believing

We have been believing for decades that the Great Pyramid was built at one time. The latest analysis places it more than 20,000 years earlier

by

(Fortunately) the world is full of monuments as ancient as they are impressive, but few, very few, are comparable to the Great Pyramid of Giza. Almost 140 meters high, thousands of years old and an immortal testimony to the power of Ancient Egypt. It has such magnetism that every year they visit it millions of people arrivals from all over the world. But… What if we have been wrong about its origins for decades? What if instead of becoming 2,500 BCas we have always believed, rose up ago more than 20,000 years? What if Pharaoh Cheops was not its true promoter, but simply renewed it? All those questions have been left by launching a new (and controversial) study. What has happened? That Egyptology has just been shaken by unusual news in modern archaeology: a study that has turned upside down the dating (and origins) of the Great Pyramid of Gizaone of the most iconic monuments not only in Egypt or Africa but on the entire planet. Until now, experts agreed that the monument was built in the time of Khufu, around 2589-2566 BCbecoming one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and the tallest structure in the world for 3,800 years. For Alberto Doninian Italian engineer from the University of Bologna, that estimate falls short. Very short. In fact, he has published a study in which he traces the origins of the pyramid back to more than 20,000 years. What dates do you handle? After analyzing several points of the pyramid, Donini has come to the conclusion that the reference date to talk about its origins should be another: 22941 BC That is, their calculations indicate that the structure is around 24,900 years old. Before continuing, it is important to clarify one detail: its analysis does not seek to set specific dates, but rather to establish a time frame for the construction of the monument. What does that mean? That, in reality, what Donini has done is calculate that there are 68.2% probability that the period of construction of the pyramid is framed in a window that extends between 38,903 and 10,979 years ago. The calculation of 24,941 years would therefore be a simple arithmetic mean that serves as a reference. If instead of talking about antiquity we talk about calendars, this means that, according to the estimates of the Italian engineer, the most famous structure in Giza was probably built between 36878 and 8954 BC What is it based on? Donini’s work is not controversial only because of its conclusions. It is also because of its methodology, the calculation system it has used. Its main tool is Relative Erosion Method (REM), a formula that dispenses with documentary sources to be based fundamentally on what the rocks say. Literally. What the REM does is analyze the erosion of the pyramid blocks to, based on their level of wear, date them. Said like this, it sounds simple, but what the engineer has done is somewhat more complex: he selected 12 different points spread across the base of the Great Pyramid and then compared their different levels of erosion, looking at aspects such as the holes and cavities opened in the rock by rain or the roots of plants and the natural wear and tear caused by wind, sand and the constant passage of people. And has that been of any use? Yes. The analysis has yielded a disparate range of dates. At one of those twelve points, the REM suggested an estimated age of 5,708 years. In others the estimate was 17,955, 30,375 or even more than 50,000 years. It may sound strange considering that we are talking about a single monument and it is logical to think that all its blocks have been there for the same amount of time, but many factors influence erosion: from the position of each stone, which determines its exposure to wind and rain, to its mineral composition. It’s still a strange thing, isn’t it? Yes. And no. It is true that the engineer obtained very different dates, but this is explained by another peculiarity of the Great Pyramid. The monument did not always have the appearance we see today. In it 1303 AD The area suffered an earthquake that affected the white limestone blocks that originally covered the structure. That material was later reused in buildings in Cairo. Although it may sound like an archaeological tragedy, it offers experts like Donini a real opportunity. The reason? They now have blocks that have been exposed to erosion almost since the construction of the Great Pyramid and others that have only been exposed to erosion for 675 years, when the earthquake left them bare. This contrast partly explains why when applying the REM method Donini obtained such a broad time frame, the same one that later led him to propose an antiquity of 24,941 years. Issue settled, then? No. The study has only served to stir up the debate. And it is more than understandable if we take into account several keys. First, the dating turns upside down everything we thought we knew about one of Egypt’s most famous monuments. Among other things, he questions whether Pharaoh Cheops was its main architect and slips that he could have limited himself to reforming it. Furthermore, Donini’s study has another handicap: it is preliminary and has not been peer-reviewed, which heats up the debate (even) more. He himself has admitted that REM calculations are influenced by factors that must be handled with caution, such as the variability of erosion processes or the wear and tear that mass tourism may have had on certain parts of the base of the pyramid, altering the calculations. Images | Wikipedia, Alessandro Zanini (Unsplash) and 2H Media (Unsplash) Via | 3D Games In Xataka | Egypt is creating a new tourist mega-destination. There are those who see it as a threat to the oldest monastery in the world

