RIP Washington Post?

Cheese is a wonderful thing. Recently linked to healthy aging, it dates back to at least the Ancient Egyptians, has been a symbol of socioeconomic status, and flavoring human lives for thousands of years, in which time we’ve come up with all sort of curious curdled creations, from rainbow colors to 3D sculptures.Where we’ve been arguably less explorative is in our species selection when it comes to cheese production, which is mostly limited to cows, goats, sheep, and buffalo. Could we not, at least theoretically, branch out among the milk-producing mammals? What we’re really trying to ask is…Can we make whale cheese?We approached chemist Dr James Reynolds of Loughborough University with the big question, who explained that – in theory – it should be possible to produce cheese from any mammalian milk. The key obstacles we face largely center around ethics, safety, and practicality, as few would deny that lassoing a 150,000 kilogram (330,700 pound) cetacean for its milk is not moral, wise, or the foundation of a profitable cheese venture.“However,” said Reynolds, “the internet has been speculating about different mammalian milk, so let's fly a kite and see what it would be like in theory.”What might whale cheese taste like?With this much fat present in the sample, it would suggest that whale cheese would have a rich creamy texture.Dr James Reynolds“Whale milk – if you could obtain it by some means – would be able to produce cheese,” said Reynolds. “However, research conducted on the milk of blue and fin whales that was published in Nature back in 1953 showed that the fat and protein content of whale milk is much higher than it is in cows’ milk, with the fat content being approximately 40 percent and protein content being between 10-12 percent in whale milk versus 4 percent and 3.3 percent respectively in Jersey Dairy cow milk. The amount of lactose was observed to be lower.”Cheese can be made in many ways, and the approach and ingredients you use can have a big impact on flavor.Image credit: Maurizio Milanesio / Shutterstock.comSo, what does that mean for our crackers and whale cheese evening?“With this much fat present in the sample, it would suggest that whale cheese would have a rich creamy texture.”It's possible it would carry a slightly fishy flavor, too. As the brave few to have tried boiled penguin egg can attest to, marine diets can have a big impact on flavor.What influences the taste and texture of cheese?If you’ve made it as far as milking your mammal of choice, there are several different ways in which you can turn it into cheese, and the approach you take – be that a certain milk source or bacterial culture – can have a big influence on the final product.“According to a US study, milk consists of 87.7 percent water, 4.7 percent lactose sugar, 3.6 percent fats, 3.2 percent protein, and 0.7 percent minerals,” said Reynolds. “The lactose sugar and a group of milk proteins called caseins (which make up approximately 80 percent of the total milk protein) play important roles in the process of converting milk to cheese.”For the majority of cheese, it begins with heating to 70°C (158°F) to pasteurize the milk and kill off pathogens (like the bird flu that recently infected some farm cats). Two important components are then added: a bacterial culture (called a starter culture), and an enzyme preparation called rennet which contains the chymosin enzyme, and is the reason why parmesan isn’t vegetarian.Whale cheese would probably be creamy, rich, and possibly taste a bit fishy.Image credit: Sergey Bogdanov / Shutterstock.comThat mixture gets fermented and as the bacteria grow and divide, the lactose sugar in the milk becomes their energy source. The metabolism of lactose lowers the pH until the mixture is acidic enough for the chymosin enzyme to become active, triggering the casein protein to coagulate and curdle the milk. This process forms a solid curd that can be skimmed, sliced up, and pressed into a mold for ripening.“Cheese can then be ripened for various periods of time, and in general, the longer its ripened for the stronger the flavour (e.g. mature cheddar vs regular cheddar),” said Reynolds. “The cheese can also have fungi added at this stage which will grow as the cheese ripens, blue cheeses like Roquefort and Stilton are inoculated with Penicillium roqueforti which forms the characteristic veins which give them their flavour.”“Making a change to any of the ingredients, or how a step is performed, will cause the cheese produced to have different properties. The composition of the milk in terms of the amount of lactose, fat, and protein present will influence the taste and texture. The higher the fat content, the smoother and creamier the cheese will be,” Reynolds added.Pule cheese, which is made from a blend of goat and Balkan donkey milk, [...] is one of the world’s most expensive cheeses.Dr James Reynolds“Likewise, using a different type of bacteria for the starter culture will change the flavour of the cheese produced. Cheddar, for example, is produced using Lactobacillus species which are fermented at around 30°C [86°F],  while many Italian cheeses like Parmesan use thermophilic bacteria like Streptococcus thermophilus which are fermented at higher temperatures of greater than 40°C [104°F].”Rare cheesesDairy cow milk is a common choice for cheese making, both for its comparative ease in terms of access, and the composition of proteins, lactose, and fats, that enables cheesemakers to create a range of products spanning different flavors and textures. There are, however, some rare and artisanal cheeses that may surprise you.“Pule cheese, which is made from a blend of goat and Balkan donkey milk, for example, is one of the world’s most expensive cheeses,” explained Reynolds. “[And] the holes in Swiss cheese are formed by carbon dioxide gas bubbles generated by the Propionibacterium freudenreichii bacteria used as a starter culture in making Emmental cheese.”And if none of that takes your fancy, there’s always the stomach-churning casu martzu.

