The flagged post didn't put it eloquently but the sentiment is right, and complaining about naming violates HN rules about not complaining about tangential issues. As it is they've at least temporarily ruined the discussion by having the top post be feigned concern about something that's not at all material to the content.
>Data scientist here who spent a couple of years working with Unreal (to produce high end data visualizations)
That sounds amazing, could you share some of your visualizations?
> Cryptococcal meningitis is the most common cause of central nervous system infection in people living with HIV worldwide.
Isn't HIV encephalitis more common?
I think the commenter is referring to acquired HIV encephalitis caused by direct HIV infection which I was also under the impression was the #1 CNS infection in HIV patients.
My teaching (in radiology) was HIV > toxoplasmosis > cryptococcosis for CNS infections in HIV+ but maybe we're out of date or this order is sepcific to the US/Canadian population.
Anecdotally I've definitely seen more toxo than crypto. I've also seen more white matter disease in HIV patients than either but the MRI findings aren't specific so I don't know what the final path was on those cases.
In our HIV patients we see more more cryptococcal meningitis than CNS toxoplasmosis. Crypto is typically not going to have any significant radiologic abnormality unlike toxo in which imaging plays a large role in diagnosis. So I'm guessing, being a radiologist, you've got a sampling bias that favors toxo.
PO amphotericin B would be a huge boon in treating these patients and shortening hospital stays. Outpatient Ampho B is not a good option in most cases.
Just in case it's not clear I am by no means claiming domain expertise, merely stating that what I was taught and my understanding was similar to the initial comment I replied to hence the caveats and soft language. My statement should not be read as contradicting an ID expert or claiming that the author of the article is incorrect.
> In our HIV patients we see more more cryptococcal meningitis than CNS toxoplasmosis. Crypto is typically not going to have any significant radiologic abnormality unlike toxo in which imaging plays a large role in diagnosis. So I'm guessing, being a radiologist, you've got a sampling bias that favors toxo.
Agree crypto is much more subtle on imaging than either HIV encephalitis or toxo, the most common finding we see is dilated PVS which is nonspecific (particularly without priors). I only mentioned my anecdotal experience as it corresponds with what's taught to us but I agree it's highly susceptible to bias and I don't consider it evidence.
For example on StatDx (UpToDate for radiologists):
>[Cryptococcus is the] most common fungal infection in AIDS patients
>3rd most common [CNS] infection seen in AIDS patients (HIV > toxoplasmosis > Cryptococcus)
This could very well be out of date/incorrect, they don't give in-text citations like UpToDate so I'm not sure where these specific statements are coming from.
Do you have a reference handy? If so I can submit it as feedback on the article to get it updated/reviewed.
Honestly there is conflicting information about which is more prevalent (toxo or crypto). From what I've found the sources that site toxoplasmosis as most common are older, and the ones reporting cryptococcal meningitis as more common are more recent. I suppose the incidence may have shifted since the 90s. I don't really know.
Anecdotally I see more crypto (private practice ID in southeast US).
Interesting. Probably did shift then, it would fit the pattern of epidemiological changes taking a while to percolate to radiology and as it's far more likely we miss crypto on MRI than toxo we probably wouldn't notice a change in our reporting incidence to make a radiologist question that ranking.
Thanks for taking the time to search and comment. Always appreciate learning from my clinical colleagues + now I can flex a new obscure fact to radiology trainees like a proper academic physician.
What if it REALLY is too expensive? You do realize that there are studies which literally cost millions of dollars? Getting funding for original studies is hard enough, good luck securing additional funds for replication.
Wow, that's really terrible list when on top you've got "Marvel's newest Captain America is an LGBTQ+ activist" as a fulfillment for "Captain America Rebooted As Feminist, Atheist, Transgender Hydra Agent"
> Is a bombastic Wagner opera more or less beautiful than a simple, haunting, short song by The Cranberries?
It's amusing that you try to make this point by comparing extremely talented musicans. For every cranberries there are millions of rightfully forgotten medicore bands just as for every beauty there are many, many more medicore or unattractive people.
But that is my point. They are both extremely talented but they are different directions of beauty and different directions of talented. If you limited your ideal of what was beautiful to being a Wagnerian opera, you'd miss out everything else, including other extremely talented musicians who are talented in a different way.
I don't make the point that there are /not/ millions of rightfully forgotten mediocre bands any more than I make the point that ugliness does not exist; ugliness certainly does exist and it certainly is common.