We have been believing for years that women live longer because of their lifestyle. Science has a much deeper explanation

by

If we take a look at the World Bank’s global statistics, there is an unbreakable pattern that repeats itself in practically every country in the world: Women live longer than men. Conventional wisdom often dismisses this phenomenon with a quick response based on lifestyle or “men take more risks.” And although there is some truth in this, the scientific reality is much more complex. Because? To understand female longevity, We must focus on the DNA that we have in all our cells. Something very basic is that women have two X chromosomes, while men have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. A fundamental difference, because that second X chromosome in women acts as a kind of backup. This means that if a gene on one X chromosome suffers a mutation or is damaged, the female body can turn to the healthy copy on the other chromosome. Men, however, play a single card, since if their only X chromosome has a defect, there is no plan B. In addition, this chromosome is vital because it houses a large number of genes related to the immune system, which gives women a more robust response to infections. It goes further. Genetics is not everything here, but the body has an ace up its sleeve, which are the mitochondria, which are nothing more than the “power plants” of our cells. These organelles are inherited only maternally and, as proposed in 2007sexual differentiation has a direct biological cost for men, translating into lower mitochondrial function and, therefore, greater cellular oxidative stress that accelerates aging. The hormones. Beyond genetics and mitochondria, we must mention sex hormones, which are in very different proportions between sexes. Estrogens, for example, are the main female sex hormones that, in addition to regulating the reproductive cycle, act as a powerful antioxidant shield. Among its effects stands out maintaining the flexibility of blood vessels, reducing “bad” cholesterol and preventing inflammation. This largely explains why the incidence of cardiovascular disease in women is significantly lower before menopause. In the man. On the other side of the coin we have testosterone. Although it is crucial for the development of muscle and bone mass, high levels of this hormone in men are historically associated with increased cardiovascular risk at an early age and long-term depression of the immune system. The evolution. Someone may fall into the idea that this system is something exclusive to humans, but evolutionary biology shows us otherwise. Here, a 2025 study analyzed 1,176 species and the results revealed that in mammals, females live on average 13% longer than males. The reason lies in reproductive strategies and the biological wear and tear derived from male sexual competition, such as fights over territory or mating. However, it was seen that andIn birds, males live 5% longer; since in the avian world, males usually have two identical sex chromosomes (ZZ) and females have different sex chromosomes (ZW). Furthermore, in many bird species, parental care is shared or falls to the male, which reduces their risk behaviors. Human behavior. Of course, biology does not operate in a vacuum and genetic and hormonal factors must be added. the behavioral gap and social. For example, the consumption of toxic substances has a greater prevalence in men, being associated with cancer, cirrhosis or respiratory diseases. But, as we have said before, testosterone is also linked to a greater propensity to take risks, which translates into higher mortality rates from traffic accidents or cases of violence. On the other hand, women suffer from “invulnerability syndrome” which causes them to seek preventive medical services much more frequently. Men tend to postpone visits to the doctor until diseases are in more advanced stages, making treatment difficult. In addition, women tend to build stronger social and emotional support networks, a factor directly linked to greater survival in old age. Images | Age Cymru In Xataka | 5 minutes of sleep, 2 of exercise and half a serving of vegetables: the macro study that supports a great longevity ‘hack’

“We have been believing all our lives that cats are nocturnal and it is normal for them to wake us up”

