Posts by Ronald Morales51

Carl Brown66 said:What part of this is actually unknown?

Everything about this thread feels speculative. To me, one of the clearest red flags is that even the author of the text you're quoting chose to slap the word "scientifically" in the title just to grab attention.
On the FBI subforum, we really expect members to stick as closely as possible to the Guidelines and Recommendations for this section. One of those rules states:

1) Developing a healthy skepticism toward your sources is one of the most vital skills you can have. An official website from a major institution like Harvard carries infinitely more weight than some random "UFO Research Center" site.

"The Earth is Flat" from 1925 by William A. Williams is simply not appropriate reading for a serious discussion meant to stay within the realm of natural science—especially when you consider how old the text is and the fact that the author lacks a scientific background. If we're going to use references, they should be modern and come from indisputable, high-quality sources.

This is just one single point from our Guidelines and Recommendations, but I’d argue it’s an essential one.

Even if you had picked more recent literature centered on creationist ideas, this thread still wouldn't belong on the FBI forum because that argument was debunked ages ago. I certainly hope you don't believe that massive populations before Chris were limited to just a handful of people scattered everywhere, because there is no logical way they could have built something as monumental as the pyramids under those conditions.

It's honestly a bit disappointing. If you're genuinely interested in evolution, it's a shame to limit your scope to such low-quality sources when modern science has done such a beautiful job of detailing the history of the human species.

No problem at all—I would be more than happy to dive into the world of genetics and biology with you.

It’s not just a random guess, and I’ll say it again: I would need to know the exact methodology used to arrive at that specific number to be truly certain. However, I believe the data in that Science journal article I linked you is more than enough to make our point. It clearly illustrates how the risk escalates as people age, which is a critical factor when we're discussing a family with a significant history of cancer.
Because, if you look at what the article actually points out, it says this:

If we assume that certain risk modifiers—be they genetic markers or environmental factors—tend to cluster within families, then the math changes significantly. For someone carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who doesn't have a family history of breast cancer, their actual risk profile would likely be much lower than those carriers who see a pattern of the disease in their relatives. Essentially, if those extra risk factors run in the family, a carrier without that familial background might not be facing the same level of danger.

Ovo It’s an article.

I truly believe that DNA analysis is the future—and honestly, it’s a future that has already arrived. It's only a matter of time before this becomes standard practice in everyday healthcare. To give you a better idea of where things are headed, I’m dropping a link to the most prominent company in the field right now. They have more citations in scientific journals than anyone else out there. Just to be clear, I don't have any affiliation with them; I'm not trying to sell you anything here, I just want to share the most reliable data available.
The implications of using services like 23andMe are much more complex than most people realize when they first sign up. It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of seeing where your ancestors came from, but there is a much deeper layer to consider regarding data privacy and long-term medical implications. Think of it like handing over the keys to your digital house before you even know who is living in the neighborhood. You might think you're just looking for a fun way to connect with your roots, but you're actually providing a massive amount of sensitive biological data to a private corporation. Once that information is out there, you lose a significant amount of control over how it's used, stored, or potentially shared in the future. Then there’s the health aspect. While getting insights into certain genetic predispositions can be eye-opening, it can also be incredibly overwhelming. Without the guidance of a professional genetic counselor, you might find yourself staring at a list of potential risks that feel impossible to process. It's one thing to read about a predisposition online; it's an entirely different experience to sit with that knowledge alone. It isn't all bad—there is genuine scientific value in large-scale genomic databases—but I always tell people to weigh the curiosity against the actual risk. Before you spit in that tube, ask yourself if the "fun facts" are worth the permanent loss of genetic privacy.

This isn't even strictly off-topic. The company actually commented on A. J.'s case, pointing out that while their test focuses specifically on three mutations within two BRCA genes, they are simultaneously looking at eight other genetic regions associated with breast cancer. In essence, we aren't talking about a definitive diagnostic tool here; rather, it's a risk estimation model that is currently somewhat limited in scope. For now, any approach like this has to be restricted to specific markers and regions. The true goal of modern science is to move toward complete, comprehensive analysis using newer technologies, but that kind of progress takes time.

Jamie Rivera78 said:http://www.naturalnews.com/040334_An...revention.html
This explains everything perfectly. Seriously, though, should we really be cutting out organs just because they *might* get cancer someday? I feel like that list of organs would get way too long. And all this gambling with percentages is totally pointless. With Angelin, the numbers being thrown around range from 15% to over 90%.

Here is yet another example of poor-quality writing.

You only need to look at this sentence:

Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals.

