Slashdot Mirror

Do medications count as medical treatments? Such as how statins do not lower your risk of death? Which is not surprising because cholesterol is a symptom not a cause.

I'd be interested why you conclude that. This abastract and this article, and quite a few other sources, offer good evidence that statins lower the risk of death in the general population.

But if you are an atheist and believe that human live does not have any inherent value, then I guess it is reasonable to expect humans to just extinguish themselves at the first hint of trouble.

I keep on hearing that atheists supposedly believe this and it doesn't make sense to me. I value my life very highly, it's the only one I'm ever going to have and I'd do lots of (potentially very bad) things to save it.

TFA is clearly speaking about people who are in final stage terminal cancer. If you live in the UK then we're talking about people in the same state as Jade Goody, i.e. experiencing multiple organ failure. You don't come back from that, ever.

The studies' abstract specifically says there was an increase in life-prolonging care in the final week of life. To me that'd just be agonising.

It's not about just curling up and dying, it's about accepting that you're in your final few weeks and trying to make it as peaceful as possible. When your heart stops because your metastatic cancer has spread to every organ in your body then being resuscitated isn't giving you another chance at life, it's just prolonging your suffering.

Oh, and congrats on getting your feeling back. That doesn't negate what the doctors said however, think back to your stats classes. You're just one of the lucky few.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/301/11/1140

Decide for yourself, rather than letting a BBC article tell you what to think about the results of the study.

Personally, I think if 88% of the people you study are "religious" you're a hell of a lot more likely to find that "religious" people cling to intensive life-prolonging care than "non-religious" people.

I'm inclined to agree with you but there are a few things that puzzle me. The study's abstract points out all patients were terminal cancer patients. I am assuming they all knew their cancers were terminal. It's interesting that the study even factored in patients' "preference for heroics" and still found people who rely on "positive religious coping" are more likely to want life support.

As well, I am assuming the patients were predominantly Christian. Death is nothing to fear for a Christian ("O Death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory") But if that's the case, why endure life support, even though the study also said it decreased their quality of life?

Maybe it's got something to do with "fighting the good fight" or some kind of subconscious view that life is a gift from God; therefore it should not be given up easily. Or, as you suggest (and like I said I'm inclined to agree with you) they are both effects of fear. But it puzzles me, and I think there must be some other factor, or maybe it reveals the schizophrenic nature of faith.

Don't forget the study showing that older parents are more likely to produce offspring with autism. Oh, and fertility treatments seem to be linked as well.

So increased detection, better understanding of the disease, people having children later in life, and increased use of fertility treatments would all seem to have some effect.

Yes, I agree.

To me it just seems foolish to do. The "immoral" suggestion, as you say, came from the realization that private banks provide misinformation or exaggeration to get people to use them. There seems to be a distaste for the whole thing amongst the medical community.

I did some searching, here is the American Academy of Pediatrics 1999 recommendation, and here is the 2007 recommendation

Based on reading those, my use of the word "immoral" was too strong.

That's because 40% of American households earn less than 40k a year. Four thousand dollars is at least ten percent of their entire yearly income, before taxes, assuming that they have insurance that pays.

If they already have one child, that's basically out of their reach. And these people are not dropping money on anything but bills.

The reason you can't incentivize health care by rewarding treatment is because everyone becomes over-treated, and there's a big difference between how much having a baby actually costs and how much people are willing to pay for it. Just like utilities such as water and electricity would be far more expensive if they weren't regulated.

Single payer systems work all across the rest of the western world, even in Britain, where they have nearly the same obesity rates and exercise habits. Just allow everyone who wants to keep their private health care to keep paying for it and receive a tax credit.

The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/17/2037

From what I've been seeing, MS is more likely to be varicella zoster related than HSV1 related, however, your continued susceptibility to cold sores (most people stop getting them after a bout in their teens) may indicate a genetic susceptibility to herpres viridae.

Here's the paper I found on varicella zoster & MS:
http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/61/4/529

They're very similar viruses, and the treatment is nearly identical, so I wouldn't be surprised if treatment for one would affect the other.