by

Those of us who have cats know that playing and meowing in the middle of the night are included in the package, but the reason why they do it is not what you are thinking. The fact that your cat decides that 5 in the morning is the perfect time to do parkour on your head is not because it wants to annoy you nor because it is a nocturnal animal. We have spoken with Noelia Hernández, feline educator from Feline Codeto find out what is behind this behavior. They seem nocturnal to us, but they are not.. The first thing to understand is that the popular belief that cats are nocturnal animals is not entirely true. “Cats are activated by the rising and setting of the sun. They are crepuscular in that sense,” Noelia tells us. The fact that some cats have peaks of activity around midnight and then very early in the morning makes us perceive them as nocturnal, especially in summer when the nights are much shorter. In reality, cats sleep at night, what happens is that they wake up much earlier than we do. It is the complaint that Noelia most often hears in her consultations: “Many times, sunrise is when they have the highest peak of activity. It is something recurrent in tutors: ‘he wakes me up too early’.” “Cats are activated by the rising and setting of the sun. They are crepuscular” An evolutionary question. The fact that the peaks of activity are at these times has to do with their natural hunting instinct. The cats They have evolved to hunt when it dawns and when it duskwhich is when their usual prey are most active. These hunting “schedules” are also why their vision has developed to allow them to see in low light conditions. what’s happening. If your cat wakes you up in the middle of the night, it is probably due to a lack of stimulation during the day, a poorly enriched environment and an incorrect play routine: “During the day we go to work, to the gym, to shop… We arrive, we do a poorly executed mini play session and on top of that completely dependent on us.” Because this is one of the problems that this behavior causes: our cats do not know how to play alone. “Many cats do not know how to resort to autonomous play, they only know how to resort to the play that we tutors give them with canes and other toys,” says Noelia. Another factor is the lack of environmental enrichment. Cats, especially those that live indoors, need a series of adaptations in the environment focused on their well-being such as offering them different smells, surfaces to scratch or allowing them to climb high. If we also add that many people have a cat and spend many hours alone, they are the perfect ingredients for early morning parkour. And let’s not forget the heat factor: “In summer they can be more active at night because it is the only time of day when you can live in general,” says Noelia with a laugh. How to avoid it. “With a well-structured sequence of games, a well-enriched environment and a good understanding of the cat’s needs, these episodes of ‘I get up at 5 or 6 in the morning’ can be reduced,” says Noelia. First, to encourage autonomous play, it is important to offer them a variety of toys and above all not to always leave the same ones, but to change them: “Toys must be rotated so that they can manage themselves at night if they need it.” Furthermore, when playing with our cat it is not about making it run after a toy like crazy and that’s it, it has to be done well. He cat hunting cycle It has five phases: stalking → chase → capture → bite/ingestion → rest. If we stay on the principle “We do not lower those hormones that have been prepared for the hunt and together with the arrival of dawn and of course, they wake us up.” To make it complete, you have to let him catch the toy and finish by giving him food or a snack. “With a well-structured play sequence, a well-enriched environment and a good understanding of the cat’s needs, these episodes can be reduced” Commitment and understanding. Being woken up by your cat at four in the morning is not pleasant, no matter how you look at it, but getting angry or punishing it is not going to solve anything (in fact, punishment will make the situation worse). get worse or cause other new problems). For Noelia, it is a matter of commitment and understanding: “There must be commitment on the part of the guardian to understand his cat, let him express his nature and give him tools so that he can channel alone autonomously when he has these types of needs, without waking up the guardian.” Image | Amparo Babiloni, Xataka In Xataka | If the question is how long can you leave your cat home alone, the answer is: less than you think.

We have been believing for years that yogurt was the best probiotic. Science is now crowning kefir

by

In recent months there is a dairy product that has begun to become very popular, causing traditional yogurt to begin to falter from its ‘reign’ on supermarket shelves. We are talking about kefir, a product that is increasingly you are listening much more and which is registering a boom that is driven above all by social networks that have promoted some of the benefits it can have for the digestive system. A battle. For decades, yogurt has been the undisputed leader in taking care of our intestinal flora due to the ‘good’ bacteria it has in its composition. However, at a microscopic level, the battle is completely unequal, since, while conventional yogurt usually contains between 2 and 5 bacterial strains whose effects on the intestine are transitory, kefir is a massive symbiotic consortium and offers a better long-term result. We are talking about an ecosystem that houses between 30 and 50 strains of bacteria and yeast, and here the published reviews highlight that this overwhelming microbiological diversity allows kefir to survive stomach acids and ‘settle’ in the intestine in a persistent way. In this way, the bacteria are not passing through as can happen with yogurt, but rather kefir settles and transforms the bacterial flora. And more benefits. Its level of residual lactose here is significantly lower, so the bacteria and yeast in kefir “eat” much of the sugar in the milk during its fermentation, which explains why there are clinical trials showing that lactose intolerant They digest it without having as much reflux and also with less bloating. What does science say? Here there are different sources that can be consulted that suggest that the consumption of kefir reduces some of the bacteria that colonize our mouth producing cavities and is also a proven ally in the eradication of the dreaded bacteria. Helicobacter pylori (although strict antibiotic treatment is required to eliminate it). A recent meta-analysis published in 2025 indicates that kefir also reduces markers of general inflammation and oxidative stress, which are two of the great enemies we face when we talk about harmful agents for the body if they are maintained over time. Furthermore, its ability to reduce the fasting glucose and insulin resistancemaking it a food of interest for the control of type 2 diabetes. The small print. Like everything in nutritional science, the “how much” and the “what” are critical. Here studies indicate that to obtain these metabolic and anti-inflammatory benefits, doses of between 400 and 600 milliliters daily are required, maintained constantly for periods of 4 to 12 weeks. If taken in a ‘jumping’ manner and without consistency, no results should be expected. Which one to choose. Although it may seem like it, not all kefirs are the samesince a pilot trial in healthy men showed that traditional kefir (made from real nodules) reduces LDL cholesterol and inflammatory cytokines much more than hyper-processed commercial versions. The reason is quite simple: industrialization tends to simplify microbial diversity to sterilize the product, losing along the way part of this microbiological ‘magic’ that we appreciate so much. Images | freepik In Xataka | We have been assuming for decades that “skimmed” or “0% fat” yogurt is healthier. It’s time to rethink it