I haven’t seen a more nonsensical argument. I mentioned earlier that we all carry the BRCA1 gene; it’s actually a perfectly normal gene that produces a functional protein in our bodies. Anyone drawing such sweeping conclusions with this level of "knowledge" clearly doesn't understand what they are talking about.
It is an established and widely accepted fact—one you'll find in almost any medical textbook—that in cases of hereditary breast cancer, lifestyle has a minimal impact. We aren't saying lifestyle doesn't matter at all, but we have to view it in its proper context.
I believe even Wikipedia covers this.
To quote:
Given the high risks and low benefit of lifestyle choices in BRCA mutation carriers, no lifestyle choices provide sufficient protection.

What is actually vital for women to know is that hereditary breast cancer accounts for only about 5% of new diagnoses, whereas other known risk factors contribute up to 30%.

Jacob Stewart2 said:I have to admit, that high percentage still hasn't quite clicked for me.

I assume that includes various risk factors, like age and whatnot... but even then, it would mean if we sent ten Angelin to different corners of the galaxy, nine of them would end up with breast cancer.
That sounds absolutely wild to me.

Does this mean we already have genetic testing advanced enough to tell a newborn baby what their chances are of developing terminal illnesses?
Especially since their assessment is mostly based on whether she is a carrier of that gene.

That bolded correlation is really tripping me up.
If you feel like answering.

That percentage likely comes from a much more detailed genetic analysis, as I mentioned before. However, since I don't know the specific case being discussed, it’s hard to give an exact answer. Just think of a very simple analogy: one gene, one effect. For instance, if you have the genes for brown eyes, in 100% of cases, you will have brown eyes. In this situation, we are dealing with something somewhat analogous, even if my example is incredibly basic.
Furthermore, that 87% figure refers to the probability of expressing that trait by a certain age, which wasn't specified here. There are also other genes that create an individual's unique genetic landscape, as well as family history, which can help calculate risk more accurately.
If you dig into the professional medical literature, you can find this specific table, which outlines exactly how much the breast cancer risk is adjusted if you're a carrier of a mutation in the BRCA genes. As I mentioned before, the type of mutation essentially defines the variant; if someone carries a non-functional BRCA gene, the picture is quite stark—it’s almost like my simplified example where one gene equals one specific trait. However, we are specifically talking about hereditary breast cancer here, which is the primary driver behind such high risk levels, just as the table illustrates.

I'm not entirely sure what part is tripping you up, but you mentioned being used to seeing smaller risks? Well, first off, risks are often expressed as a hazard ratio or a relative risk, and those numbers aren't directly comparable. What I was getting at is that a certain number of pathologies have a less defined genetic component, meaning the risk of developing them will be low based solely on genetic analysis. But risks aren't exclusively genetic; non-genetic factors can produce effects that are less intense but equally significant. Even though the correlation between a BRCA mutation and cancer is incredibly strong, this actually only accounts for about 5% of all breast cancer cases because that genetic trait is relatively rare. So, while 5% is a massive number, it's only one piece of the entire biological puzzle of this disease.

Furthermore, when we discuss risks calculated through genetic analysis, you often bring up weaker genetic correlations. In those cases, the risk percentage is based on analyzing loci—essentially markers tied to potential genes and known associations between those genes and diseases—which is a fairly descriptive approach. Here, however, we are discussing a gene that is fully defined and thoroughly analyzed. Recent genome analysis projects have clearly demonstrated that many vital elements exist outside of our genes, and frankly, there is still so much we don't know.
I truly believe that in the near future, this will become standard practice—that everything will be calculated for you at birth, because it's all written in the genes, including how sensitive you are to environmental factors and other risk variables. We already have companies offering this online today; you buy a kit, send in your DNA, and receive a highly specific breakdown of your risks for the most common pathologies. Over in the UK, there has already been an active project for several years to create a genomic data bank that would certainly complete this picture. Essentially, the future is already arriving.

Jacob Stewart2 said:Where on earth did her doctors get that 87% figure from?

It’s like they think she’s some billionaire or something.

Sure, there's a genetic predisposition involved. But from what I understand, those odds usually hover somewhere around 10 to 15%.
I just can't wrap my head around this 87% number.

That sounds more like she already has breast cancer.