Looking into Rebif a bit more, it's an interferon. Other studies have shown that supplementation with interferons help considerably (in people with active HSV infections, typically blood interferon levels are low for one or more types of interferon; alpha, beta & gamma). Supplementing with interferons will work; I would try getting your doc to put you on valcyclovir as well and start eating a high lysine, low-arginine diet - or at least supplementing with lysine. See if it helps. Worst case, at least you won't get cold sore outbreaks :)

These statistics?

72.2% men, 28.8% women? In 2006?

No, I said young doctors and medical students. Those statistics include people who started to practice medicine over the last 30 years or more, and they specifically exclude medical students.

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/7/5/465

Apparently 75% accurate when put in the hands of the common user.

>>Medicine, for example, used to be almost entirely dominated by men. Now many medical schools have 50 percent or more women in their entering classes.

No, *doctors* were mostly men. Nurses, on the other hand, have always been and still are overwhelmingly female. Even with female med school students making up almost 50% of the student body, RN's are *over 92%* female.

So think about that. 92%. I think it's funny that we make such a big deal about women finally making up half of the med school population while the nursing programs are completely ignored.

source:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12913.html
http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-nursing-05.htm

-b

These statistics?

72.2% men, 28.8% women? In 2006?

We actually have a pretense of a free market in the US, or at least we did until recently. Lead weights are good for diving but not hot air balloons.

S&L scandal? Lockheed? The nationalization of nearly every industry in WWII (because it was more efficient... but that wouldn't be suitable to your original argument, eh?) No bid contracts throughout the Iraq War? Not even counting the countries we've run over in order to better benefit US business, or the tariffs we've been giving agribusiness for years because they don't want to compete and suffer the same fate as the rest of our manufacturing industries. We believe in the free market when it suits the particular interest of the top tier of businessmen who, through their influence, help formulate policy. (Please deny that major players from the energy market helped formulate Bush policies. I beg you.)

K-12 public school education costs twice as much as private schools per pupil in the US, and private schools do a lot better.

From what I gather from this DoE study, private schools do out perform government schools, but not evangelical schools - mostly Catholic and Lutheran. I haven't studied in detail their performance metrics, but I imagine the fact that parents are invested in their child's education if they're paying for it. Not to mention I don't think there are too many private schools in urban ghettos, so the numbers are probably similar if it's restricted to similar population demographics. And please provide your source on private school costs.

We have the best mortality rates for cancer and heart disease. UK has among the worst

Source? From this source, the Journal of American Medical Association: "The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer."

I never said free markets did solve all problems, but they solve most better than government does.

Such as? If that were the case, why in cases of national emergency are the resources of the country taken over by government? (WWI, WWII, Korea...)

Last time I checked, the US has the most college graduates of any country. Our worst college-educated state, West Virginia, has more college graduates than any country in Western Europe.

That's obviously false.

I laugh at a 100% gas tax. In America, we have this thing called freedom, and we like freedom in our daily lives, which includes driving. Freedom, economic, political, and personal, has allowed us in roughly 200 years to build an economy that dwarfs any other.

Nope. A strong state that has protected resources for US business interests has led to our wealth.

In fact, if California were a country, it would be the fifth biggest economy by some measures. Americans simply want a free lifestyle, not one dictated by central bureaucrats. Our oil dependence has not been utopian, but I don't believe in utopia. You certainly have your own problems in Europe, and most Americans wouldn't trade yours for ours.

I live in the southeast. And yes, a majority of Americans have been asking for socialized medicine, more education spending, more UN involvement in world affairs... pick any poll you like. Freedom and liberty have nothing to do with doing exactly what you want all the time.

Frankly, anyone who would quote a nut like Chomsky is hard to appeal to.

Provide one factual counter example to anything he's ever said, if in fact you've read more than quotes.

But I would submit to you that America did not quickly become the largest economy in the world by employing

Hello APOLOGIST. I suppose you blame the prosecution of simple possession. But possession exist in order to consume. I doubt someone keeps hash just to look at it....

