Well, you'll be pleased to have it confirmed that your eyeballs do not pop out of your sockets like champagne corks.
Quick thread on what can happen if you hold your nose and mouth and then do a sneeze.
(Sources here: https://t.co/Ksy95o7im7)

Well, you'll be pleased to have it confirmed that your eyeballs do not pop out of your sockets like champagne corks.

More from Health
Thread on how atheism leads to mental retardation (backed with medical citations🧵💉)
To start with, atheism is an unnatural self-contradicting doctrine.
Medical terminology proves that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Oxford scientists assert that people are "born believers".
https://t.co/kE0Fi588yn
https://t.co/OqyXcGIMJn
It should be known that atheism could never produce an intelligently-functioning society and neither ever will.
Contrastingly, Islam produced several intellectuals & polymaths, was on the forefront of scientific development, boasting 100% literacy
It is also scientifically proven that atheism led to lesser scientific curiosity and scientific frauds, which is also why atheists incline to pseudo-science.
Whereas, religion in general and Islam in particular boosted education.
https://t.co/19Onc84u3g
Atheists are also likely to affected by pervasive mental and developmental disorders like high-functioning autism.
Cognitive Scientists and renowned Neurologists found that more atheism is leads to greater autism.
https://t.co/zRjEyFoX3P
To start with, atheism is an unnatural self-contradicting doctrine.
Medical terminology proves that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Oxford scientists assert that people are "born believers".
https://t.co/kE0Fi588yn
https://t.co/OqyXcGIMJn

It should be known that atheism could never produce an intelligently-functioning society and neither ever will.
Contrastingly, Islam produced several intellectuals & polymaths, was on the forefront of scientific development, boasting 100% literacy
If the Muslim world had not existed, there literally would be no technology/achievements today.
— Starks\u262a\ufe0f\U0001f1f9\U0001f1e9 (@MegaIntelIect) January 8, 2021
Science only developed because of Islam, Europe should be grateful to Islam for civilizing their barbaric cult.
Source: The Caliph's Splendor, Pg 204-05 https://t.co/HVypO52Tpc pic.twitter.com/00jYSbaDSs
It is also scientifically proven that atheism led to lesser scientific curiosity and scientific frauds, which is also why atheists incline to pseudo-science.
Whereas, religion in general and Islam in particular boosted education.
https://t.co/19Onc84u3g

Atheists are also likely to affected by pervasive mental and developmental disorders like high-functioning autism.
Cognitive Scientists and renowned Neurologists found that more atheism is leads to greater autism.
https://t.co/zRjEyFoX3P

🚨New lockdown regulations just published, in force tomorrow
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
(Thread)
These are not a new set of regulations: they are amendments an old set of regulations
Which we thought were gone! But they are back
Welcome back No.3 regulations
A quick thing before we continue!
I have been analysing these laws for free for 9 months now - if you want to say thanks and have a few £ to spare please give to my @LawCentres fundraiser
They give free legal advice to people who need it
They also amend the All Tiers regulations
Oh god it's all amendments by paragraph references
Basically all of England now in Tier 4 and Tier 4 is amended but not by a huge amount
This really is a terrible way to make laws on the fly - who can possibly understand it?!
So, to explain, you need 2 documents open if you want to understand what is going on:
All Tiers regulations (Tiers 1-4, 2 December as amended) https://t.co/IraPQ112ak
And amendments https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
No sensible way of doing except by track changes, on it now, back soon
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
(Thread)

These are not a new set of regulations: they are amendments an old set of regulations
Which we thought were gone! But they are back
Welcome back No.3 regulations
A quick thing before we continue!
I have been analysing these laws for free for 9 months now - if you want to say thanks and have a few £ to spare please give to my @LawCentres fundraiser
They give free legal advice to people who need it
They also amend the All Tiers regulations
Oh god it's all amendments by paragraph references
Basically all of England now in Tier 4 and Tier 4 is amended but not by a huge amount
This really is a terrible way to make laws on the fly - who can possibly understand it?!

So, to explain, you need 2 documents open if you want to understand what is going on:
All Tiers regulations (Tiers 1-4, 2 December as amended) https://t.co/IraPQ112ak
And amendments https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
No sensible way of doing except by track changes, on it now, back soon
Sarcomeres in cardiac myocytes (heart muscle cells) are mechanically coupled to focal adhesions through dorsal stress fiber-like structures. #cardiotwitter #CellBiology
1/13
A thread based on Figure 1
A mature adult cardiac myocyte is packed with sarcomeres, whose contractile forces are coupled to the extracellular environment. With sarcomeres so close to the plasma membrane, how can we study the nature of this coupling?
2/13
Short answer: find a model system where the sarcomeres are not so close to what the cardiac myocyte is attached to. Enter, iPS cell-derived cardiac myocytes. These are “immature” in culture as they resemble fetal or neonatal cardiac myocytes.
3/13
Our previous work on iPS cardiac myocytes reported that sarcomere containing myofibrils assembled on the top surface of the myocyte.
https://t.co/xIBCu3hG1W
4/13
The sarcomeres seemed to be connected to focal adhesions on the bottom of the cell by thin actin bundles that resembled the dorsal stress fibers (DSF) commonly found in non-muscle cells. This movie steps through a Z stack of a myocyte starting at the bottom of the cell.
5/13
1/13
A thread based on Figure 1
A mature adult cardiac myocyte is packed with sarcomeres, whose contractile forces are coupled to the extracellular environment. With sarcomeres so close to the plasma membrane, how can we study the nature of this coupling?
2/13

Short answer: find a model system where the sarcomeres are not so close to what the cardiac myocyte is attached to. Enter, iPS cell-derived cardiac myocytes. These are “immature” in culture as they resemble fetal or neonatal cardiac myocytes.
3/13

Our previous work on iPS cardiac myocytes reported that sarcomere containing myofibrils assembled on the top surface of the myocyte.
https://t.co/xIBCu3hG1W
4/13

The sarcomeres seemed to be connected to focal adhesions on the bottom of the cell by thin actin bundles that resembled the dorsal stress fibers (DSF) commonly found in non-muscle cells. This movie steps through a Z stack of a myocyte starting at the bottom of the cell.
5/13

You gotta think about this one carefully!
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇

Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