We have been believing for more than a century that the appendix is ​​a useless organ and an evolutionary error. We were very wrong

by

If there is an organ with a bad reputation in human anatomy, it is the appendix. For the vast majority of people, this small worm-shaped pouch connected to the large intestine only serves one thing: to become inflamed, to cause appendicitis urgently and have us undergo surgery. But the truth is that it is more useful than we thought, since science has seen that it has a great impact on our immune system and also in life expectancy. An evolutionary success. Something that marvels me about evolution is that it does eliminate everything that has no use for humans, but if the phylogenetic branch has been maintaining it, it is for a reason. and here a 2013 study analyzed the anatomy of 361 species of mammals and the results were devastating: the appendix is ​​not exclusive to humans and great apes, but has evolved independently at least 32 times. And the question is: why? This theory was later reinforced with a 2017 analysis which identified between 29 and 41 evolutionary gains of the appendix, compared to the very few losses that stood at less than seven. And in biology, when a trait evolves repeatedly in completely different lineages, it means one thing: it provides a crucial adaptive advantage for survival. Its usefulness. If it doesn’t help digest leaves as Darwin believed, then… What does it do? The latest research, including a comprehensive 2023 review published in The Anatomical Record, confirm that the appendix acts as a microbial reservoir and a support for the immune system. This way we know that the appendix is ​​filled with lymphoid tissue and is strategically located outside the “main flow” of the intestine. And it works as a kind of bunker for our microbiome, and in this way, when we suffer a severe intestinal infection that “sweeps away” our bacterial flora, the appendix releases beneficial bacteria hidden inside to quickly recolonize the intestine. And tested. A 2023 study showed that primates with appendages have a relatively lower risk of severe diarrhea episodes early in life, reinforcing their vital role as a protective shield against deadly infections. Its relationship with longevity. The most fascinating discovery about the appendix came in 2021, where a team of researchers published in the journal Ecology and Evolution a study in which they crossed data from 258 mammal species. Controlling for variables such as body size and phylogeny, they looked for patterns between the presence of an appendage and the lifespan of the species. The conclusion they drew was none other than determining that the presence of the appendix is ​​directly correlated with greater maximum longevity. And the reason is in positive natural selection. In this way, by drastically reducing mortality caused by infectious diseases and diarrhea, species with an appendix have a clear survival advantage that allows them to extend their life expectancy. Image | Eugene Chystiakov In Xataka | We have been measuring death wrong: science now believes that our biological expiration date is more hereditary than we thought

We have been believing for years that intermittent fasting is the definitive weapon to lose weight. Science has another idea

