>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
exporting american citizens would very much fall under "cruel and unusual". There's been challenges on this that essentially say "you can be cruel OR unusual, but not both". I'd love to see how they justify a police state foreign prison doesn't qualify as "cruel".
According to the now conservative majority on the Supreme Court, there is no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment once your in jail. SCOTUS and the eighth amendment aren't going to save us here, not anymore.
The US has the death penalty, all implementations of which have been demonstrated to qualify as cruel by most people's definitions (e.g. the chemical method is not in any way based on science but rather pumping the victim full of overdoses of chemicals known to kill them, contrary to popular misconceptions it's not like being put down by a vet but more like suffocating until your brain shuts off).
Given the state of the US prison industrial complex, I also wouldn't be surprised if the prisons El Salvador would provide for US citizens are at least up to par during the likely contractually required inspections. They wouldn't need to be as good as the average US prison, they would only need to be no worse than the worst US prison.
> as long as it doesn’t sign international treaties
Treaties are legally binding inasmuch as the signatories' legal systems treat them as such. The legal enforcement is entirely internal. Countries are constantly geting into fights over who isn't following such and such treaty properly.
(Like, look at North America right now. Or China in respect of UNCLOS.)
Case in point: the US has literally threatened to invade The Hague if any US citizens are ever arrested and put on trial there. Even if the US were a signatory, nobody involved would dare risking it.
Mitochondria are in endosymbiosis with eucaryotic cells. Symbiogenesis is the idea that eucaryotes came into being ("genesis") because some prior lifeforms joined in endosymbiosis.
> the idea that eucaryotes came into being ("genesis") because some prior lifeforms joined in endosymbiosis is the theory of symbiogenesis
Nope, endosymbiosis refers to the theory per se [1]. The 1966 article that "renewed interest in the long-dormant endosymbiont hypothesis of organelle origins" [2] referred to "the idea that the eukaryotic cell arose by a series of endosymbioses" [3]. The term symbiogenesis "was first introduced by the Russian Konstantin Sergeivich Mereschkovsky" in 1910.
Hypothesis: the school split is an artefact of symbiogenesis (the original term) being revisited during the Cold War. (It also seems symbiogenesis refers to the broader biological phenomenon of symbiosis. There was a symbiogenesis of the Nemo-anemone relationship. Nemo is not endosymbiotic to anemones.)
I had heard that cancer (in general) suppressed mitochondria in preference for anaerobic respiration, and that apoptosis commonly involves these organelles.
For me what he says doesn't make a lot of sense. For instance he threatens to go to the Swiss who, he even concedes, has higher wages. Also he complains about too much regulation while he concedes that it is a EU thing. Then he says construction costs in Germany are so high. I have a hard time imagining that construction costs in the Swiss are lower than in Germany.
It's fine if it works for you but still on your page as well as your linked resources there are a lot of false claims.
For instance on that page about the Comanche it is claimed they only ate meat (which is absolutely inplausible from the start) but Wikipedia says they "also gathered wild fruits, seeds, nuts, berries, roots and tubers, including plums, grapes, juniper berries, persimmons, mulberries, acorns, pecans, wild onions, radishes, and tuna, the fruit of the prickly pear cactus. The Comanche also acquired maize, dried pumpkin, and tobacco through trade and raids."
Also, it seems, that meat is indeed not "nutritionally" complete and your source for that claim is some quack trying to sell his book?
It's great if a meat-only diet works for you, but I don't think there's scientific evidence to support it.
That page <https://justmeat.co/peoples/> actually says "have eaten meat-heavy, if not exclusive diets" and even follows up with "Not all are necessarily fully carnivorous". If this is all the supposed fault you can find, it does easily expose your "a lot of false claims" motte-and-bailey furphy for what it actually is. In regards to "I don't think there's scientific evidence to support it", 'tis just as well I didn't have you advicing me all those years ago, else this conversation wouldn't even be happening (and I be free of my chronic condition), eh?
Finally, in regards to your "some quack" put-down, it actually behoves on you to provide evidence that an exclusively animal-based diet (especially with offal) is necessarily "deficient". It would seem that you lack sufficient understanding of nutrient bioavailability (generally high in animal foods), as well as the fact that RDA is not absolute (note for instance the reduced requirement speculations for Thiamin & Vitamin C in <https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/1/140>)?
I don't get why you cite this study, or maybe you read it totally differently than me. As I understand it it only confirms my view:
"The carnivore diet met several NRV thresholds for nutrients such as riboflavin, niacin, phosphorus, zinc, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, selenium, and Vitamin A, and exceeded the sodium threshold. However, it fell short in thiamin, magnesium, calcium, and Vitamin C, and in iron, folate, iodine and potassium in some cases. Fibre intake was significantly below recommended levels."
Yes, I read it beyond the abstract. And if you did too, you'd know about the theory that "the requirement for thiamin is reduced due to a reduction in thiamin-requiring glycolytic metabolism" or that "the large quantities of carnitine available in an animal-based diet may provide Vitamin C sparing effect".
> As I understand it it only confirms my view
As even the abstract, that you limited yourself to read, goes on to confirm that these nutrient requirements are reduced in a carnivore diet -- cf. "facilitates a lower requirement of certain nutrients" -- then your understanding is a doozie, let alone it support your unsubstantiated view that "meat is indeed not "nutritionally" complete".
Actually I read the abstract and the conclusion. However I think the abstract is there for a certain reason and my quote from the abstract absolutely confirms my point that a meat-based diet is insufficient. Anyway, I hope it's good for you, also in the long run (you mentioned something about cholesterol in another comment).
reply