3 years? Probably 10kg of dark chocolate, 15L of hazelnut syrup, and 50kg of protein powder.
Whenever my colleague at the neighbouring desk left her laptop unlocked, I would go in, and create a new Word document saying ALWAYS LOCK YOUR LAPTOP in huge red font. She vowed she would eventually get back at me.
I once took a screenshot of some random text in a Word document with "CONFIDENTIAL" as the background watermark and then I used that screenshot as my lock screen wallpaper. When I locked my laptop and left my desk, she clocked the content of my screen and thought it was finally her moment to get back at me, but... it wasn't.
Wait... Did The Onion buy out CNN?
Also, because of increased healthy lifestyle awareness, we are actually ageing slower than we used to. The clue is in the cigarette the top cartoon smokes. Today we smoke less, we exercise more, we use more sunscreen and we eat healthier, all allowing our bodies to produce more firm collagen in less damaged skin cells.
Breaking Bad. I heard I'm not the only one who started watching it and gave up after the first 2 or 3 episodes that were just setting the scene at a fairly slow (boring) pace. Someone had to convince me to push through them because it gets so much better. It does.
Thank you for the kind reaction.
I recently moved from Reddit to Lemmy (same username) and I took my comments with me.
The target antigens are from human cells, but they are human cells that mutated and hence became cancerous. What Moderna does, is it takes DNA from these cells, sequences it and finds where exactly the mutations occurred. A mutation means that there is a different sequence of amino acids in a protein, which in effect makes it a new and distinct antigen. This way, they select antigens that are present in the melanoma cells, but not in normal cells of the body. Then they take these mutated sites and use them to generate mRNA that will encode them all, be used to synthesise these mutated antigens, and train the immune system to react to them as alien antigens. The treatment described in this article is a combination of the mRNA vaccine with Keytruda, which is a cancer therapy based on an antibody. The antibody targets a protein from the PD-1 / PD-L1 axis. This axis is used by normal cells to tell the immune system not to attack those cells, because they are body's own cells. Cancer cells often mutate like crazy, but then exploit this PD-1 / PD-L1 axis basically to say to the immune system "nothing to see here".
As for Rabies, I think we already have pretty well working vaccines, so we're not really in a dire need for new ones.
As for prions, it would be tricky. The reason prions do what they do is not that they are mutated proteins, but misfolded proteins. This is to say they assume the wrong shape, even though the sequence of amino acids in them is the same as in the healthy version of the protein. And this in turn means that they were synthesised based on a healthy, unmutated version of mRNA. And this in turn means that there is no mutation that the Moderna vaccine strategy could employ to train the immune system to recognise that prion protein.
I think the article is misleading. The studies don't seem to show that SLS causes canker sores, but if you do suffer from them, it will exacerbate them or delay their healing. The article says "studies", while only citing one study, that actually recruited patients who already suffered from the sores. A double blinded cross-over trial concluded that "The number of ulcers and episodes did not differ significantly between SLS-A, SLS-B, and SLS-free. Only duration of ulcers and mean pain score was significantly decreased during the period using SLS-free. Although SLS-free did not reduce the number of ulcers and episodes, it affected the ulcer-healing process and reduces pain in daily lives in patients with [canker sores]." Although I don't have access to the full version, so I can't view the details. By the way, SLS-A was an SLS-free toothpaste spiked with 1.5% SLS, and SLS-B was a commercially available toothpaste with 1.5% SLS in it already.
You can tell that the article is trying to sensationalise something by such phrases as:
"But there’s no reason to accept a hazardous chemical in your toothpaste." You know what else is in your toothpaste? Sodium fluoride. Which is lethal at high enough dose. It's all about the concentration.
"It’s strong stuff — the cleaning solution I use on our garage floor is 50% SLS." Well, yes, if you use it at concentrations ridiculously above the ones found in a toothpaste, of course it's going to be "strong stuff". You know what else is strong stuff? 100% acetic acid. Yet somehow, at 10% we happily consume it as vinegar. By the way, vinegar - great cleaning agent!
Don't get me wrong, if you're sensitive to SLS, by all means avoid it. But I'm not a fan of articles that make blanket statements about a chemical that is mostly harmful in the concentration that it's used in hygiene products. It's another one of those "aspartame gives you cancer" (which it doesn't by the way).
I'm a morning lark, but this annoys me so much! People should be able to work whenever the F they're at their most productive, not when morning larks decided everyone should be.
Lying. They reposted from a Reddit post that shows an eight dollar Starbucks sandwich.
Lol I love how some people share their subjective opinions and call it "the truth".
I don't know whether that's one of the reasons, but limonene, which is one of the scent compounds in lemon, also happens to be a good organic solvent. We routinely use it for some lab procedures, and not because it smells nice.