Like it or not, COVID-19 is still with us. Masks are among our best lines of defence against airborne pathogens – not just SARS-CoV-2 – and, though many of us would prefer to consign them to the past along with all that sourdough we baked during lockdown, it’s important we keep learning the best ways to use these interventions to help protect us. A new study has confirmed that one type of COVID-19 mask outperforms the rest, while reiterating that wearing any mask is a positive choice for health.“The research shows that any mask is much better than no mask, and an N95 is significantly better than the other options. That’s the number one message,” said senior study author and airborne disease expert Dr Donald Milton of the University of Maryland, in a statement.Beginning way back in the toilet-paper-hoarding days of May 2020, Milton’s team began looking at the impact that face coverings could have on the spread of the infection. They consistently found that four common types of masks could significantly prevent an infected person from contaminating the air around them, even when they hadn’t received training on how to fit the mask correctly.Their investigations were aided by a steampunk-esque contraption called the Gesundheit II Machine. Participants with mild COVID-19 stick their faces inside a conical device that resembles an old-fashioned loudspeaker or phonograph for 30 minutes at a time, both with and without a mask. While they breathe, speak, sing Happy Birthday, and shout, the machine allows the researchers to measure how many virus particles they are exhaling.The Gesundheit II, in all its glory.Image credit: University of Maryland School of Public HealthOver a period of almost two years, from June 2020 to May 2022, the team collected breath samples from 44 people. They focused on four different types of masks: cloth masks, surgical masks, KN95 masks, and “duckbill”-shaped N95 respirators.“Data from our study suggests that a mildly symptomatic person with COVID-19 who is not wearing a mask exhales a little over two infectious doses per hour,” explained first author Dr Jianyu Lai. “But when wearing an N95 mask, the risk goes down exponentially.”In fact, the duckbill N95 blocked 99 percent of large particles and 98 of small particles from escaping, making it the clear choice. Milton puts it down to the design of the mask, with a tight seal, powerful filter, and large airspace inside thanks to its trapezoid shape, which sticks out from the face like, well, a duck's beak.That’s not to say, however, that you should throw out all your cloth masks. They outperformed both surgical and KN95 masks – a surprising result, given that KN95 masks have become a popular choice largely because they’re perceived as higher performance than other options.Milton suggests that cloth masks tend to have better coverage around the face, and the lower flow resistance means less air is forced out of the sides of the mask than with either surgical or KN95s.“Duckbill N95 masks should be the standard of care in high-risk situations, such as nursing homes and health care settings,” said Lai. “Now, when the next outbreak of a severe respiratory virus occurs, we know exactly how to help control the spread, with this simple and inexpensive solution.”But for people going about their everyday lives, it’s heartening to know that if you can’t get hold of a duckbill mask, a simple cloth mask can still be very effective. We don’t know where the next pandemic is coming from, but one candidate that’s on everyone’s radar is H5N1 avian flu – as an airborne virus, masks will no doubt play a key role in any public health response that may become necessary.“Our research shows definitively why it’s so important to have non-pharmaceutical responses like wearing masks, and why we need studies like this to illuminate which masks are most effective,” Milton said.The study is published in eBioMedicine.

