Also, I have a very strong suspicion that the medication you have on hand is Azithromycin (because very few medications come in blister packs), so here's a list of infections that a Z-pak is good for:

If it's not on this list (like pretty much any gram negative, anaerobic, or gram positive with resistant features like MRSA, among others) I wouldn't count on the Z-pak actually being useful.

The article you listed reads more like preliminary research more than anything else, and aside from medical school, I have done research into drug expiration on my own given that I have multiple complex health problems and I need to know how long I can count on my medication being effective if I needed to stockpile it. My background education in organic and general chemistry tell me that the two biggest concerns are humidity and temperature. You can also get information from the drug manufacturers about storage recommendations and cautions about efficacy following improper storage. If humidity or extreme temperatures (like where I live in Minnesota) come into play, the guidelines get a lot more fuzzy.

Also noted in there, a concern with antibiotics in particular is, that while they will retain some efficacy, the diminished effects over time can lead to more problems with resistance, and that can become important in a single individual depending on their colonization status and how often they end up needing to use the antibiotics.

Don't get me wrong, keeping a stockpile of medications is important (I'm trying to build up a buffer that I cycle out for some of my more critical medications) but it has to be done with cognizance and awareness of the pitfalls of such a practice. Personally, I would not trust my life to medication that has been expired for more than about 3 years if it is at all avoidable which is why I cycle my stockpile each time I get a refill. (i.e. putting the new meds in the storage container and taking the ones that were in there so that the storage is never more than a couple months old) I'm on a couple medications that stopping them suddenly for even a few days has the potential to put me in the hospital if not end up being lethal depending on the severity of the withdrawal.

As someone who works in medicine, I would just caution you to take that with a grain of salt, especially since they repeatedly mention the storage of said medications. Not all pill bottles are airtight, and if you keep them somewhere that isn't always less than 75 degrees Fahrenheit or so, I wouldn't trust them more than a year past the expiration date. Note also, when they say "cool, dark place" that is not accounting for freezing temperatures which can also mess with the medications.

All this to say: if you have emergency medications, cycle them out with new ones as often as possible, and store them in airtight containers in a climate controlled area of your house.

Make sure the antibiotics don't expire. Most of them just become useless when they expire, but Tetracycline becomes poisonous when it expires. Also, not all antibiotics are good for all infections, so make sure the ones you have are useful for the kinds of infections you anticipate.

Except that the sentencing keeps getting postponed.

That's the thing though...I think it is part of their due diligence to know what's going on in their own business. If they can't guarantee that it's safe, they shouldn't release it.

The c-suites have the ultimate power and therefore ultimate responsibility for whatever happens in their organization. Similar to how parents can be held criminally liable for their children's actions. It's just that much more incentive for them to make sure things are in order in their organization.

Also, Citizen's United ruled that corporations are people, so they can be held to the same standards of responsibility as other people.

I think the threshold for proving the "reasonable person" standard for companies should be extremely low. They are a complex organization that is supposed to have internal checks and reviews, so it should be very difficult for them to squirm out of liability. The C-suite should be first on the list for criminal liability so that they have a vested interest in ensuring that their products are actually safe.

I'd accept that if the makers of the self-driving cars can be tried for vehicular manslaughter the same way a human would be. Humans carry civil and criminal liability, and at the moment, the companies that produce these things only have nominal civil liability. If Musk can go to prison for his self-driving cars killing people the same way a regular driver would, I'd be willing to lower the standard.

Relevant XKCD H. Bomberguy

I just finished my surgery rotation for medical school and I saw so many colonoscopies. I have seen the inside of dozens of people's colons and this is a pretty good explanation for what's going on. I could also tell which patients ate a lot of fruit or seeds because there would still be some residual seeds in there after the clean-out prep.

Pro tip: if you are going in for a colonoscopy, ask for the pill form of the prep. Most insurances cover it, it works better, and you don't have to drink the gallon of disgusting fluid.

Also! Colonoscopies are very important! They are the single best tool for detecting and preventing colon cancer. During the scope, if they find any polyps, they get removed and sent for evaluation to see if they are cancerous, pre-cancerous, or benign, and the polyps are basically the seeds of colon cancer. It is recommended to get your first colonoscopy at age 45, unless you have a family history of colon cancer, in which case you would get your first one 10 years younger than the age the family member was diagnosed, or age 45, whichever is younger.

There are the home tests like the cologuard, but that has a 45% false positive rate, and they're only good for 3 years while a colonoscopy is good for 10 years(*) if it comes back normal, so the cologuard ends up being more expensive in the long run. It also only detects the later, more advanced polyps that are more likely to be closer to being cancer, and if it comes back positive, you have to get a colonoscopy anyways. A lot of the false positives come from the fact that it tests for DNA associated with cancer mutations and for microscopic blood in the stool, and they don't tell you if it's positive because of the DNA or the blood, and you can have microscopic amounts of blood in your stool for tons of reasons.

TL;DR: Colonoscopies are very important, and MUCH better than the home test. Talk to your primary care provider about when you should start screening, and if you're over 45, go get scheduled for one now. Colon cancer is a horrible disease, and it's actually quite preventable and easy to catch in the early stages, if you get your colonoscopies on the recommended schedule.

*Addendum: If your colonoscopy detects certain kinds of polyps, or more than a certain number of polyps, you might be on a shorter interval for surveillance scopes to make sure they catch anything before it becomes cancer, and that interval can be anywhere from 3 to 7 years depending on what they found. Also, if you have a family history of colon or rectal cancer, you'll be on a 5 year schedule because you're higher risk.

The nuclear industry is heavily regulated by the government via the NRC, but they impose even stricter regulations upon themselves. Solar and wind are cheaper, but they are less reliable. A grid comprised of a mix of solar and wind, bolstered by nuclear is the most effective and least environmentally harmful option that we currently have.

The emissions are negligible on the grand scheme of things, especially compared to fossil fuels. The manufacturing of solar panels isn't the cleanest either.

While that gene therapy does exist, it is not the same as what is being done here. The offspring of these mosquitos will have this same modified gene. The offspring of the recipients of the Sickle Cell gene therapy will not have the modified gene. We have the ability to alter a single human for their lifespan, but we do not have the ability to alter a human in such a way that their offspring will carry the same modification.

Gene therapy is not the same thing as CRISPR. CRISPR is modifying the genome before the organism makes it past 1 cell.

Not necessarily, but the advancement of the technology and refinement of the technique are not progressing very quickly and since it's so far away from human application, there's not a lot of money/investment in it.

As a widely available, cost-effective treatment? Almost certainly not. We have yet to successfully genetically modify a human being and there's a metric ton of legal and ethical red tape to deal with before we can even try.

CRISPR is profoundly difficult and expensive, and gets more difficult and expensive the more chromosomes are at play. Modifying mosquitos is much easier, and with the short generations (days or weeks instead of decades for humans) it's much easier to get the genetic changes to stick and observe their efficacy. We might get around to modifying humans someday, but it will likely be centuries before it is available for anything besides fixing lethal anomalies (and even then, it'll be a long time until that becomes consistently successful).

Many species of mosquitos are reliant on blood for reproduction. The females utilize a "blood meal" for the nutrients for laying eggs to be fertilized. Additionally, it is the female mosquito bite that transmits diseases like malaria.

Thank you!