mass prescribing on a global basis.

Moncrieff explained in the press release:

Patients should not be told that depression is caused by low serotonin or by a chemical imbalance and they should not be led to believe that antidepressants work by targeting these hypothetical and unproven abnormalities. In particular, the idea that antidepressants work in the same way as insulin for diabetes is completely misleading. We do not understand what antidepressants are doing to the brain exactly, and giving people this sort of misinformation prevents them from making an informed decision about whether to take antidepressants or not.

Invited to extrapolate the review’s findings for Psychology Today, Moncrieff added:

Antidepressant use has reached epidemic proportions across the world and is still rising, especially among young people. Many people who take them suffer side effects and withdrawal problems that can be really severe and debilitating. A major driver of this situation is the false belief that depression is due to a chemical imbalance. It is high time to inform the public that this belief is not grounded in science.

End of article.

Also:

Joanna Moncrieff et al. Mol Psychiatry. 2022.

Abstract

The serotonin hypothesis of depression is still influential. We aimed to synthesise and evaluate evidence on whether depression is associated with lowered serotonin concentration or activity in a systematic umbrella review of the principal relevant areas of research. PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched using terms appropriate to each area of research, from their inception until December 2020. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large data-set analyses in the following areas were identified: serotonin and serotonin metabolite, 5-HIAA, concentrations in body fluids; serotonin 5-HT1A receptor binding; serotonin transporter (SERT) levels measured by imaging or at post-mortem; tryptophan depletion studies; SERT gene associations and SERT gene-environment interactions. Studies of depression associated with physical conditions and specific subtypes of depression (e.g. bipolar depression) were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies using the AMSTAR-2, an adapted AMSTAR-2, or the STREGA for a large genetic study. The certainty of study results was assessed using a modified version of the GRADE. We did not synthesise results of individual meta-analyses because they included overlapping studies. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020207203). 17 studies were included: 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 1 collaborative meta-analysis, 1 meta-analysis of large cohort studies, 1 systematic review and narrative synthesis, 1 genetic association study and 1 umbrella review. Quality of reviews was variable with some genetic studies of high quality. Two meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining the serotonin metabolite, 5-HIAA, showed no association with depression (largest n = 1002). One meta-analysis of cohort studies of plasma serotonin showed no relationship with depression, and evidence that lowered serotonin concentration was associated with antidepressant use (n = 1869). Two meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining the 5-HT1A receptor (largest n = 561), and three meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining SERT binding (largest n = 1845) showed weak and inconsistent evidence of reduced binding in some areas, which would be consistent with increased synaptic availability of serotonin in people with depression, if this was the original, causal abnormaly. However, effects of prior antidepressant use were not reliably excluded. One meta-analysis of tryptophan depletion studies found no effect in most healthy volunteers (n = 566), but weak evidence of an effect in those with a family history of depression (n = 75). Another systematic review (n = 342) and a sample of ten subsequent studies (n = 407) found no effect in volunteers. No systematic review of tryptophan depletion studies has been performed since 2007. The two largest and highest quality studies of the SERT gene, one genetic association study (n = 115,257) and one collaborative meta-analysis (n = 43,165), revealed no evidence of an association with depression, or of an interaction between genotype, stress and depression. The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration.

[hua-fei-hua]

when i was a kid i really resented the fact that my mom kept forcing us to check out nonfiction books alongside our fantasy novels in order to "broaden our minds" and basically ensure we were learning Real Factsies(tm), but now that i'm older, if i don't go off and learn some Real Factsies(tm) every so often, then i'll end up finding my fictions dull and uninspired

[imbibeliving]

COLLAGEN EYES - Imbibe Living

The future of skincare is Collagen Eyes Lifting Concentrate. This biomimetic formula transcends the ordinary realms of skincare, defying the visible signs of ageing with unparalleled efficacy. This is the seed of youth scientifically formulated to deliver a facelift in a jar. https://imbibeliving.com/

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Anything ending in “Studies” is unserious and should be kept at the kiddie table with a juice box and plastic bowl of alphaghetti.

Because they’re political activist movements hiding out on college campuses and masquerading as scholarship, not actual academic domains of legitimate inquiry, thoughtful exploration and evidence-based conclusions.

