We should also not ignore the fact that USAID was responsible for many hundreds of millions (if not more) in fraudulently directed contracts and spending [1].
And that makes those deaths fine and dandy, or what do you mean now? When I go to the hospital I don't expect to be killed to fix my cancer, even though it would indeed make me cancer free.
The problem is that the cancerous cells are themselves descended from healthy cells; other than the small differences that make them cancerous, they are in fact the same thing.
Many of the cutting edge immunotherapies for cancer essentially teach the immune system to target the cancerous cells.
However, in combination with an autoimmune disease like Chrons where the immune system has already learned to react to healthy cells, there is a much higher chance that an immunotherapy intended to target only cancerous cells also causes the immune system to target more healthy cells.
Yes, exactly. The specific risk for Crohn's is that the amped up immune system will rapidly kill ALL the gut cells that they've been pissed about for decades.
For the unfamiliar: Crohn's is to guts what eczema is to skin. They are both autoimmune diseases where the immune system attacks a specific kind of healthy cell. Unhelpful.
First is Hanlon’s Razor; “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. It appears to be especially applicable here.
Second is that this kind of information (with far richer data) is already accessible to and used by corporations at scale; think credit bureaus, background checkers, etc.
Those "razors" (Occam's, Hanlon's, etc) are just heuristics, not axioms. At what point you're supposed to stop assuming root cause is just stupidity? given the priors one can perfectly asume malice right away.
I have a bunch of related questions so I will drop them all here:
* You mentioned focusing the spectrum on humans, but I have always wanted to have light that works well for both humans and plants (e.g. houseplants) as they are also beneficial for human spaces. Why not do both?
* Exposure to near IR has significant health benefits and seems like it should be included in an ideal lighting fixture that attempts to replicate the sun:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9855677/
What do you mean when you say IR can be produced in other ways more efficiently?
* How does your product compare with the Yuji Skyline?
For broadband IR, using a gas IR heater will give you the cheapest output - followed by an electric heater. Hard to compete with devices design specifically for heating when you are trying to do fancy optics in a compact form factor at the same time.
Yuji is similar to a lot of Chinese brands doing something similar which is a backlit Raileigh Scattering panel. The show images of the sun in their marketing and sharp sunbeams on the wall, but these are complete fiction. The also advertise color tuning, but the only natural color they can produce is a blue because Rayleigh Scattering doesn't allow very good color control. Still, for some applications like wall washing if you don't need a dynamic sky color and you can hide the view of the sun it could be a reasonable option.
We haven't researched plants a ton, but did some test to confirm they can grow under this light. Here is a cool time lapse video showing this in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TDIVnXfE9I
It’s not even legal for them to try to compete. Even if someone preferred to pay more for the convenience the brick and mortar shops aren’t allowed to charge a premium over the online pharmacies.
According to one of my local pharmacies (that closed in the last year), there are laws in some states preventing brick and mortar stores from imposing additional fees over online pharmacies. Reference in a sibling comment.
There is no law against a pharmacy owner from charging whatever they want.
However, most pharmacies enter into contracts with various groups, such as the government, insurance companies, etc so that they effectively give away their right to charge what they want.
> There is no law against a pharmacy owner from charging whatever they want.
On closing, one of my local pharmacies claimed otherwise and referenced the following:
> states have enacted legislation prohibiting certain PBM clients from imposing additional co-payments, deductibles, limitation on benefits, or other conditions (“Conditions”) on covered individuals utilizing a retail pharmacy when the same Conditions are not otherwise imposed on covered individuals utilizing home delivery pharmacies. However, the legislation requires the retail pharmacy to agree to the same reimbursement amounts and terms and conditions as are imposed on the home delivery pharmacies.
Interesting. I guess that sort of qualifies, even though a pharmacy owner can technically choose to not enter into any agreements.
The government is at the root cause of wanting to squeeze all players in the healthcare business, since public rancor reached a tipping point in the late 2000s and ACA was passed. Pharmacists just got shafted first because they were the easiest to squeeze due to supply and demand. Doctors were next with the insertion of physician assistances and nurse practitioners.
Yes, pricing regulations forced brick and mortar pharmacies to sell drugs below cost. Several closed in my area in the last few years and this was one of their cited reasons why.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/usaid-...