And when it gets consumed and abused it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that it DAMAGES THE BRAIN. And I am talking just about hash wich is one of the lightest drugs out there.

Of course I want to emphatize the fact that it is proven by scientists working on facts rather than some pot smoking retard glorifying the miracles of his marijuana crap on a personal website or blog.

So when consumption it's done on a mass scale you get a society made up of amotivated morons with reduced mental capabilities. Isn't that more harmful than allowing piracy?

Stop making stupid examples.

Sources:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/03/2264063.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mental-health/dn14047-heavy-cannabis-use-linked-to-smaller-brain-parts.html
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/6/694
http://media.uow.edu.au/news/UOW044791.html

As somebody who was previously in the academic medical field, this is not just a problem with cancer drugs. "Positive Outcome Bias" or "publish bias" is a huge problem.

http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_15_98/jpv71042.htm

A negative study should be just as important as a positive study. If done well... obviously.

Published negative studies dissuade doctors from using certain offlabel treatments. Published negative studies prevent other docs from wasting time and money to discover the same results.

More importantly, many clinical changes are based on meta-studies... which as basically studies which combine all the available data. If negative studies are not published, it throws off these metastudies... and thus bad care occurs.

Then read TFA. It's available. Free.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/11/1303

Let me ask you this, when someone says "eat less", how does that translate to "drink only alcohol"?
anyway, you wanted information on calorie restriction, here you go:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/1/43 - shows equivalence of various diets though attrition rates do vary. Overall one of the best studies of its type currently available in the medical literature.

a small study showing benefits of calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18602635?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

on the following page about Atkins, please take a look at the section on ketones and increased calorie loss - which balances the higher calorie intake.
http://www.publix.com/wellness/notes/Display.do?id=Diet&childId=Atkins_Diet

In all the diets studied, there is either a change in metabolism enabling increased energy (calorie) loss or there is a limit on its intake.

bottom line - energy must be conserved, the actual diet itself appears to be less meaningful in how it is achieved. Also, please don't assume I mean all diets provide alternative necessary nutrients to maintain a healthy life.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/14/1550

Interesting...what part of the US do you live in?

Midwest.

I know that works for a Hospital (VA), but, most other physicians I know are in their own private practice.

Don't get me wrong, small practices are still quite common - just less so than they once were and the numbers are shrinking. Apparently about 15% of physicians are self employed. The move to larger practices is a relatively recent trend driven largely by increased specialization, lifestyle concerns, and economies of scale.

The only hope is a selfish one: already be one of the wealthy when the rules change.

The rules have already changed. Warren Buffet has the wherewithall to move a team of doctors to a third world country and have them clone every organ in his body except his brain, skin, and bones, several times over. When he ages, he can have those replaced.

Bones can be replaced with titanium. Now. Today. Without new research. Organ cloning is real. Now. Today. Without new research. That is why my goal is to get as rich as possible before I get old: The rich will live much longer, as long as they are willing to have major surgery done.

That quasi-utopian future, where people get disruptive and painful life extension treatments, they say it will never happen. While the aging get heart bypass surgery. And organ transplant surgery. And tummy tucks. And breast implants. And new teeth. And hair implants. None of those rediculous pills we read about in science fiction novels. Like reversatol, estrogen, omega-3, lipitor, or other such treatments.

Friends, open your eyes: The future has arrived!

If you look at studies like Relationship Between Low Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Mortality in Normal-Weight, Overweight, and Obese Men, or especially Lee et. al. in Cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in men, your premise doesn't quite hold. Their results are that:

"In summary, we found that obesity did not appear to increase mortality risk in fit men. For long-term health benefits we should focus on improving fitness by increasing physical activity rather than relying on diet for weight control...our data show that fit men had greater longevity than unfit men regardless of their body composition or risk factor status. Obese men should be encouraged to increase their cardiorespiratory fitness by engaging in regular, moderate-intensity physical activity; this should benefit them even if they remain overweight."