It isn't actually that complicated; you can pinpoint the exact risk through more detailed genetic testing. Depending on the specific type of BRCA1 mutation, the risk could be as high as "80%." Of course, that’s a bit of a simplification since many variables come into play—firstly age, and then the individual's unique genetic landscape, because there are other loci involved that contribute to the overall risk level.
We are discussing an incredibly well-defined and thoroughly researched gene here. Since we're dealing with hereditary cancer, it's almost a textbook example of "one gene, one effect"—though I'm using those terms loosely. Other general risks, where you typically see lower percentages, depend heavily on how they are expressed or measured; they usually lack such a strong genetic component and direct correlation.

Jamie Rivera78 said:So, scientists over at Stanford University just dropped some news that might chill you out a bit: if there’s a BRCA gene mutation running through your family tree, it doesn't mean you're automatically doomed to inherit it or face a higher risk than anyone else. They dug through data from about 3,200 women who had close relatives battling breast cancer, and the results were eye-opening.

Basically, just because someone carries those BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations doesn't mean they're destined to get sick. These genes can bump up your risk by anywhere from 5 to 40 percent, but that's far from a guarantee you'll actually develop cancer—plus, the mutation isn't even passed down to every single person in the family line.

"While older studies basically shouted from the rooftops that breast cancer is way more likely in families with a history of it, we're stepping up to say that's just not the whole story," said one of the lead researchers, Dr. Allison Kurian, in a piece for the journal Clinical Oncology.

Since you're "quoting" someone, why not provide a reference? That way, you might actually get a chance to read what was precisely stated. In my view, there is a massive distinction between discussing an individual who is a carrier of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and someone who is a non-carrier of those family-specific mutations. This specific study link focuses on that second group and actually critiques previous research that suggested increased breast cancer risk in non-carriers.
Even so, Allison and her work don't negate the reality of the risk faced by individuals with these mutations, as that has been established in countless studies. As far as I know, her research—and the work of the group she belongs to—focuses on the population diversity within the US regarding breast cancer. They have even gone so far as to challenge the misconception that mastectomies as an early-stage preventative treatment are becoming a widespread "trend"; her stance is actually the opposite.

So, using this quasi-quote doesn't do anything to support the inaccuracies you initially presented.

wanderingcobra76 said:Preventative mastectomies for women carrying high-risk breast cancer genes aren't exactly a new concept in modern medicine.

Breast cancer is actually one of those rare cancers where we have identified the primary culprits behind hereditary cases—specifically the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
Now, it’s important to clarify: women who don't carry these specific mutations can still develop the disease—since it’s a multifactorial condition, after all—but women with a strong family history and positive genetic markers face a significantly higher risk. We're primarily talking about women whose relatives were diagnosed at a younger age, typically under 50.

Naturally, these women undergo much more frequent screenings; however, there is a significant hurdle when it comes to detecting cancer in younger patients. Because younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, tumors can be much harder to spot—they often have to grow larger before they become palpable. This stands in stark contrast to older women, where fatty tissue predominates, making even millimeter-sized growths easier to detect. On top of that, the types of cancers seen in younger women are often more aggressive—meaning they tend to grow and metastasize much faster.

It is precisely for these reasons that some women, given their positive family history and genetic profiles, choose to undergo a preventative mastectomy along with primary reconstruction.
Does this mean the risk is completely eliminated? Not quite—there is always a tiny margin (about 5% of the glandular tissue) that might not be reachable during surgery—but since the vast majority of the hormone-dependent tissue is removed, that risk is essentially minimized to almost nothing.
While breast cancer can certainly spread to other parts of the body through metastasis, if the primary tumor never develops because the tissue is gone, then there is no source from which metastases could arise.

Personally, I don't view such an undertaking as an act of cowardice or "playing it safe"—quite the opposite! It is a deeply rational and courageous decision, and honestly, it is one I would likely make myself if I were facing the exact same circumstances.

I couldn't agree more with your opening sentence. In fact, I think we should be incredibly grateful for scientific progress; we've reached a point where genomic analysis allows us to predict many individual health risks. It would be irresponsible to ignore that data. In these specific cases, a mastectomy can reduce the risk of developing breast cancer by about 90%.

However, I have a bit of a critique regarding your second paragraph. I’ve noticed this particular misconception popping up quite frequently lately, even in mainstream media outlets.
You did a great job explaining how Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) works. I'm not certain if this applies to Angelina Jolie's specific case, but reports suggested her risk was around 87%, likely because her mother passed away from breast cancer. While such precise figures can be reached through detailed genetic testing, it's difficult for me to comment on a specific case without having all the clinical details in hand.
The part that is technically inaccurate, though, is the implication that we "carry" these genes. The truth is, every single one of us carries the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes; they code for functional proteins in our genome that are essential for a reason. What some people actually carry are *mutations* within those genes, which produce altered versions of those proteins. Today, science has identified hundreds of different mutations, ranging from completely benign to high-risk variants. We know exactly which mutation pattern triggers a specific risk and which variants are most common in certain populations.