by

During the last years, the intermittent fasting has gone from being something exceptional to becoming a nutritional strategy that there is more and more talk and that it has more followers behind it. And it is no wonder, since the promise is quite seductive as it does not focus on what you eat, but on when you eat, activating different metabolic switches to accelerate fat burning. Although there are also detractors behind. New data. The Cochrane library, considered a great world reference, published a few days ago a great review about intermittent fasting that acts as a bucket of cold water, since it suggests that this diet does not offer superior benefits to conventional weight loss diets. The backup. We are not talking about a small study whose validity can be questioned, but in this case the Cochrane researchers analyzed 22 randomized controlled trials that added up to a total of 1,995 participants. overweight or obesity. The objective here was to compare different fasting modalities, such as going 16 hours without being able to eat with eight hours of eating, fasting on alternate days or 5:2 diet compared to classic calorie restriction or inaction. What they found is that, when pitting intermittent fasting against regular dietary advice, the difference in weight loss is virtually zero. The data. Getting into the matter, when intermittent fasting was compared With standard calorie-restricted diets, the mean difference in weight change was a minuscule -0.33%. This difference can translate into that intermittent fasting may result in little to no difference in weight loss with the traditional method. Regarding quality of life, such as the feeling of energy, no difference was seen and, regarding the levels of total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, fasting did not prove to be a panacea either, yielding results of “little or no difference” compared to the control diets. The small print. One of the most critical points of the Cochrane review is the certainty of the evidence, which they rated mostly as “low” or “very low.” This does not mean that the studies are poorly done, but rather that there are important limitations, such as risk bias, inconsistency in results, and lack of precision. But there is one fact that should worry anyone who decides to opt for this diet independently, without medical advice, since, although the evidence is uncertain, some studies pointed to associated side effects specifically to fasting. These include headaches, nausea, cold intolerance or even insomnia and lack of concentration. What is not yet known. Perhaps it is the most revealing thing about this scientific study, since there are still many unknowns surrounding intermittent fasting that invite further research. In this case, none of the 22 studies included data on “patient satisfaction,” which is important because we don’t know if people prefer to go hungry for a few hours in exchange for eating more later, or if they hate the process. And being comfortable with a diet is essential so that you don’t abandon it halfway through. In addition to this, none of the studies pointed to the relationship that may exist in chronic diseases that require significant dietary control, such as diabetes, and which is very common in the population. But one of the big problems in science today is duration, since most studies lasted less than 12 months. We don’t know if fasting is sustainable or safe beyond a year. It is not a miracle diet. What we do know is that intermittent fasting works, but the key point is that It is not superior to the tools we already had as a calorie restriction accompanied by a balanced diet and exercise. For the average patient, this is actually good news: it means that the The best diet is the one you can stick to. If someone finds it easier to skip breakfast with a 16:8 fast than to count calories at each meal, fasting is a valid tool. But if fasting causes headaches, you’re not missing out on any “magic” metabolic benefits from eating three times a day. Although in this process the most important thing is always to be advised by personnel who are qualified in nutrition to be able to have the best dietary plan, to have real objectives and, above all, not to get frustrated along the way. Images | VD Photography In Xataka | We believed that a vegetarian diet guaranteed longevity. In extreme old age, the data says just the opposite

We’ve been believing oatmeal is the perfect breakfast for years, but science has a warning: there’s a limit

by

Over the past few years, oatmeal has been crowned the undisputed queen of healthy breakfasts. And you just have to look at the internet a little to see the porridge from Instagram wave cardiologists recommendation to think that we are facing a perfect food without any type of failure. However, everything can have fine print and oatmeal is one of them. Investigating. Even if you eat healthy, there are people who experience abdominal bloating, gas, or general digestive discomfort with oats. And it’s not that oats are bad, but there are chances that we are eating them wrong. This is something you have already researched. to Monash Universitya world leader in digestive health, by putting an exact figure on the table: 52 grams. This is something that also the nutritionist has put on the table Óscar Hurtado who points out that oats are healthy, but they have a very strict “tolerance curve” for some intestines. The reason. The problem with oats is found in the FODMAPs (oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and fermentable polyols). These are nothing more than short chain carbohydrates that the small intestine cannot absorb well, and that is why They continue their ‘journey’ to the large intestine where the bacteria found here rapidly ferment them. producing gas. But not only this, it can drag water causing diarrhea. And this is where Monash University comes in, which has measured the effect that these compounds have on our body. One of its main conclusions It is in that 52 grams of oats (which is half a cup) is the safe amount of fructans for most humans. If we go too far. In the case of passing the barrier of 60-70 grams, the fructan content in the intestine it triggers and begins to cause problems. Something that is of great interest to those who suffer from a digestive problem such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)since it would be going from an ‘anti-inflammatory’ breakfast to a trigger for abdominal distension and pain. More studies. This is not a warning from now, but has great support in science. An example is the Halmos pivotal trial that showed that a low-FODMAP diet reduces gastrointestinal symptoms. between 22% and 45% more than usual diets. This was because they reduced the amount of fructans, very present in oats, in the diet they ate. But in addition, a 2022 study also confirmed that portion control of this type of fermentable carbohydrates significantly improved life in patients with IBS. And it wasn’t about eliminating oats from the diet, but about keeping them in a “safe zone.” There is no need to demonize. With these studies, logically we do not have to reach this point with oats, since it has many benefits behind it. The Spanish Heart Foundation and multiple nutritional studies remind us why it rose to the breakfast throne in the first place. And it has the ability to give satiety, which helps with weight control, and also delays the absorption of carbohydrates to prevent insulin spikes that are really harmful to the body. Although it doesn’t stop there, since for people with high cholesterol its high amount of beta-glucans can reduce the “bad” cholesterol known as ‘bad cholesterol’ or LDL. Based on tolerance. The conclusion we can reach is that if you have an iron stomach and a good oatmeal breakfast does not affect it at all, you can continue taking it normally. But in the event that symptoms such as bloating or diarrhea begin to appear, it is better to start lowering the dose to see if this “perfect breakfast” begins to feel good again. In this way, we are left with its beneficial properties without the digestive discomfort that we can hate so much. Images | Dor Farber In Xataka | We have been relying on the Nutri-Score in stores for years. Science believes that its real impact is zero

