This site is full of people perfectly capable of reading most studies. I would much rather see these links go to studies than endless clickbait articles about studies.
The conclusion of the study show that about 30% of the women in the study from 2017-2014 tested positive for one of several types of HPV infection. This does appear to be a reduction from an earlier 2013 study but the earlier study was by different authors with different methodology so gauging the scale of the reduction is not straightforward. My opinion is that a safe conclusion of the study is that HPV prevalence has not increased.
> Infection with HPV types covered by the vaccine (HPV16/18) has been almost eliminated. Before vaccination, the prevalence of HPV16/18 was between 15–17%, which has decreased in vaccinated women to < 1% by 2021. However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women.
The conclusion seems to be that the vaccine is extremely effective at preventing infection by the strains included in the vaccine. One might reach a stretch conclusion and infer that the 9-valent vaccine would be even better as it would (probably) dramatically reduce the risk of several of the remaining “high-risk” variants.
The study is linked early in the article and is fairly dense, the article summarized it well and is a lot more readable.
16/18 are the most carcinogenic strains, they have been close to eradicated in Denmark. "Denmark close to wiping out leading cancer-causing HPV strains after vaccine roll-out" is the full headline and 100% accurate.
Those were the only two high risk strains covered by the vaccine used in the time frame studied. The study covers the first cohort of girls given the 2008 version of the vaccine when they recently reached age to start screening. It is expected to not see other strains affected in this study, even though current vaccines are broader. The total number of high risk HPV cases in the study went down post-vaccination.
The notion of numbered strains of HPV is about diverging lineages going back hundreds of thousands of years in a highly conserved, slowly mutating virus. They are not comparable to things like seasonal COVID or flu strains.
> about 30% of the women in the study from 2017-2014 tested positive for one of several types of HPV infection.
That number was referring to different strains not covered by the vaccine. The study says the rate of infection dropped to less than 1% among those strains the vaccine protects against.
I have a home in the southwest that is offgrid and runs entirely off solar. It has a 43kwh battery that covers 100% of it's needs including AC. It has a 4kw solar array.
The batteries shipped to your home inclusive of all taxes and fees, UL listed, are only $5,400 today from a variety of reputable suppliers.
This is obviously different than urban london but I wanted to point out just how economical this is for huge swaths of the country and how absolutely absurd some of the pricing I see on things like tesla powerwall are.
Note: There are a lot of components to an installed battery system that effect pricing such as racking, wires, busbars, breakers, etc, etc. I am referring only to the enclosed battery units with BMS.
The ratio between storage capacity and production power seems way too low, unless your daily consumption is ~10-15kWh and your batteries are over spec for harsh winter days (and then you’d need couple of sun days to recover).
Are you sure about these numbers?
In it's location the solar is very effective, the 4kw is the actual generation rather than a label rating. 100% full sun, no shade, no clouds. The array typically generates over 20kw per day. The house is pretty efficient and the weather is very nice both summer and winter. This is not an area with a harsh winter or summer.
Shade and clouds of any kind, even very minor, have a HUGE effect on the production of a solar array.
Absolutely. Clouds also have a profound effect on solar output, I think much more than people realize. I am not english but my understanding is that london has a lot of clouds.
I don't believe they are UL certified, but Dumfume sells 3.6kwh (300ah-12v) lifepo4 batteries for $320. 15 of those would get you 54kwh for <$5k. Might be tough to be anywhere near that point for UL certified only, though.
It’s an NEC violation (and also incredibly reckless) to connect electrical equipment that has not been tested by a NTRL. [0]
No inspector will sign off on a non-listed piece of electrical equipment, especially for a homeowner.
I repeat, do not connect electrical equipment to your home’s electrical distribution network unless it is tested by one of the labs listed in the link below, especially if it is hardwired.
That's 50KWH of battery, plus the 10.8KW of solar, inverters, etc., all for $17K. That system is microgrid (not grid following) capable; so, you can run it during a blackout. The switchover is pretty good, too, so you don't need a second backup system.
If I had to recommend in all in one kit, this september 2025, I would recommend an EG4 kit from Santan Solar. At brief glance they appear to be a stronger value and is from a company with a pretty strong customer service record. This is not sponsored in anyway.
Ya, the OP is not telling the truth. One there isn't a "variety", second they aren't UL listed at that price. I've spent months researching this space for an off grid setup and these are the two best setups direct from China from a cost standpoint for 15 kWh. Neither are UL listed:
It would be multiple batteries totaling that. Stock and prices are constantly changing but RUiXU, EG4 and EcoWorthy are widely available brands with UL listed options. Will Prowse's website has a page dedicated to code compliant batteries and there are several long lists and excel sheets on the diysolarforum.