The Lee et. al. study shows that the risk of cardiovascular disease goes up with obesity, but even there:
"fit, obese men had a lower risk of CVD mortality than did unfit, lean men"

Also, in response to other comments:

1. As to the "a calorie is a calorie, just eat less" idea. Actually, no. Some people have gut bacteria which are much more efficient at extracting calories than others, so that for the same number of calories eaten, one person can get 30% calories out of it. Obese people often have these efficient bacteria (a survival trait for most of human history, and probably no more in their control than genetics)

2. Your family genetics may imply that you're better off with a higher BMI, all other things being equal. If you have lots of heat troubles, 20 may be good. If Parkinson's, 30 might be better.

All to say- first, get fit. Second, understand your genetics. Then worry about your weight.

You can state your opinion that "these people would simply find another method," but empirically, while those who attempt suicide are statistically fairly likely to try again, the number of successful suicides even given repeated attempts is still lower when guns aren't accessible.

What does "when guns aren't accessible" mean? When someone is under suicide watch? When somebody is in a hospital, prison, or psychiatric facility? I think statistical correlations like these are inflated by other factors that are completely unrelated to the presence or lack of a firearm.

You might not think this is a compelling reason to oppose gun ownership, but GP's claim was substantially correct.

It's not a compelling reason to oppose gun ownership among healthy, stable people. Such arguments posit that the theoretical decrease in negative outcomes among an incredibly small minority of people (those who attempt suicide, or 4.6% of the general population** according to one study ) is a valid reason for the very real violation of the rights of healthy, law-abiding gun-owners.

-Grym

** I just wanted to note that those who attempt suicide are much more likely to have co-morbid psychiatric disorders compared to the general population and, thus, would already be unable to legally obtain firearms anyway. Thus, of the people who could legally own firearms, the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts is logically much lower than even this 4.6% figure.

BMI of 27 is NOT that difficult to hide, but it is quite unhealthy regardless.

Either BMI is nonsense, or being a little overweight isn't all that unhealthy. Probably both.

The "therapy" that they put those kids through is truly horrific. The handbook reads nicely, almost as if they are lovingly trying to help the young men and women. They force the kids into therapy, as if the therapy will help. But the church leaders certainly know that the therapy harms the youth who are forced into it. It's like using bleach to force a black person to become white.

Every medical and psychological association has determined that sexual orientation is unchangeable, and that attempting to change it does harm to the patient. The question is completely settled.

The LDS church uses clerical authority to force those kids into that therapy. They threaten the kids with excommunication and eternal damnation if they do not change their sexual orientation. But the kids are not able to change. It's no wonder so many of those kids attempt suicide.

Here's some more reading: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-160.991.HTM&s_t=homosexuality&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=1& http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/

A study published in 1999, with the excellent title "Disability Associated With Psychiatric Comorbidity and Health Status in Bosnian Refugees Living in Croatia", found that 39.2% of refugees surveyed suffered from clinical depression. Now, regardless of your position on depression in general as a bona-fide illness necessitating pharmacological treatment with e.g. antidepressants, it seems a bit unreasonable to assume that Bosnian refugees who are depressed are suffering from some sort of medical illness. Rather, the main reason for their exceedingly pessimistic outlook on life is that they fled a war zone and are now living in a refugee camp.

Were I a psychologist, I might prescribe treatments such as "get them out of a refugee camp and back into some semblance of normal life" and "get everyone to stop killing their friends and relatives".

so the American Medical Association is pseudo scientists??

What in the world are you talking about? Where did I call them that? Here, straight from their website, is what they say:

Our AMA: (1) encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision; (2) supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows:"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided;" and (3) urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions. (CSA Rep. 10, I-99)

So basically they say that they can't recommend circumcision, and it should be up to the parents, but if you do it use anesthesia. Nowhere do they claim that it is harmful. What are you getting at?

and just because it's an old/traditional pratice, such as female circumcision is doesn't make it right. there are many of these traditional practices that are plain and ouright BARBARIC, so by your "logic" all these are fine and shopuld be respected and no-one shold point out they are morally repugnant? .... not a chance bud, not a chance

Noooo.... that's not what I'm saying. Being old doesn't override other tests for harm. But where is the modern evidence supporting your claim that infant circumcision is harmful?

so the fact you are putting your child into so much pain it goes into shock and the agonised screams can be heard from this barbaric practise means nothign to you, the fact you are denying a child it's RIGHT not to be forcibly put through AGONISING PAIN means nothing?