We have been believing for decades that wet hair makes us sick in winter. Science knows perfectly well that it is a lie

by

“Don’t go out with wet hair or you’ll catch pneumonia” or “put on your coat or you’ll catch a cold” are very grandmotherly phrases that almost all of us have been told in our childhood and that have been burned into our brains. But the question we can ask ourselves: is this true? The reality is that not directly. The culprit. May we have a cold or flu It doesn’t exactly depend on the cold. The culprit in this case are infectious agents such as viruses, the most common being rhinovirus. The fact that this microscopic germ accesses our body and overcomes our defense barriers causes it to begin to replicate and generate its effect that In the long run it’s really annoying when accompanied by fever, cough and a host of other symptoms. In this way, the equation is quite simple: if there is no exposure to the virus, the external temperature is irrelevant. To understand it, if we put ourselves in the situation of going out to Antarctica with our hair soaked and naked, we would surely die of hypothermia, but we wouldn’t catch a cold unless a penguin sneezed rhinovirus on us. The same thing happens if we are in an environment completely isolated from viruses and at a very low temperature: no infection would occur. The experts. Just as it isExperts from the Mayo Clinic explain and disseminating pharmacistscold alone does not have the ability to spontaneously generate a pathogen. Cold is a physical condition, not a biological agent. And science has been trying to explain this for decades. One of the most cited and relevant studies is the one carried out by the University of Rochester where they separated volunteers into two groups. One of them was exposed to low temperature and cold conditions; the other was kept in a warm and comfortable environment. Subsequently, they were exposed to rhinovirus that causes colds. The result. In this way, it was seen that between the two groups there was no significant difference in the contagion of the virus or in the symptoms they presented. The group subjected to the cold did not have a harsher cold, so the factor in getting sick was solely and exclusively the virus. Getting sick in winter. It is a reality that when winter arrives the rates of people with colds or flu increase greatly, as we are seeing in Spain these days. This makes us think that the relationship really exists, whatever science says. And this is where we give a little point to ‘grandmother’s advice’. Science suggests that rhinoviruses they replicate better at the temperatures we usually have in our noseswhich ranges from 33 to 35 °C. But in addition, the cold temperature also causes our defenses to lower, so it is much easier for the virus to access our body and begin to spread in a much simpler way. And that’s why winter is where we see a higher rate of colds. Other factors. But he is not the only one. The social factor is also a big culprit, because when it is cold the truth is that it is better to be locked up at home with Netflix. But in these cases we would be in an interior space with little ventilation (because it is cold) and very close to other people. In this way, if a person has the virus, the probability of contagion skyrockets in a heated indoor place much more than in an open-air park at 5°C. Another point is the dry environment that exists at this time due to the cold outside and the indoor heating. This causes the nasal mucous membranes to dry out, which is a serious problem for the mucus, which is our first line of defense at the entrance to viruses and bacteria. If the mucosa is dry, its effectiveness decreases and facilitates the entry of pathogens. Wet hair. A special distinction must be made for this myth since today there is no evidence to justify a relationship between wet hair and an increase in viral infections. Going out with wet hair causes a great loss of body heat (since the head has a lot of vascularized surface), which generates notable thermal discomfort. This translates into a feeling of very cold, feeling cold and perhaps accompanied by a headache due to muscle tension derived from the cold, but the humidity on the scalp does not attract germs or facilitate infection. Images | Dmitriy Kievskiy Brittany Colette In Xataka | H5N1 bird flu unleashes a massacre in Antarctica: half of the female seals have already disappeared

that the Russian hypersonic missiles do not reach the target believing that they are in Peru