If it's anything like my slice of the southwest, what works there may not work for a majority of Americans.
Even when it gets very hot in the day(100+), the nights almost always drop down to 63 or less. Meaning if you have a well sealed house you can suck up cold air during the night and ride it out in the day and have very low cooling costs. Coupled with low humidity from an arid environment means you can also let the house get hotter before it feels like it is time to turn on the AC.
This area has few days over 100 but does see relatively cool nights. It is an ideal area for this. I would say from southernmost california to southernmost texas, this basic setup is pretty workable and that includes something around 50 million americans. Regulator hurdles in some places make it impossible though. Costs are going to scale up mostly in line with the heating/cooling requirements and cloudiness of your area.
My panels are ground mounted and pointed in the ideal direction. I think this contributes to their efficiency because the ground helps cool them during the hottest periods but it is a tricky thing to nail down. On a previous home I had roof mounted panels and they seemed to perform much worse, difficult to identify the exact reason though.
That is a much more complex topic driven by the regulations where you live. Where my house is, there is more or less no regulation and you can do as you please. In a purely technical sense there is not a lot of knowhow beyond basic electrical understanding, to setup these systems. Physically speaking these 280ah or larger battery setups are VERY heavy, hundreds of pounds per unit.
It is in a utility room with some normal fire resistant features, walls are block and the electric inverters are mounted to cement board. The batteries cells themselves are in the steel cased battery boxes which help to limit potential fire risk. Very importantly these are lithium iron phosphate NOT lithium ion. There is still some fire risk with lifepo3 batteries but it is completely different than the thermal runaway possible with lithium iron.
People seem to get really mad and accusatory over these sorts of things which is why I hate posting brands and such. The information changes very frequently as to what the "best" offer is. The diysolarforum is a very good resource to find the latest information.
My battery is 3 separate "48v" x 280ah units in parallel. There is no grid so I am not sure what you mean by coupled. The batteries output DC to inverters which output AC. It is several years old at this point, probably the better value is in "48v" x 320ah setups now. The breakers/busbars, etc are setup for max discharge of 200A but in practice I have never gotten anywhere near that.
As electrician I install PV systems and the Chinese have nice battery+inverter combos. Inverter feeds the battery at 480V@10A DC and then the battery later delivers 3-5 kW back over the inverter. Batteries are modular and can go up to 50 kwh. 10kW rated inverter with ~10 kWp panels fully charges 10 kWh battery in couple hours and produces additional 40-50 kWh on a sunny day (southern Germany). Probably the advantage of these products is high voltage and system integration. Sadly I have no good advice for your setup.
I did not name specifics because things are constantly changing in this market and these threads tend to live for years. Stock and prices are constantly changing but RUiXU, EG4 and EcoWorthy are widely available brands with UL listed options. Will Prowse's website has a page dedicated to code compliant batteries and there are several long lists and excel sheets on the diysolarforum.
Eco Worthy is not UL Listed and 45 kWh of RUiXU/EG4 is $10k+. Everything you've said is pretty spot on except for 45 kWh UL-listed batteries at $5,400.
This is a sketchy article about a study which is not even named because it has not yet been presented. It will be presented in the next week. I would take this entire thing with a grain of salt.
The website also has a bunch of other sketchy articles playing up the alleged “dangers” of cannabis, usually by the classic approach of conflating correlation with causation.
I'll refrain from suggesting this to be deliberate on the authors' part, but there's obviously some bias at play here.
The article differs substantively from the actual conclusions of the study. This study shows a minor correlation in some bacterial DNA "signatures" in arterial plaque in about 200 people (~40% had the correlated bacteria). The study only included tissues from people who died of heart disease or had surgery related to heart disease. There does not currently appear to be a strong baseline about how widespread this bacterial signature may exist in a broad population regardless of health.
In a nutshell there is a slightly interesting idea that deserves further study. That's it.
So, one could make a similar article saying "Myocardial infarction may be caused by sugar consumption" and support it by analyzing the recent diet of 200 people who died of heart disease and finding that 95% of them recently consumed a lot of sugar.
This study's main contribution was to identify the specific bacteria, which gives insight into the mechanism behind heart attacks (the antibody the researchers developed was one of their central contributions). So the researchers dissected only people who died of heart disease.
I think a population study to assess the odds ratios of a risk factor on people who die of heart disease vs not would be valuable (but is a very different beast).