That is why the AMA recommends anesthetic.

did you know that child child circumcision is banned in france due to it's barbaric nature???

No, and a quick Google search shows this to be untrue.

beng banned in Norway and there is a movement in the UK to have the same law brought in.

Are you sure you aren't talking about female circumcision? Googling shows new laws against female, but not male circumcision.

and apparently most American males are circumcised then how comes the VAST majority of male HIV positive males are circumcised....

Since much of the AIDS in the US is spread via rectal contact, circumcision will not have a measurable effect. Is that what you meant? But I don't know why you brought this up... I never argued that there was any benefit to circumcision.

snip biiiiig... cut and paste

Okay, I went through your history, and I'll show you what I mean by psuedo-science. There is really only one item on that page implying that circumcision is harmful - most of the items are claiming it is unnecessary. But the very last item DOES imply that a medical journal found that "too many circumcisions" are taking place in Australia. Of course, this is only a half-truth.

I don't see it as a threat to civil liberties. It's like the hypodermic. It's been used for many years as a tool in the psychiatric opression of political dissidents, been used to murder, been used to torture and so on and so forth.

But would you honestly rather the hypodermic had never existed? Of course not.

A hammer can be used to hurt you. Would you have them banned?

Personally, I'm hopeful about this one.

New York Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo said the nation's largest health insurers have rigged rates they pay for physician visits. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure14feb14,1,4908267.story

Blue Cross of California quickly halted its practice of asking doctors to report conditions it could use to cancel new patients' medical coverage after a widespread wave of criticism. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/12/state/n011719S23.DTL&type=health

The 4th District Court of Appeal unanimously said insurers have a responsibility to make sure patients' policy applications are complete and accurate before issuing coverage -- not after expensive claims come in the door. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/02/11/prsc0211.htm

Just how stupid are you? In the current US health care system, the best way to make money is to not provide services. If someone gets sick, cancel their coverage. Maybe you'll get lucky and they will die before they can sue. Or you can conspire to rig rates so that you pay much less then procedures really cost, leaving the insured to cover the rest.

Ever been turned down for health coverage because of existing conditions? I have. Know anyone with a chronic condition (diabetes) who can barely afford medication? How about choosing between medication and dental care?

I used to work as a consultant. I can no longer afford to do this because of the cost and risk of having no medical coverage.

Now think what would happen if I blow into a tube and I can't get medical coverage because I might get cancer or might be at risk of heart failure? Suppose passing that physical is required before I get a job. You can have health insurance if you get the job, but if you have a health problem you can't get the job in the first place.

Your ignorance is astounding. The kind of abuse that you are denying already exists to a massive extent in the US health care system. Whoever gave you mod points for 'Insightful +5' is just as big a fool. As far as I'm concerned, all you deserve is to get really sick for a long time, loose your health coverage and be consigned to the hellhole that exists for public health care in this country.

I found this page which says, 'By virtue of this statute, the Government may be held liable to the patent owner for payment of the "reasonable and entire compensation" for its unauthorized use of the patent. Unlike a private party, however, the Government cannot commit the tort of "patent infringement." Governmental use of a patented invention is viewed as an eminent domain taking of a license under the patent and not as a tort.'

So they don't take ownership of the patent but instead a license for the patent, which isn't really the same thing. However, this seems to solve the "freeing up patents vital to society" issue since an eminent domain license lets the government do the same stuff as would an eminent domain patent.