Climate deniers are not people who discuss whether methane is 28x or 20x as strong as CO2, but rather people that do not believe in global warming (or our responsibility for it) at all; that's not skepticism, that's blind faith.
Relative to what things looked like 10-20 years ago, is there still a meaningful contingent of climate change deniers? As far as I can tell, most of those people have accepted the reality but disagree on how we should approach it. Even in the most extreme case--looking at Republicans in the US Congress, steeped in fossil propaganda and owing many of their elections to gerrymandering--and using a broad definition of climate change denialism, deniers are (very slightly) in the minority
At this point we have to consider people who deny that climate change is caused by humans to be climate deniers, since they are advocating for no change in behavior which is the same as people who outright deny that it's happening.
I've heard these arguments: (a) that we don't have the evidence to confirm that climate change is anthropogenic, and (b) that we shouldn't change our behavior. My understanding is (b) is not tied to (a), but rather that most claims of (b) come out of different views on conservation, what "nature" is, what's achievable with technology, and how different approaches to climate change might impact human quality of life.
And (b) is not really that we _shouldn't_ change our behavior, but that the most popular ideas for how we should are varying degrees of infeasible, harmful, or fascistic.
The "right" on this issue is largely misunderstood. Those pushing for a shift to renewables and a lifestyle change in wealthier nations deserve better literature on what their opposition is advocating for and against: https://compactmag.com/article/energy-lysenkoism
What behavior change should people advocate for to not be considered climate deniers? It’s starting to sound more like a temperance movement than a serious attempt to solve a problem.
Yeah, it's like a religion at this point. There are many meaningful debates to be had but people just react very emotionally and dogmatically.
What is the degree of human causation?
How much can be imputed to solar cycles at any given moment of time?
What % of CO2 is produced by humanity?
Is there a possibility of actual catastrophe?
Should pollution reduction and cleanup be prioritized over carbon capture/reduction?
I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. I think the 'science' is junk. I do think pollution is a the number one issue facing humanity, and we're doing nothing about it, because all of our collective energy is being directed at a red herring.
Entire ecosystems are being destroyed by chemical and mining industries, not just ones used for batteries. We've polluted every water source on the planet. Just look at the chemicals they're spraying on crops. We're completely over fishing the oceans. We're paving the best farm land in the world to put up shopping malls.
Climate change, even if it's being caused by people, is so far down the list of concerns I couldn't are less about it.
> I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change.
You can't just say that and not give a reason (unless "the science is junk" was the reasoning needed for any level-headed person to arrive at the same conclusion as you), at least not if you want to be taken seriously. Bit like saying that the sky being blue is just an optical illusion and it's really purple because the science on why it's blue being bogus and the real-world observations being just a coincidence.
It's so far out there and so casually said that I'm again not sure if this thread is just full of flame bait or legitimate opinions. Do people that believe there is no major conspiracy just not open these threads anymore in comparable numbers to those who believe in a conspiracy? Or do you actually believe the opposite of what you wrote but it's way funnier to cause this waste or time going back and forth over it?
They can, because the purpose of the statement is to answer a question I asked about what people believe. There are other drivers of climate change, other seriously impactful greenhouse gases even. In light of their acknowledgment that pollution is humanity's biggest problem, and without more of an understanding of their specific beliefs, it's completely disingenous to compare what they're saying to "the sky is really purple".
On the science-being-junk point, the science on climate change is highly correlative and I don't blame someone for wanting to hold that science to a higher standard. (I understand the arguments why it's ok that the science is less classically scientific, I'm not trying to stake a position here, I don't care, please don't start a flame war with me)
And the rest of their comment is totally reasonable. Ecological collapse __is__ a much more complex and unambiguously serious problem which, depending on your view, is either a bigger risk than climate change or a superset of it. At least with climate change we have silver linings like a possible increase in arable land just as we're hit with a species-threatening rolling food crisis.
Maybe you never heard that Bill Gates is going to have “climate lockdowns” after covid, or “control the food supply.” But among half the voting population this is a common belief.
The most extreme voices are always amplified. In one corner we have people raising alarms over hypothetical ecofascism (misdirecting awareness of the real threat of increasing and increasingly-corporatized authoritarianism); in another we have people pushing for carbon capture methods that could create the next global public health crisis (https://www.vesta.earth/approach -> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8609536/ ); in another we have people who want to build reservoirs with nukes; in another we have people like me who want to see NAWAPA happen despite all the ecological risks and expected archeological + cultural losses. There are plenty of circles like this and none of them are even a plurality