A heatwave is expected to grip most of the East Coast, with higher than seasonal temperatures from Florida to Massachusetts and into the interior of the Eastern United States. The heat index in Florida is looking concerning – but in 10 days, the State will enforce a ban on heat protection for workers.The extremely controversial law was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in April and prohibits any cities and counties in Florida from passing heat protections for workers, like the ones that Miami-Dade County considered last year. The failed Republican Presidential nominee (DeSantis only got 1.6 percent of the primary votes) distanced himself from the bill after signing it, saying that it did not come from him.The law, known as HB 433, becomes effective on July 1 and blocks the local government from requiring that employers provide basic heat safety protection: shade, water breaks, employee monitoring, and “appropriate first-aid measures.” As reported by Orlando Weekly, business lobbying groups made this bill a priority in the legislature. It is considered an extremely short-sighted policy that will cost lives and will damage the economy.A report from Public Citizen last year showed that heat stress kills up to 2,000 people and also causes 170,000 injuries on job sites every year in the United States. It disproportionately affects lower-income workers as well as Black and Brown people. The report shows that failure to implement heat safety measures costs the US economy $100 billion per year, and the brunt of that is paid by employers.“It’s incomprehensible that people who live in Florida, and are supposed to represent the people of Florida, can vote against the health and safety of the workers that make this economy run, who were considered essential workers just a couple years ago and given PPE, are now treated like this, and not giving protection from extreme heat,” Jeannie Economos, an organizer with the Farmworker Association of Florida, told The Miami Herald. “That makes no sense and it’s unconscionable.”For each 1°C of warming, the number of workplace injuries goes up by 1 percent. As summer gets into full swing, with even more sweltering temperatures on the horizon, workers across Florida will have even less protection. Record temperatures were registered across many cities and counties of the state last year. Back in August 2023, the city of Orlando got to a temperature of 37.7°C (100°F), breaking a record set in 1938. 

A new study from the University of Texas at San Antonio has debunked the liberal canard that men who own guns do so to compensate for their insecurity over the size of their penis. This result did not sit well with CBS’s host of The Late Show, Stephen Colbert, who, on Thursday, could only offer up “men lie” in an attempt to keep the canard alive. Reading from Newsweek’s report on the study, Colbert reported that, “Meanwhile, a new study has found that men who are happy with their penis size are more likely to own a gun, and that ‘the long-standing assumption linking insecurity over penis size to gun ownership may be inaccurate.’"     Whose assumption was that? Regardless, Colbert did his best to preserve the idea, “Or, and this is just a theory, men lie.” Colbert then began a mock conversation between a researcher and a gun owner, ‘“As a gun owner, how do you feel about your penis?’ ‘Good. Great. I love my big penis. So big. So strong. Never cries. Good strong penis. There's nothing wrong with my penis. And if there was something wrong with it, that doesn't have anything to do with my gun. Are you saying it has something to do with me that has to do with my gun? Because I will shoot you with my tiny, rump penis. I mean my gun.’” The “long-standing assumption” was always garbage. It was just a juvenile and intellectually unsophisticated personal attack meant to advance gun control that completely ignored normal reasons why someone might own a gun, such as self-defense or simply enjoying going to the range. It also ignored the existence of female gun owners, but now that science has debunked one of his cheapest jokes, Colbert doesn’t know how to cope. Here is a transcript for the June 20 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 6/20/2021 11:57 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Meanwhile, a new study has found that men who are happy with their penis size are more likely to own a gun, and that "the long-standing assumption linking insecurity over penis size to gun ownership may be inaccurate." Or, and this is just a theory, men lie.  "As a gun owner, how do you feel about your penis?" "Good. Great. I love my big penis. So big. So strong. Never cries. Good strong penis. There's nothing wrong with my penis. And if there was something wrong with it, that doesn't have anything to do with my gun. Are you saying it has something to do with me that has to do with my gun? Because I will shoot you with my tiny, rump penis. I mean my gun."

Is it possible for someone to be proficient, or even expert, at more than one pursuit? Can someone be a soldier and also be a dentist? The post Being a Generalist vs. a Specialist appeared first on Survivopedia.

