Slashdot Mirror

I cited a scientific article, not anecdotes.
It's clear that you are not a doctor and don't have the training necessary to research this topic and understand the results. That is fine. There are people who have spent many years studying medicine. We call them scientific experts. Medicine is complicated. I don't have time to explain years of medical training in a few words on slashdot.
You may find more understandable information oriented to lay people here:
http://www.drgreene.com/whiteout
And here is an interesting related article which popped up today:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/bittman-is-alzheimers-type-3-diabetes/#more-134495

And I can guess at least one counter-argument: if the parents are stupid enough to give their kid a dangerous toy, then their progeny should be taken out of the gene pool. Well, it's not that simple: there are friends, extended family, babysitters, daycare, and more potential sources of dangerous toys. As long as a dangerous toy is sold as a toy, it's possible that your kid, through no fault of your own, could be exposed to them.

Are you saying that parents aren't responsible for choosing stupid friends, stupid babysitters and so on? What responsibility do the parents have?

Buckyballs aren't marketed towards children, and have prominent warnings. The manufacturers have even worked with CPSC to get more warnings out, including a video. And there are very few reported injuries compared to the sales volume.

Balloons, on the other hand, do not have the sales restrictions, yet kill lots of children. Something is not right with this.

...to break down what we call "herd immunity", which is also what we rely on to protect the small number of people in society who don't get vaccinations for "religious" reasons or because they have a demonstrable allergy to one of the vaccine components.

And also those for who get the vaccine, but it just plain doesn't work, for whatever reason.

The problem here is, Wakefield's scam has actually caused the death of hundreds of kids and caused thousands of others to get sick with completely preventable illnesses.

He's personally responsible for causing outbreaks of diseases which were all but eradicated to spring back up as enough stupid parents followed the lead of batshit-insane people to break down what we call "herd immunity", which is also what we rely on to protect the small number of people in society who don't get vaccinations for "religious" reasons or because they have a demonstrable allergy to one of the vaccine components.

Further, the "debate" over this has increased distrust of doctors, which isn't helpful. We already have enough problems with hypochondriacs who should have their WebMD access taken away because they are constantly convinced they are "special" people with some rare, exotic illness rather than a garden-variety head cold.

You know, there are treatments for your condition. There's no need to suffer!

...how do you explain away statistics like the the 5 yr cancer survival rate? Hint: It's higher in the United States than in most European countries

Cancer survival rates != people cured of cancer. It may mean that they live a couple months longer. See here.

Socialism just works better for some things, health care being provably one of them.

Bullshit. Medical procedures that aren't covered by insurance (plastic surgery, lasik surgery, etc.) have consistently come down in price since being introduced to the market. Medical procedures that are covered by insurance have consistently gone up in price even though the technology behind them (MRIs are a great example) has gone down in price since being invented.

[Citation needed]. I'd argue that this is because, unlike nationalized systems, our doctors make a profit from ownership stakes in hospitals. This is the reason that Mayo has better outcomes, for example, than other private hospitals: they don't profit from doing more (sometimes unnecessary) tests. They make money based off of outcome, as opposed to volume. Best explanation of why our costs are so much higher than the rest of the world is here.

Also, you miss a key point: government bureaucracy is not for profit. The government has nothing to gain by denying you care--or this girl, for that matter. Private insurance companies have incentive to deny. That's the main difference between the two bureaucracies, as you put it, and it is a big one.

And those of us who are pushing for this plan would rather be pushing for a single-payer plan. Don't mistake us for saying that this compromise is the ideal solution, because it isn't, and we know that. It's just the best we can get passed. And as for the mandate, the provision of a public option negates what could be a mandate to participate in a private system, so it's a step better as far as that's concerned.

And I see you arguing that a totally free-market solution is the *angel choirs singing* ideal solution to the problem, but I don't see you arguing that single-payer solutions are less expensive than we have now. Oh, right: that's because the data doesn't support that conclusion. