วีดีโอ

Testosterone From This Life Toward Every Next Life Forever Within Physics And Or Metaphysics Forever Until The End Of Every Reality’s Existence Forever Factually > Estrogen

Thank you

nice talk！

What does residual vs ranked mean

Can PRS scores be used for MR

Why are genetic interventions more potent than pharmaceutical for cholesterol and hcy risk?

A great talk as always!

BRILLANT AND POWERFUL..

Once you learn Mendelian randomization, all the hottest chicks in the world are yours!

I’m worried about my baby developing autism because of anti depressants. To me it sounds like a no brainier. You shouldn’t be messing with the cerebral cortex of a developing baby. But this chick stated she was focusing on the miscarriage side of the side effects. Does anyone know or can recommend another talk that would have 30 yrs worth of evidence to help me out?? Thanx in advance

😳 *Promo sm*

Before Focke, in 1881, Mendel’s pea paper was cited four times (in 15 years since its publication); after Focke, not a single time. The so-called references are just catalog listings and mainly concern the hawkweed paper. De Vries’ reprint is no evidence for the “circulation of the 40 reprints”. Pea breeders like Rimpau and Giltay were unaware of Mendel’s work. Mendel’s contemporaries Wichura, Nägeli, and Caspary were cited many times. My conclusion: yes, Mendel’s work was neglected.

Mendel's work on peas was obscure and misunderstood before 1900. Most references were to his hawkweed hybrids or appeared in catalogs. Schmalhausen (1874) only found Mendel's pea paper when he already had his thesis at the printer and added an endnote. Focke (1882) also did not find Mendel until his book was almost finished. This shows that Mendel's pea work was little known. Schmalhausen wrote in Russian and Blomberg (1872) in Swedish, both internationally not widely spoken languages. Their publications were not rediscovered until well after 1900 and had no impact at their time. Hoffmann (1869) and Focke understood little of Mendel's pea paper. Four "real" references in almost 35 years is not a lot.

Rutherford notes that the great early opponent of eugenic sterilisation was G.K. Chesterton, but he doesn’t want to connect it too directly to Chesterton’s non-progressive, Catholic sanctity-of-life views; the same views which cause Catholics to oppose abortion. Rutherford supports abortion-on-demand. Yet today, the world’s single most extensive and successful eugenic program is the abortion of foetuses who test positive for Down’s Syndrome. In Europe, 92% of pregnant women who test positive choose to abort. High screening rates in Denmark and Iceland have resulted in there now being almost no one with Down’s Syndrome in either country.

🌹 "promo sm"

How exciting to see your HoloMonitor M4 live cell analysis system in action 😊 Greetings from your PHI team

Very insightful and incisive. These are long overdue needed reforms in statistical practice.

Wonderful

Great talk!

man i thought we were better than this, everyday i see the decay and devolution of humans to becoming controlled sheep slaves and incels, repeating garbage just like this. Question everything. Especially if theres a women talking about testosterone, and she is wrong, completely wrong. WE NEED STRONG MEN FOR FUCKS SAKE.

clicked off when i saw it was a WOMAN talking about testosterone and success

Yes, but we're just not that far back in human evolution. Phenotypic characteristics have been augmented by also behavioral observable characteristics, and performance observable characteristics, akin to human realm, that justify or refute the first. We do not need to re-discover anthropology, or reduce it to zoologia specialis, but naturally advance from that stand to anthropo-sociological natural selection parameters. If, then, that is already done, why discuss a subject leading to inferior, discriminatory, geno-puristic approaches?

It seems like she has an agenda against the theory that correlates testosterone to let's say successes. She is also complicating the matter by throwing the ' born with T Vs day circulating T." It doesn't matter to me were the T comes from. There is no doubt that T level and successes in men is correlated. It maybe bit exaggerated but there is a correlation. Instead of dismissing the link, the focus should be why certain men suffer from low T and how to remedy this. In the modern 'science' there is a lot of energy in dismissing certain realities to somehow ' comfort' those who lack these said attributes. I never used T enhancements and not a gung-ho about it, but denying there is a link between T level's in men and successes in sports, leadership and other avenues of life is a total rubbish!

𝖕𝖗𝖔𝖒𝖔𝖘𝖒 🔥

Personal success ≠ success on paper

so touching for an excellent video

Here is a link to the second half that he mentions: Sander Greenland: Advancing Statistics Reform, Part II mediaserver.unige.ch/play/151325 given at the University of Geneva Global Studies Institute