If you want to come at me, I’m more than happy to defend myself.

Personally, my first instinct was simply to reach out to this community because I truly believe most people here possess a healthy dose of common sense.
That’s why I wasn't criticizing anyone; I was just asking—quite sincerely—that we avoid these petty arguments. My comment was aimed at both of you for very apparent reasons.
In the end, you both ended up spiraling into side debates that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.

Best regards,

Since we’re talking about the hard sciences here, I haven't seen a single high-quality idea pop up in those threads; honestly, they were posted and then immediately forgotten without yielding any positive results.
The claims that homosexuality is a pathology or that pedophilia is a sexual preference—to paraphrase, of course—simply cannot serve as a foundation for any legitimate debate. The reasons for that are more than obvious.
I’ll say it again: when you're dealing with such sensitive topics, you need to approach them with decorum and stick to the appropriate subforums.

I believe I've covered everything.

I’m honestly struggling to see how you still don't grasp the core point you were making through your own messages. To be clear, equating homosexuality with pedophilia or any kind of pathology is something that has been flagged before—and you've actually done it several times now.
Beyond that, you seem to be trivializing pedophilia as if it were just another sexual orientation, which ends up making a mockery of both subjects.
My stance remains the same: these ideas simply aren't compatible with the kind of society we are striving to build today. But regardless of my opinion, I'll say it again: your approach to this topic was completely inappropriate, which was clearly reflected in how other users reacted. Quoting those reactions is unnecessary at this point.

There is no question that these are issues we cannot afford to ignore.
That said, I’m asking you to take a moment to really think about what you want to communicate. If you genuinely want to spark a discussion, please do so in a constructive, respectful manner within the appropriate subforum and thread.

If you’re still confused, take a good look at my profile; you'll see there isn't a rainbow in my avatar. Whatever little insinuations you're trying to make are irrelevant, regardless.

After consulting with the moderators, we’ve decided that you crossed a line, just as I pointed out to you both in our private messages and within the thread itself.
The reasoning behind this seems pretty clear, especially given the points you raised yourself.
Drawing those false equivalencies was completely inappropriate, and frankly, your attempts to downplay the issue of pedophilia were unacceptable.
Other members jumped in almost immediately, but instead of sparking a meaningful debate, it just turned into a mess.

Issues like this shouldn't be censored; rather, they need to be handled with the right level of seriousness and decorum—something you failed to do in this instance.

I wasn't really talking about the action scenes; honestly, I'm not one to be impressed by flashy spectacles or high-octane thrills. Generally speaking, I tend to gravitate toward films that are more static or even quasi-minimalist. Because of that, I don't necessarily go looking for those kinds of tropes when I sit down to watch something.
There were definitely moments in the movie that I enjoyed—I’m not calling the quality into question, per se—but I just expected a bit more substance given that they were profiling two such massive personalities and the dynamic between them.
At certain points, it felt almost as if the actors were just chatting while the cameras were off, like they were still trying to figure out what to say. It lacked that certain punch, that raw core that makes a scene stick with you.
That said, I'm genuinely curious to hear what everyone else thinks, because as I mentioned, my tastes tend to be a little unconventional.

I caught a screening at the film festival yesterday, and I have to admit, I walked away feeling a bit let down—probably because my expectations were through the roof.
The plot feels incredibly flat and one-dimensional, which is baffling when you consider the subject matter: Jung and Freud. These are titans who shaped modern psychology; they possess such rich, complex minds, so I naturally expected a story with that same level of depth. Instead, the exploration of how psychoanalysis began, along with their actual ideas and dialogues, felt frustratingly superficial. While the cinematography is gorgeous, the movie lacks a certain soul. It honestly felt more like watching a mid-tier limited series where the scenes and conversations seem to drift aimlessly without any real momentum.
Don't get me wrong, it isn't a "bad" movie by any stretch of the imagination. But personally? I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it.

Rating: A film you'll likely forget by tomorrow.

Even though it’s been quite some time since I first sat down to watch it, this movie always stays fresh in my mind.
I’d highly recommend it to anyone who truly appreciates the art of cinema. 😁

When I talk about myths, I’m thinking along the lines of endless love, soulmates, and that whole concept of "true love."

I actually really liked the narrator. Personally, I don't mind when movies use a narrator, and I especially appreciate that they didn't feel forced or overly stylized.