Isn’t it obvious that a heart attack could be caused by a myriad of issues? Sure a bacteria could be a cause. So could be genetics, or an excess of cheeseburgers. A heart ceasing to pump blood effectively is not a singular cause
"we found some bacteria in people with heart disease, let's try killing the bacteria" is really bad logic.
Like another commenter posted it's similar to saying a lot of house fires had fire trucks in front of them, let's do some trials where we destroy some of the fire trucks to see if that helps.
> Isn’t it obvious that a heart attack could be caused by a myriad of issues?
I think you not only missed the point but also are doubling down on your mistake by conflating correlation with causality. You don't conclude that burger craving is caused by owning a car by observing drive-through restaurants.
I might be reading parts of it wrong, but I think that's a different sort of thing to the research in the article.
Sugar is a very indirect cause of heart attacks, everyone knows that most heart attacks are a culmination of decades of diet and exercise habits. It's still worth researching everything to do with that, but it's pretty low value research because it's hard to draw any actionable conclusions from it other than "eat healthier and exercise", which is already well known.
The research in the article is talking about a direct cause. Bacteria exists on arterial plaque, viral infection triggers bacteria to multiply, something about that process causes the plaque to detach and cause a heart attack. If that ends up being a rock solid cause and effect, even for a subset of heart attacks, that could lead to things like direct prevention (anti-virals before the heart attack happens) or changes in patient management (everyone with artery disease gets put far away from sick patients) that could directly and immediately save a lot of lives.
The post you replied to was saying that the data from the study isn't as strong as the article and headline make it out to be, which is usually the case. For this one though I'm reading that less as "it's a nothingburger" and more as "it's a small interesting result that needs a lot of follow up".
While you're not technically wrong, I find this whole approach to be not good.
And actually, if as a lot of science is now suggesting, inflammation and damage due to eating oxidization-prone lipids (aka refined oils) in combination with refined sugar is a big part of the cause of arterial damage and heart disease, that could be easily be the biggest root cause in most of these cases. The bacteria if they even play a causal role at any point, could be a result of previous damage due to diet (and lack of exercise).
The paper's idea of treating heart disease by giving patients antibiotics seems really problematic to me. Destroy your health with poor diet and lack of exercise, and then once you start to feel the effect of this, take antibiotics and destroy your gut health too.
While do do agree with the general premise of your comment, that is, correct the root cause. For some, "eat healthy and exercise", may not be an option, because they are already addicted and overweight. At least, taking anti-biotics could be the very first line of actionable treatment to prevent the bacterial buildup and save their life immediately.
I very strongly disagree. Antibiotics are very dangerous at the individual level in how they mess up the individual's gut bacteria which are crucial for health.
Furthermore giving everyone antibiotics as a preventative measure for heart disease complications, given that most Americans are on the spectrum of heart disease (i.e. have hypertension) is a recipe for bacterial resistance and other population problems.
If you atempt that plan at scale I would expect antibiodic restistant bacteria to develop fast and people soon start dieing younger of what we now think of as minor infections.
The mechanism for how refined linoleic acid if heated would create higher amounts of free radicals that are known to cause oxidative stress / inflammation is well understood.
I agree a large scale rct for this would be great, but I doubt anyone would fund it and if it does get done I'd be surprised if it wasn't designed to meet the biases of the side that funds it.
Minor correlation? P values are small indicating a strong correlation?
Quote: Of the bacteria detected, oral viridans group streptococcal DNA was the most common, being found in 42.1% of coronary plaques and 42.9% of endarterectomies. Immunopositivity for viridans streptococci correlated with severe atherosclerosis (P<0.0001) in both series and death from coronary heart disease (P=0.021) or myocardial infarction (P=0.042).
This is a super common misconception, but a small p-value does *not* (necessarily) mean a strong correlation. It means high confidence that the correlation is non-zero.
Yes. I understand that. I was questioning the original assertion that there was a “minor” correlation. The p values indicate a correlation. One that is statistically significant.
Late response, but the whole point is that "statistically significant" doesn't necessarily mean "major", because significance is as much about the experimental design as it is about the thing you're measuring.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that being left-handed is correlated with a 0.001% higher likelihood of accidentally dropping your car keys every time you pick them up. An experiment studying a small sample of people for a month probably wouldn't detect this correlation at all. If you ran the same experiment but carefully monitored every single person in the US around the clock, you would be able to reliably detect it with an extremely small p-value. And yet it's still fair to describe it as an extremely minor correlation.