Then, this page claims that 'Eminent domain was used in 1948 to gain access to patented processes when that use of governmental power was established through the U.S. judicial code [3]. But it was a power seldom exercised, partly because of the weight of the free enterprise tradition that honored patents and innovation in U.S. commerce. In the tradition of hard bargaining, the power has been held in reserve, as a kind of ultimate weapon, while a favorable deal was cut between the patent holder and governmental authorities.'

That seems to address your other points. I don't know the precise method the government used to decide the compensation, but I was only giving some possible examples anyway, and it appears they must have *some* method since it's been done in the past. It also shows you're right about the risk to free enterprise -- however, since eminent domain is pretty much a "last resort" tactic, I don't think most businesses worry about that! And in the end it's much safer to cut a deal than have the value decided arbitrarily by a judge.

Except that they didn't actually patent the fat gene, they patented the process of detecting said gene.

"Gene patenting" is a broad term referring to the patenting of either a process that involves isolation of DNA (where DNA refers to either DNA or associated materials such as RNA) as well as to a chemical substance related to DNA.

They can't just go around and sue every fat person for violating their patent.

They can't patent a gene until there's an element of artificiality to it - for example, Monsanto's patenting of 'roundup ready' genemod crops.

The term you're looking for is "power". Obviously the study didn't have 100% power, and some tiny effect might have gone undetected. As the authors say (I don't know why you're demanding "references" so angrily, as if the link here didn't contain a thorough summary and more than enough information to find the original article) what can be excluded is that thimerosal had any major effect.

I'm sorry for your family heartache.

I recognize Wikipedia is not definitive, but everything linked below has references, so it allows these to be tied up with a bow quite nicely.

However, correlation is not causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_causation. Assuming you're from the US or Europe, Thimerosal is not used in vaccines except for influenza (which isn't required) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thimerosal. In addition, the CDC, FDA, and WHO categorically reject any relationship between Thimerosal and autism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy. The CDC, Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences,and the UK National Health Service have determined no link between MMR and autism.

The risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh even the real risks of the vaccine. Multiple-vaccine shots don't "overstimulate" the immune system. Not vaccinating your children can expose populations to previously squelched or heartier strains of disease. http://www.healthcentral.com/ency/408/002024.html
http://www.boystownpediatrics.org/HealthTips/immunization.asp
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/12/1573 (warning, login needed)

True, autism rates have been rising over the years. However, it's unclear how much of this is really "new" or incremental, and how much is due to attention paid to it and more advanced diagnosis mechanisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

. There are many, less nefarious but more plausible explanations. The vaccine hysteria is simply not supported by any real evidence. To be honest, most mothers of autistic children also probably ate carrots during pregnancy or (more recently) used their wireless phones. That doesn't mean either caused the autism. I realize your family tragedies are tied closely with significant, stand-out events. Augment this with pseudo-scientific fear-mongering about vaccines, and I can see why you might feel this way. However, thoughts and beliefs simply don't equal fact - no matter what you (or anyone), well, believes.

This doesn't mean you're an "indoctrinated idiot" - by your own admission, you're fairly biased based upon personal experience. I might be afraid to get back on a roller-coaster if I survived a horrible accident (or lost a close family member in one). However, I (would like to think that I) would not go so far as to suggest that my personal experience and bias ought to be construed as factual, even if it were in line with a bunch of people who were for the closing of amusement parks and dismantling of all roller-coasters.

Here are several studies on vaccines and autism

From Pediatrics, indicating that Autism is not caused by Mercury preservatives in vaccines

From the Lancet, indicating that there is no relation between getting the MMR vaccine (the one usually accused of causing Autism)and autism

from BMJ, another study suggesting that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism

From JAMA: no link between Autism and the MMR vaccine in California

I could keep going on, but I leave you with this link on Google Scholar.

Knock yourself out.

When it comes to your risk of dying, being fat- obese, even- but fit is much less risky than being thin and unfit.