I have to agree with you regarding the film's effort. In my experience, trying too hard to be an "indie alternative" or striving for a certain uniqueness often ends up feeling pretentious—which is how I read the movie you mentioned. However, I wouldn't call that a flaw.
Instead, I see it as just a staple of that kind of culture and the way they express themselves.

Norway, my love—something everyone seems to know about.😬
Sending my best to you in the most beautiful city in the world, hmm.😁

I'm right there with goldenhound32. I’d argue the movie is original only in its perspective, though I mean that in a different sense—it actively tries to dismantle the pop culture myths we've all been fed, much like the protagonist,
. This works perfectly because it's mirrored by the narrator's role. Quote : soundtrack is flawless; the music is just as vital a component as anything else here, as sound serves as a crucial dimension that shapes the entire cinematic experience.
Just as the film suggests that loneliness is underrated, I will go as far as to say that originality is overrated. Honestly, just knowing those words doesn't prove a thing.
The same goes for "innovation." Just because something is new or groundbreaking doesn't automatically make it good. I think we all realize that being "original" isn't actually a metric for quality. Personally, I have very little respect for those who
use that label too loosely just to signal their own creativity. It feels cheap, and using such shallow criteria is frankly pointless.

On another note, I think Zooey is more attractive than Mila, though that certainly doesn't mean I don't recognize Mila's beauty. I often see people bring up the "beauty argument" as if it's some insignificant factor, but I don't see how you can arrive at such a conclusion
under any logical framework. At the end of the day, film is an art form with aesthetic values that aren't achieved by accident or without effort. Beauty is a rare talent, and we shouldn't dismiss or downplay it.
That said, we shouldn't trivialize beauty or try to box it into rigid categories, because that's exactly how true beauty fades away.

Cheers, 😁

It’s interesting to me how many people actually enjoyed this one; personally, I found it a bit of a slog. Sure, it’s a beautiful life story, but that doesn't automatically mean it deserves a big-budget cinematic treatment.
To me, the whole thing felt shallow, hollow, and honestly, a little cheap. It played more like a made-for-TV movie that tries way too hard to push a message, but ends up feeling incredibly cliché and empty. Sandra gave a decent performance—she really leaned into the role,
playing a character that fits perfectly within the specific atmosphere of the film, as they say.
Bottom line? It’s not something I’d go out of my way to watch again.

Cheers 😁

That’s an interesting suggestion, thanks for throwing it out there, but it feels a bit harsh and frankly a little out of line. 😬
What feraltrucker5 mentioned actually feels much more reasonable and hits the mark perfectly.

Fair point, you're right—that’s really the extent of what I can handle on my end. What I was actually hoping to find out was whether there were any built-in options provided by the forum itself.
If that's not an option, then this works just fine for me. Something like an auto-deactivation feature? Sure, why not.
But if there truly isn't anything else available, then we'll stick with this. Thanks for the help!

I couldn't quite find the perfect thread for what I’m looking for, so I figured I’d just bring my question here.
I'm curious about whether there are any options for temporarily deactivating an account. To be clear, I’m not talking about getting banned or facing some kind of disciplinary suspension; I’m strictly looking for a way to make my profile inactive for a while. I have my own personal reasons for wanting this, and if such a helpful feature exists, I'd love to take advantage of it.

Thanks so much in advance for any insight you can provide! 😁
cheers

In my humble opinion, the movie is just okay. It’s definitely better than your average flick, but it still lands right in the middle of the road. George did a solid job as expected, but I just can't get into Vera; she's never really clicked with me,
she always feels the same to me, and I just don't see her as a top-tier actress. On the other hand, Anna Kendrick was more than good.
So, it was nominated for 6 Oscars? Hmm, that’s definitely worth discussing, though we have to admit Avatar walked away with 9.
The plot is decent—modest and straightforward. The themes feel a bit overly "Americanized" for my taste, but the pacing stays steady throughout. It’s an enjoyable watch, but nothing groundbreaking.

Michael Ortiz68 said:We're really talking about an orphanage here, not a traditional school.

I totally get why you feel this movie covers much more ground, but if we’re being precise about the setting—and I’m just sticking to the facts from IMDb here rather than making things up—

it's described as a boarding school for the rehabilitation of minors,
a boarding school for orphans and troubled boys,
and a school for "difficult" kids.

I realize it might not fit the classic mold of a "school movie," but that's exactly why I brought it up. It hits on all those core themes of growing up and finding one's way through education.

Personally, I think even films like *Snowpiercer* work great within that genre.👍