Some viruses are useful for studying genes - you can make them transfer a genetic sequence into a cell.

They can be used in gene therapy - a very promising field of medicine.

And some viruses could also be used instead of antibiotics, which could potentialy solve the resistence problems and also help avoiding collateral damage to symbiotic bacteria. (Research of this technology is quite old, unfortunately it was abandoned for a long time and everyone focused on antibiotics instead.)

There are viruses that make some plants look more appealing to some people. For example they are the cause of these striped patterns on tulip petals.

People learn all the time. The fact that you are already familiar with something doesn’t mean everyone is. Please don’t be unkind.

I think that was directed at the journalists coming up with clickbait, not the scientists.

I was talking about toxins in general in reaction to yout toxin comment. I think it’s logical to research the possibility of alcohol having some beneficial effects, the world is not black and white.

When it comes to studies of health risks/benefits of alcohol, they unfortunately seem to suffer from the same shortcomings as other health studies: lots of important factors are often ignored, like the type of alcoholic beverage consumed, lifestyle connected to the type or amount of alcohol, previous history of alcohol use… I can, of course, give you a link to a study that finds benefits to moderate alcohol use (although they are far from recomending it). Here’s one example from 2023

Personally, I think alcohol probably does more damage than benefit even in moderate dosing, but the truth is we still don’t really know and we need much more in-depth studies to find out.

I’m pretty sure this is THE ONE blackface that is allowed. Or am I missing some joke in your comment?

I do get that, I was interested in the amount of milk and the name of the healthy things it blocks from being absorbed - there might be more than one, right?

Yes, but in case of this kind of nutrition/health studies the correlation=/=causation is often a big problem. There are usually so many things at play and the studies just look at a tiny subsetof them, making the results irrelevant or just plain wrong. I think this field would benefit greatly from a more ecological approach - in ecology, scientists often use methods for multidimensional analysis of a big number of factors that can or do influence the studied problem. This is rarely seen in medicine and nutrition, unfortunately.

I didn’t really understand the abstract, I’m affraid. Is CGA the same thing as chlorigenic acid and is that the antioxidant you’re talking about? Also, did they test coffee with a little milk? The abstract makes it sound like they tested coffee without milk and coffee made entirely of milk, which doesn’t happen in real life. I am confused.

Many toxins have medicinal uses.

There’s no end game with people, there’s just an end. We’re not a suitable host, it’s just an unlucky coincidence when they infect us. The creature doesn’t ask us to consume it, but we sometimes do anyway, in spite of it.

I like the way the OP in the picture wants to start a horror kind of discussion and it immediately turns wholesome and heartwarming.

No problem, anytime :)

You’re probably not a native speaker, so please be warned - the term “female” is reserved for animals, just like the term “male”. It can be viewed as rather disrespectful when talking about human beings. The right word to use is “woman”. You used the word “man” correctly there while using the derogatory word “female” at the same time, which can make you seem misogynistic.

My brain kept adding “captain” to the leading scientist’s name. Probably too many mtDNA insertions.

Woooosh!

This is perfectly possible. But why worry about it? It wouldn’t make things less fun!

That wouldn’t explain gender differences.

So my eyes are the basic scope.

Sounds like my normal brain speed.