If you look at studies like Relationship Between Low Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Mortality in Normal-Weight, Overweight, and Obese Men, or especially Lee et. al. in Cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in men, the results are that:

"In summary, we found that obesity did not appear to increase mortality risk in fit men. For long-term health benefits we should focus on improving fitness by increasing physical activity rather than relying on diet for weight control...our data show that fit men had greater longevity than unfit men regardless of their body composition or risk factor status. Obese men should be encouraged to increase their cardiorespiratory fitness by engaging in regular, moderate-intensity physical activity; this should benefit them even if they remain overweight."

The Lee et. al. study shows that the risk of cardiovascular disease goes up with obesity, but even there:
"fit, obese men had a lower risk of CVD mortality than did unfit, lean men"

All to say- first, get fit. Then worry about your weight.

This says Otherwise. I can't imagine acupuncturers being wealthy or influential enough to buy off these two respected medical associations.

There are serious fines and even criminal penalties for letting confidential patient records out.

Covered entities and specified individuals, as explained below, whom "knowingly" obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information in violation of the Administrative Simplification Regulations face a fine of up to $50,000, as well as imprisonment up to one year.

There's also a solid statistical correlation between smoking and heart disease. One source for such data is the multi-generation Framingham Study. For example, see this from 2006 or this from 2005. You don't like the Framingham Study? Try ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). See this and then read abstracts from some of the many articles that cite it. Here's a nice one from 2006.

Now, it's also clear that using nicotine replacement therapy as a way to quit smoking is good for your life expectancy. what's not so well studied is what happens to people who've never smoked and who start to use nicotine. In other words, in the published literature, the dangers of nicotine may be masked by the benefits of smoking cessation. This remains to be seen.

The evidence against nicotine is that it causes arterial damage. The statistical correlations from Framingham & ARIC are between smoking and coronary heart disease (not to mention cancer,but I'm focusing on CHD). The guy I worked for was all about studying arterial damage to predict odds of heart attack and stroke. You see, the damaged artery tends to become sclerotic and develop plaques. Vulnerable plaques can break off, enter the blood stream, and then get stuck in a small blood vessel, blocking it and starving some region of tissue for blood. If that tissue is in the heart, you have a miocardial infarction. If it's in the brain, you have one form of stroke. Nicotine also raises blood pressure, increasing the risk of the other form of stroke (the two kinds of stroke are blockage and bleed).

In other words, there is good reason to believe that nicotine has some harmful effects. The real question is in which cases its benefits outweigh its harm.

including profits, of course)

And that proves what? It is a known medical fact that . . .

I don't have the slightest idea what if proves. Before we can begin 'proving' anything, we need a list of the effects of sex and the effects of no sex. Physical effects, emotional effects, group/morale effects. That list needs to be backed up by something better than a slashdotter's opinion of what is or is not a known medical fact to help weed out the myths (e.g., sperm poisons breast milk, or sex with a virgin cures HIV, or ejaculation decreases a man's vitality). Opinions without a citation (see, that wasn't so hard, was it?) are not helpful.

Once we have that list, then we can start talking rationally about what a crew needs or doesn't need.

Frankly, I cited the Planned Parenthood article because it was the only thing I could find that expressed an opinion about the physical effects of prolonged no-sex. Researching this topic proved harder than I expected.

Last year approximately 3900 people died from this *now preventable* cancer. You can't directly compare deaths from flu because deaths from the flu are lumped together with deaths from pneumonia by the CDC.

There is something of a parallel here:

Pneumonia is usually caused by influenza virus. (~50%) There are other causes of pneumonia as well.

Cervical cancer is mostly caused by HPV. (>90%) There are almost certainly some less common causes of cervical cancer as well.

Anyway, here is a paper which attempts to separate out deaths by attributable cause with associated viral infection, for annual rate of mortality in the US during the 1990s:

"Influenza viruses and RSV, respectively, were associated with annual means (SD) of 8097 (3084) and 2707 (196) underlying pneumonia and influenza deaths, 36 155 (11 055) and 11 321 (668) underlying respiratory and circulatory deaths, and 51 203 (15 081) and 17 358 (1086) all-cause deaths."

Thompson, W; Shay D, Weintraub E, Brammer L, Cox N, Anderson L, Fukuda K (2003). "Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States". JAMA 289 (2): 179-86. PMID 12517228.