That’s what it means in the literal sense. As a more practical interpretation, p value is the ”probability that the observed result was due to random chance instead of the suggested hypothesis”
•
Could a short‐term antibiotics treatment given at the acute phase affect the outcome of myocardial infarction, and would it be possible to develop new diagnostic imaging and prevention methods for bacterial biofilm?
I think the first question to be addressed should be, does the general population have similar prevalence of this bacteria?
I didn't read the article but just based on the parent comment, it sounds like this baseline hasn't yet been established. It seems very wrong to start testing antibiotics without first establishing the baseline of whether everyone has this bacteria.
another possibility that was floated in the TFA was vaccination. The whole point of the article was to precisely map out a mechanism, beyond that, many possibilities exist for intervention or prevention.
One of the hugely important takeaways of this study is that even though the therapy was applied at the site of the most significant tumor, the immune response appeared to trigger against presumably ALL tumors throughout the body.
For a very long time I have also used unique emails for each respective service that involves in email. When I sign up for npm it is something like email_npm@example.com . This makes it very easy to whitelist and also spot phishing emails because if an email for npm is coming to mail_cccoffee@example.com it screams that something is wrong. It is not bulletproof by any means but an additional layer that costs me almost nothing but requires effort on the part of attackers.
That's exactly what I do, and have caught quite a lot of other phishing emails this way. They queried my npm email via the public API and sent it there.
Managed large health groups for a long time, we actually care about security, billion of patient interactions, never a compromise. I managed the modernization of the payment platform for the largest restaurant in the world. Billions of dollars a year. Early thing we did was freeze versions, maintain local package repos, carefully update. It is very concerning how rare these things are done. Tens of thousands of random people are in the core supply chain of most node projects and there seems to be a lot of carelessness of that fact.
The paper's original title is 66 characters too long for HN.
The "25% higher mortality" comes from the all-cause mortality result in "Findings", which is one of the main results of the paper. The paper expresses it as a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25 [1.10–1.42]. Hazard ratios are standard in medical research, but I wanted to summarize the main result without jargon.
I have a home in the southwest that is off grid and runs on solar plus lifepo3 batteries. It has been 5+ years now. My cost per kwh is below $0.008 as of today including all capital and maintenance. These numbers get a bit complicated, for example I run the AC much colder than I would if I was paying more for it. I have extra fridges and freezers I probably wouldn't if I had to pay higher per kwh. I "throw away" a lot of power too that I am not counting when the batteries fill up.
I have about 40kwh of storage. The batteries are in steel boxes and there are some basic precautions to take with them but lifepo3 has a very manageable risk profile quite different from lipo. Batteries and solar equipment continue to get cheaper, the same system I have is now 50% cheaper today then when I bought it, including tariffs.
The link really discusses more of a single neighborhood or medium industrial site possible type of technology. Really just a huge very hot pile of sand and steam turbine or propane cell generation. On a kwh basis it is probably not competitive with solar+battery unless your use case involved a lot of direct use of hot water or heating something.
You're pretty close to the ideal location for solar + batteries. For much of Europe or the Eastern US, this amount of storage would be nowhere close to enough, by orders of magnitude - they need to make it through the winter, and generate heat from it, after all.
For each location, there's an ideal amount of storage and an ideal amount of overbuilt capacity, both depending on hardware costs (and contributions of wind to the energy mix).
In your case, both numbers are relatively small. With lower incident sun, persistent cloud cover, and the possibility of becalmed wind turbines, storage requirements can start to make thermal batteries or hydrogen storage economical.
Not the person you are asking, but our system is 5 years old and has required two hours of intervention work (zero scheduled maintenance).
A USB extension cable died, and it took an hour for the manufacturer to diagnose it over the phone, for me to find the right tamper bit to access it, then remove the cable.
Another time, PG&E was feeding the wrong voltage and frequency into our house. The power stayed on (our transfer switch knife cut off PG&E) but the solar array shut down because this is a weird fault. Again, it took about an hour to diagnose over the phone and fix (in this case, I temporarily turned off the PG&E service breaker. It ran diagnostics for about 30 minutes and turned the array back on).
Installation (included in purchase) was probably about 100 man hours though.
This site is full of people perfectly capable of reading most studies. I would much rather see these links go to studies than endless clickbait articles about studies.
The conclusion of the study show that about 30% of the women in the study from 2017-2014 tested positive for one of several types of HPV infection. This does appear to be a reduction from an earlier 2013 study but the earlier study was by different authors with different methodology so gauging the scale of the reduction is not straightforward. My opinion is that a safe conclusion of the study is that HPV prevalence has not increased.