[oflgtfol]

i will always love astro but a part of me kinda regrets this and is like maybe i would have faired better in geology. like i do wish i had taken more geology classes i only took that one and i didnt pay more than 5 minutes attention to it

[tattooed-alchemist]

Alchemy is one of the most misrepresented and poorly understood aspects of Western Esotericism. This video takes a look at five misconceptions from both the scientific dismissal of alchemy to the purely spiritual/psychological interpretation of its processes and symbolism.

Recommended Reading:

Linden, Stanton J. (ed.) The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton. 978-0521796620. Nicely edited collection of alchemical primary texts.

Principe, Lawrence. The Secrets of Alchemy. 978-0226103792. An up-to-date history of alchemy.

Newman, William. Newton the Alchemist: Science, Enigma, and the Quest for Nature's "Secret Fire" 978-0691174877. Cutting edge research on alchemy in the 17th century. An amazing wok of scholarship.

Roob, Alexander(ed.) Alchemy & Mysticism. 978-3836549363. A collection of alchemical imagery and symbolism, also a nice coffee table book!

Spiritual / Psychology School of Interpretation

Atwood, Mary Anne. A Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery….(many re-print editions). The first text to introduce the ‘spiritual interpretation” of alchemy.

Eliade, Mircea. The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structure of Alchemy. 978-0226203904. Religious-philosophical interpretation of alchemy.

von Franz, Marie-Louise. Alchemy: An Introduction to the Symbolism and the Psychology. 978-0919123045. An introduction to the Jungian psychological interpretation of alchemy.

[omegaphilosophia]

Demarcating Science: Criteria for Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience

The demarcation problem, which is the challenge of distinguishing science from pseudoscience or non-science, has been a topic of debate among philosophers of science for many years. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but several proposed criteria and approaches have been suggested over time. Here are some potential solutions and criteria for addressing the demarcation problem:

Falsifiability (Karl Popper): According to Karl Popper, a scientific theory should be considered scientific if it is falsifiable. This means that for a theory to be scientific, there must be a way to test it empirically, and in principle, it should be possible to find evidence that could potentially refute or falsify the theory. If a theory is not falsifiable, it falls outside the realm of science.

Empirical Evidence: Another criterion for demarcating science from pseudoscience is the reliance on empirical evidence. Scientific claims should be based on empirical observations, experimentation, and data. If a purported scientific theory lacks empirical support and relies primarily on anecdotal evidence or testimonials, it may be considered pseudoscientific.

Predictive Power: Scientific theories often have predictive power. They can make testable predictions about future observations or experiments. The ability of a theory to make accurate and successful predictions can be seen as a hallmark of scientific validity.

Methodological Rigor: Science typically adheres to well-established and rigorous methods of inquiry, including the scientific method. The presence of systematic and well-documented research methods, peer review processes, and a commitment to critical evaluation can help distinguish science from non-science.

Progressive Research Program (Imre Lakatos): Imre Lakatos proposed a demarcation criterion based on research programs. He argued that scientific research programs should be judged by their ability to generate novel research questions and solutions. A scientific program that continually generates new questions and adapts to new evidence is considered progressive.

Consensus and Peer Review: Consensus among scientists and peer review processes can be used as indicators of scientific validity. Scientific claims that have withstood scrutiny, debate, and rigorous evaluation by experts in the field are more likely to be considered scientific.

Naturalism: Some philosophers argue for naturalism as a criterion, suggesting that scientific theories should be rooted in natural causes and explanations. Any theories invoking supernatural or unobservable entities may be considered pseudoscientific.

Historical Precedent: Examining historical cases of scientific advancement and the criteria used by scientists in the past to distinguish science from pseudoscience can provide insights into demarcation.

It's important to note that these criteria are not always clear-cut, and there may be gray areas where it is challenging to make definitive judgments. Additionally, some philosophers argue that the demarcation problem may not have a single, universal solution and that it may vary depending on the context and the specific scientific discipline under consideration. As a result, the demarcation problem remains a subject of ongoing debate and discussion in the philosophy of science.

[forensicfield]

What Causes Rigor Mortis?

Ans. Muscle transverse tubules, a part of the sarcoplasmic reticulum, release calcium ions when action potentials delivered by the nerves reach their target muscles. The concentration of calcium ions within a muscle fibre is controlled by the ....

(more…)