The year millions of people were killed worldwide by a virus likely engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese scientists in Beijing began toying with a more deadly coronavirus variant called GX_P2V that killed humanized mice 100% of the time, largely with late-stage brain infections. While not formally linked, the study referenced parallel work executed by Wuhan Institute of Virology scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli. In March, Chinese researchers at the Hebei Medical University revealed they had created a mutant version of the virus vesicular stomaitis, known to infect cattle, by giving it a protein from the Ebola virus. The hamster test subjects infected with the recombinant virus suffered weight loss, ulcerated eyes, inflammation, multi-organ failure, and then all died. Apparently, the Pentagon has no idea to what extent it has bankrolled these kinds of potentially ruinous experiments in communist China. The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General released a partially redacted report Tuesday detailing the results of its efforts to track down the money the Pentagon has invested helping the communist Chinese enhance deadly pathogens. The report made clear it was referring to gain-of-function experiments, referencing a definition published in the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, which states, "The term 'gain-of-function' means 'to enhance a function by genetic manipulation' or 'to add a new function' and applies to much research involving genetic recombination and genetic manipulation." The DOD Office of Inspector General sought specifically to track the amount of federal funds given either directly or indirectly by the Pentagon to: the communist regime itself; the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other organizations administered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences; Peter Daszak's scandal-plagued and debarred EcoHealth Alliance, whose gain-of-function subcontractor was among the likely patients zero; the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences; and any other related lab in the Asian nation. Of special concern was whether and where funds were spent on "research or experiments that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of any coronavirus, influenza, Nipah, Ebola, or other pathogen of pandemic potential or chimeric versions of such a virus or pathogen." The conclusions of the report were damning. The Pentagon has admitted that it has no idea to what extent it has funded the creation of deadly viruses in an adversarial nation it has identified as its "top pacing challenge" — a country whose overall biorisk management score is less than stellar. The report noted at the outset that Army officials had identified 12 relevant research programs and that for "seven awards, a prime awardee provided funds to a subawardee or contracting research organization in China or other foreign countries for research related to potential enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential." The Inspector General's Office could also account for over $54 million given to EcoHealth Alliance for 13 projects executed from 2014 through 2023 but suggested that none of this funding went to China or its affiliates for gain-of-function research. After accounting for the top of the Pentagon funding iceberg, the report indicated what lies below the surface is wholly "unknown." Why is the answer to this question not 'zero dollars'? Citing "significant challenges in searching for awards" due to "limitations in the DOD's systems used to track contracts and grants," the Inspector General's Office concluded, "The full extent of DOD funds provided to Chinese research laboratories or other foreign countries for research related to enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential is unknown." The report noted that when it came to funding Chinese gain-of-function experiments, the DOD neither used "a budget line item or any other consistent indicator, such as assistant listing codes, that makes databases of grants, contracts, and other transaction agreements easily searchable or reviewable" nor tracked "funding at the level of detail necessary" to make accurate determinations. Apparently, the Government Accountability Office reached a comparable conclusion in a 2022 report. Similarly troubling was the Office of the Inspector General's admission that found it impossible "to identify a single source that encompasses all pathogens of pandemic potential." In other words, the Pentagon does not appear to have an accessible authoritative list detailing just how many deadly diseases it has funded the creation of in China. Despite the acknowledgement the Pentagon hasn't tracked its spending on the manufacture of killer viruses in China, DOD officials reassured the Inspector General's Office that "DOD organizations did not actively participate in or knowingly fund research or experiments that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential from 2014 through 2023." The report was not well received. Molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University wrote, "Your tax dollars on fire." Stanford University epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tweeted, "The Biden DOD has lost track of how much money it has given to Chinese laboratories for 'enhancing' pathogens. Why is the answer to this question not 'zero dollars'?" "Deadly coverup. Deadly incompetence," wrote Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson. "What's the difference? But this 'I dunno' may as well translate as: we (YOU) paid for the creation of covid." Blaze News columnist Auron MacIntyre responded, "US agencies can track and censor your social media posts about the pandemic but can't track how much they spent to manufacture it." "It wasn't the Pangolin," wrote Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. "It was the Pentagon." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mark Levin is a scholar of American history, and according to him, Joe Biden is one of a kind. Just not in a good way. “I’ve never seen anything like this in American history,” he says, pointing to the current president. “[Joe Biden] is a certified nut. ... He’s like a mannequin dummy they keep pushing out.” “What is upsetting and stunning is the extent to which his cabinet won't trigger the 25th Amendment,” which allows a president to be replaced by the vice president in the event he is deemed unfit to serve. And we all know Biden is unfit to serve. His list of blunders grows longer by the day. But radical politicians and the left-owned media are trying to sell the false narrative that Joe Biden is the picture of health. That’s “why Merrick Garland would rather drop dead than release the audio of Biden's interview with Robert Hur,” who stated himself that “Biden’s memory had been ‘significantly limited,”’ says Levin. But how can they keep up the pretense of Biden’s cognitive soundness when he does things like indicate "he was vice president during the COVID-19 pandemic, which started three years after he left office”? According to the Washington Post, “It was one of the numerous flubs in the single speech that prompted the White House to make corrections to the official transcript.” Further, “In January, he mixed up two of his Hispanic cabinet secretaries, Alejandro Mayorkas and Xavier Becerra.” “During a February fundraising in New York, he recounted speaking to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who died in 2017, at the 2021 Group of Seven meeting.” “That same month at a different fundraiser, he said that during the 2021 G7 Summit, he'd spoken to former French President François Mitterrand, who died in 1996.” “Here's my question,” says Levin. “Does he eat his oatmeal on his own, or does the wife have to feed it to him?” Want more from Mark Levin?To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A new film dramatizes the story of a motorcycle club chronicled by Lyon in the 1960s, offering a tribute to the outlaw spirit

There is no way to evaluate the total damage inflicted on Trump’s candidacy by Bragg’s prosecution until we learn what Judge Merchan will do.