by

He Kinzhalpresented by the Kremlin as a hypersonic missile “invincible” capable of overcoming any Western defense, has experienced a series of technical improvements designed to further increase their lethality and reduce the possibilities of interception. In fact, until three months ago it was a real toothache for Ukrainian defenses. Until they have come up with an idea… and a song. Evolution of a missile. Derived from Iskander-M and launched from aerial platforms such as MiG-31K or the Tu-22M3the missile combines speeds that can approach Mach 10 with a deeply maneuvered terminal profile, capable of executing abrupt descents, sudden lateral changes and trajectories designed to break the radar lock of Ukrainian Patriots. Its ability to hide within mixed salvos, blending in with slower missiles, has drastically reduced interception rates: from 37% in August to just one 6% in September. This has made, in theory, previously interceptable missiles become threats that are very difficult to stop, especially when they are used in massive attacks that combine hundreds of drones and dozens of ballistic or cruise missiles. The hidden weakness. However, despite its speed and maneuverability, the Kinzhal has a technical Achilles’ heel: it depends on the navigation system. GLONASS satellite to correct the natural errors of the inertial system, whose precision tends to degrade over time. TO INS differencethe satellite link can be manipulatedinterfered with or supplanted. And here lies the Ukrainian advance. Although the missile incorporates controlled pattern receiving antennas (taking their number from 4 to 8, 12 and now 16 elements in a Russian attempt to counter interference), these electronic defenses have proven to be insufficient against systems designed specifically for front-line conditions. Ukrainian unity Night Watch has shown that, despite Russian improvements, the Kometa receivers They are still based on technology inherited from the Soviet era, unable to resist a spoofing well executed. This combination of high kinematic complexity and electronic vulnerability creates a tactical paradox: Russia’s fastest and theoretically most advanced missile can be diverted by manipulated digital signals if they manage to infiltrate its navigation cycle. A kind of electronic optical illusion. Music as a weapon of precision. Before the fall of the Patriot effectivenessUkraine has opted for a completely different weapon: Lima, a electronic warfare system which not only blocks the Kinzhal’s satellite communications, but also replaces its navigation stream with false data. This system creates a large zone of electronic denial in which missiles lose their spatial reference, but does so with sufficient precision to induce highly controlled errors. Their spoofing technique is more sophisticated than simple jamming: it does not turn off navigation, but rather manipulates it. Lima sends a signal in binary format that can include any content, but operators have chosen to embed the ukrainian anthem “Our Father Is Flag”both for technical and symbolic reasons. This deceptive signal, once accepted by the missile’s receivers, allows it to believe that it is thousands of kilometers to the west, specifically in Lima (Peru), forcing it to abruptly correct its trajectory. At speeds above Mach 5, these changes generate structural stresses that overcome the resistance of the fuselage, causing the missile to break up in flight or crash without detonating. In this way, Ukraine has managed to divert or destroy more than about twenty Kinzhales in a few weeks, a much more significant achievement given its scarcity and its cost to Russia. The controlled diversion. The results of the Lima system are visible in the impact patterns: craters that appear in dozens or even hundreds of kilometers of the planned objectives, sometimes up to 200 km off course. The change in accuracy is drastic. Although Russia claims that the Kinzhal’s CEP is around 10 meters, leaked images by military analysts show missiles falling with errors of more than 140 meters even in recent attacks. There is no doubt, when a weapon designed to penetrate underground bunkers ends up hitting an open field, the effectiveness of spoofing is demonstrated. In many cases, the missile does not even activate the explosive charge because the impact sequence depends on parameters that are altered by the confusion generated in the guidance system. Night Watch Operators they underline that Lima does not act on a single receiver, but on all of them simultaneously, which nullifies the Russian strategy of multiplying antennas to “jump” between signal sources. Each missile receiver, upon entering the affected area, interprets the false data as valid, which turns spoofing into a kind of “enveloping trap” that is impossible to avoid. A constant evolution. This confrontation between hypersonic missile and spoofing techniques illustrates the character of “cat and mouse” that defines contemporary electronic warfare. Russia adjusts software, redesigns terminal profiles and multiplies antennas, and Ukraine responds by creating systems that replace the entire satellite data constellation by a corrupt flow impossible to filter. In fact, the United States and Western companies are already working on technologies capable of detecting or neutralizing spoofing, as Russia explores more robust guidance systems. For now, however, the electronic advantage is Ukrainian: the weapon that Putin called as “invincible” and “capable of overcoming any Western defense” is falling into empty fields, breaking up in mid-flight, or drifting harmlessly away. At the same time, the technique also affects other russian missiles that transit through the interference zone, expanding the defensive range without the need to intercept one by one. The strategic lesson is clear: in a conflict where Russian industry produces only between 10 and 15 Kinzhales a month, losing them to electronic manipulation is a disproportionate blow to the Kremlin’s offensive capacity. Speed ​​vs information. In short, the confrontation between the Kinzhal and the Lima EW system is a reminder that military superiority no longer depends only on speed, armor or explosive power, but on who controls the flow of information. The missile can fly at Mach 10 and be almost impossible physically intercept, but if its guidance system interprets that it has been “teleported” to Peruall its kinetic energy turns against itself. For Ukraine, this achievement represents the opening of … Read more