So, let's compare, shall we? Influenza virus associated with 51,203 +/- 15,081 all-cause deaths. That's significantly more than 3,900.

You're being facetious, I hope.... http://www.ama-assn.org/

Reduces aids (this story is from the BBC, but the reference is from "Lancet."

Reduces chlamidia (Oxford Journal.)

So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.

From the AMA on Penile cancer (summary... only uncircumcised men get penile cancer):

It's interesting that you decided to quote the AMA twice to back up your case to failed to quote some other lines from this.

The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

I could also point out a quote from the ACS on the subject:

However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract men from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- poor hygiene, phimosis, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking.

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.

And of course, circumcision prevents one from ever suffering from phimosis.

And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.

As to function, as a circumcised male, I can assure you that full functionality is present, as is lots and lots of enjoyment. Anecdotal reports speak to an additional ability to control ejaculation, and to that I can only say I've never had a problem holding off until my partner's orgasm and then going with them; so for my part, if indeed this has anything at all to do with being circumcised, I consider it a huge positive. Functionally speaking, I'm one happy camper, as have been my partners. One thing I can definitively say is that the condition itself does not bring lack of function, or reduced function. No question about it.

As an uncircumcised male I can assure you that I have my fair share of enjoyment. I also couldn't help but notice how you said "anecdotal reports" and " if indeed this has...." I would make the claim that I've never had a problem lasting long enough to satisfy my partner. I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function. Were you cut as an adult? Did you have sex prior to being circumcised? If not then I highly doubt you are in a position to make that claim.

Well, in many ways I agree with that statement. However, if there is 100% certainty that a procedure results in lack of functionality, while providing no known benefits for the subject (benefits for others notwithstanding), then I think we have a human rights issue that transcends culture

The very first thing you learn in anthropology is not to judge other cultures by our standards. I don't see how you can reconcile your position on this issue while simultaneously saying that it's ok to slice up the penis of a newborn male for perceived health benefits. Isn't it for him t

Lowest Cost Alternative

Also, consider this from JAMA: "None of the first-line treatment strategies-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), -blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockerswas significantly better than low-dose diuretics for any outcome."

The diuretics they refer to cost about a penny per pill. Some of the other treatments cost more than a dollar per pill.

.. and Causation. Apparently the two are not the same, despite the wording on the MSNBC page.

It's entirely likely that the conditions that would result in someone drinking moderatly every day would also result in better health DESPITE the alcohol. For example, poor people without health care probably can't afford to drink wine with meals. They might live shorter lives, but to say it's because they aren't getting the alcohol is a huge leap of faith.

This is not to disparage any real health effects of alcohol or some alcoholic beverages... it's just to say that to draw any conclusions from such an uncontrolled experiement is stupid and unscientific.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ 166/22/2437

If this is the study referenced, it doesn't look like any of those factors were addressed... I don't know HOW they can say that such correlations prove anything.

>the "secondhand-smoke" hysteria genuinely was shoddy pseudoscience

Reading carefully, it looks like this might have been speaking hypothetically. If not:

Are you referring to the peer-reviewed EPA report EPA/600/6-90/006F, or to the Surgeon General's report on second-hand smoke, or to the National Cancer Institute, or to the articles in this bibliography, or to the Journal of the American Medical Association, or to the American Heart Association, or to another article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or to the British Medical Journal?

>the "secondhand-smoke" hysteria genuinely was shoddy pseudoscience

Reading carefully, it looks like this might have been speaking hypothetically. If not:

Are you referring to the peer-reviewed EPA report EPA/600/6-90/006F, or to the Surgeon General's report on second-hand smoke, or to the National Cancer Institute, or to the articles in this bibliography, or to the Journal of the American Medical Association, or to the American Heart Association, or to another article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or to the British Medical Journal?

Not the only source, but a half-assed google search found the AMA with an article on page 1. Lots of goodies there, here's one:
"A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al, 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. At least 50 studies have evaluated this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993)."

Thanks for playing.