Paleo artists often "shrink wrap" fossilized animal depictions
The T-Rex, Utahraptor, Triceratops—popular depictions of each of these animals shows skin so close to bone that it might be unrealistic
So let's shrink-wrap existing animals🧵
Can you guess what this is?
Preemptive note: All of this artwork is from C.M. Koseman, whose book (which is way more extensive than this thread) and some other material is linked at the end of the thread.
The last animal was a rhinoceros—the thing with the cooling heat sail!
Any idea what this animal is?
That last one might seem to be a dog, but it's actually a horse.
It's not so clear what this graceful beast might be.
The last picture was of a cow.
What about this monster? Its jaws can crush a steel car.
That metal-breaker was a hippopotamus.
This pack-hunting animal has a killer stare and wields a set of five switchblade claws on its forefeet. What might it be?
That was the house cat.
This one's a bit more mysterious, and clearly adapted to be a stealthy predator, right?
If you guessed that was a spider monkey, kudos to you. Future paleontologists might consider it an arboreal variation on humans, its cursorial relatives.
What of this one? It's not clear to future paleontologists if it's quadrupedal or bipedal.
That's the toad, which paleontologists might consider to be a long-legged forest ambler.
Any idea what this one is? Without preserved feathers, guessing might be hard!
If you guessed "Vulture", you're correct. But you probably didn't guess that!
You almost certainly won't guess this one.
That was a species of casque-headed hornbill, and paleontologists might suspect they use the casque for mating rituals. But we don't even know what they do with them in many cases today!
How's about this twofer? Note predator and prey:
If you guessed the "Swan" and the "Tadpole" (mistakenly believed to be a form of fish), then you were right.
What about this cute little predator?
That was an iguana, and due to fur being found on other small vertebrates like rats, it's assumed to have fur too.
Who's this courser?
That was a rabbit, but we wouldn't know it because posture is poorly preserved in fossils!
Now this one is simultaneously reassuring and disheartening. What might it be?
That's a python, and it might be assumed to have feet to support its body, much like the lizards its skeleton resembles. After all, we only have fragmentary remains!
Who's this guy?
That's a manatee. Remember, habitats change. A sea creature might be found in what's now a forested mountain. We might also only have remains like skulls.
This guy has a balloon-like facial sac. What might he be?
That's a bull elephant, and because no other animals have long, muscular appendages, he ends up with a face sac instead of his well-known trunk.
Time to dive underwater.
This one might seem to be a dolphin, but think outside the box.
It's a sperm whale, incorrectly believed to be a hunter of large pray. You know, like sharks.
What's this kelp forest stalker?
Why that's a bowhead whale of course! And as we know from its skeleton's extensible jaws, it must prey on animals as large as itself!
Going back to the land, who are we looking at now?
Because of its complicated nasal sinuses, the baboon might be assumed to have had venom glands and to have been a coursing hunter!
These guys have curved foot claws, sometimes serrated bills, and wings shorter than their legs. They must be vampiric!
But that's not the case, it's just an odd animal. It's a hummingbird, the only animal in its strange niche, and thus a prime candidate for misinterpretation!
Finally, who the hell is this?
That might be the first example of shrink wrapping and distorting the fossil record: the animal proposed to be pre-flood man, or Homo diluvii by Johann Jakob Scheuchzer in 1726
But though he thought he had evidence for the flood, he was describing the fossil of a salamander!
How we think about ancient animals is probably distorted by a tendency to shrink wrap their depictions and a desire to find function in form.
But much of what we observe in animals today, we still can't explain. Skin also drags, and feathers and fur abound (but not universally).
If you want to see more on this subject, I recommend the whole book, which contains many more illustrations and details for all of them.
And if you're interested in speculation about possible futures, C.M. Koseman's All Tomorrows is spectacular. You can see it summarized on YouTube, here:
Koseman isn't the only person to have illustrated this issue either.
This opossum, for example, comes from the HowStuffWorks Tumblr:
There is an error in describing sperm whales in the thread:
The issue is more that they would probably be thought of as behaving like sharks in the far future, but they're actually pretty social and frequently team players.
The severity of COVID vaccine-related myocarditis was far lower than the severity of COVID-related myocarditis, which instead looked like regular viral myocarditis.
You can see this in many cohorts. For example, this was seen in France:
And we knew this based on somewhat larger Scandinavian register-based work as well
Do note, however, that the Scandinavian work had a poor case definition for infection-driven myocarditis compared to other cohorts. As the long-term study linked in the QT shows, they missed most
A friend of mine won a bet about myocarditis and the COVID vaccines a few years ago.
He bet that the myocarditis side effect was real and sizable for young men.
While COVID was more likely to cause myocarditis in general, among the young, the Moderna vaccine was a bit worse.
This still wasn't really something to worry about.
Look at the rates. They're incredibly small, at just about 15 per 1,000,000 under 40 years of age for the second dose of the Moderna vaccine and 3 per 1,000,000 for the Pfizer one.
Compare to whole-population COVID-myocarditis.
The vaccines were safe and effective, but this side effect was not all hype, as some health authorities jumped to claim.
Oh well, lessons learned. Hopefully.
Worth noting, though, that the vaccines still saved more lives than were harmed. ~15-20m lives by late 2022, in fact.
With so many people identifying themselves as having disorders that they're not diagnosed with, the U.K. will certainly have a glut of diagnoses in the near future.
People think it, and then make it so, and if the state honors those diagnoses, they'll end up paying out the nose.
Similarly, in Minnesota, the state recognizes clearly fraudulent autism diagnoses.
Who's doing them? Normal parents, but also certain communities.
For example, Somali immigrants have figured out how to get more welfare funds by getting their kids fake diagnoses.
As a result, fraud cases have opened up and the FBI has begun to investigate the Somali communities where autism funds are getting disproportionately directed.
In 2009, Minnesota Somalis had an autism rate about 7x the non-Somali average. Today, it's still high, at just over 3x.
Obesity has immense costs, and not just direct, medical ones.
Obesity makes people miss work and increases the odds they're on disability. It also increases presenteeism and workers' compensation costs.
The total cost is in the hundred of billions to over a trillion per year.
The costs of overweight and obesity are so extreme that making reducing the obesity rate can pay for itself if it can be done at prices achievable today.
And this number doesn't even consider all the costs. There are high costs from cardiovascular issues and cancer, too.
The most extreme estimate I'm aware of put the cost of obesity in 2016 at $1.7 trillion per year, due to $1.2 trillion in indirect costs.
But this study calculated costs based on all treated comorbidities associated with obesity/overweight, so might've been skewed.