We have been believing that bacteria are a weapon against tumors for 150 years. And finally we have discovered how

by

In the fight against cancer, there are many treatments that are emerging, being the immunotherapy one of the most innovative, although there are also other alternatives such as based on LED light. Now therapies continue to advance and science is already pointing to a group of bacteria to be able to destroy tumors without depending on the immune response, opening a new era in oncological medicine. It’s not something new. The idea of ​​using bacteria to treat cancer is not new: already in 1868 the German doctor Busch observed that some cancer patients experienced remissions after bacterial infections. Later, William Colby developed bacteria-based treatments that they laid the foundation of modern immunotherapy. However, these traditional therapies require a functional immune system, which is a serious problem for patients who are immunocompromised due to cancer. The present. a study published in Nature Biomedical Engineering presented an innovative “drug-free” strategy that uses a group of bacteria to fight cancer, rescuing this old idea of ​​bacteria against cancer. This treatment has not only demonstrated powerful antitumor efficacy, but it has done so by achieving complete remission of the tumor and, most importantly, it has been maintained for years in mouse models, even in those who are immunosuppressed. The most relevant thing is that the fact that a bacteria helps us with this disease has been achieved without the need to use genetic engineering that alters your RNA. And also, without generating toxicity on the body. A priori they are all advantages. A bacterial duo. The protagonists of this therapy are a bacterial group called AUN, composed of two specific bacteria: Proteus mirabilis (nicknamed A-gyo) and Rhodopseudomonas palustris (UN-gyo). And although we may all have in mind that bacteria are bad for humans, the reality is that They help us (a lot) starting with all those that are in our intestine. When this bacterial duo was administered directly into the blood of tumor-bearing mice, the results were dramatic: complete tumor remission and prolonged survival. And it wasn’t magic. How does it work? It is the obligatory question after seeing the results of this study. The researchers explain that what these bacteria do in short is block the arrival of oxygen and nutrients to the tumors, which literally causes them to suffocate. And a tumor is nothing more than a set of cells that have an advanced metabolism. When taking away their food they end up dead. In essence, these bacteria can reach the tumor and enter its interior, as if it were a Trojan horse. Upon arrival, it causes very small blood clots to form and only in the blood vessels that go to the tumor. In this way, blood clots block the passage of blood and, therefore, its food source. Bacterial transformation. Bacteria are STILL not passive agents, but are dynamic actors that change their behavior when detecting cancer. In this way, the study observed that the A-gyo bacteria undergoes a “wonderful fibrous transformation.” This change is not random. It is specifically activated when the bacteria encounters “oncometabolites“, chemical signals emitted by cancer cells. This highly mobile form of “swarm”, together with the toxins and hemolysins secreted by the consortium, seems to be responsible for the tumor vascular destruction without affecting the rest of the healthy cells. A safe treatment. Using live bacteria as therapy may sound risky, but the study spends much of its time demonstrating the safety and control of AUN. The first thing that has been seen is that the bacterial strains have a unique non-pathogenic profile. Furthermore, to achieve a 100% complete response and avoid the lethality of a single high dose, the researchers developed a “double dose” regimen: a first injection at a low dose, followed days later by a high dose. The low dose “primes” the body, consuming aggressive neutrophils and mitigating the risk of severe cytokine release syndrome. Looking to the future. Although the experiments were performed in mice, the therapy was tested against human cancer cell lines in xenograft models. In this case, cells from human colon adenocarcinoma, ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer were used. The results in this case were very clear: all the tumors tested successfully disappeared in the mouse models, without very serious side effects. In this way, we are faced with a therapy that does not require any type of drug a priori and that can be self-managed. The authors of the study point out that this approach can revolutionize cancer therapy, but there is still a long way to go. Images | CDC In Xataka | Colon cancers are increasing alarmingly among young people. We have a suspect: sedentary lifestyle

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.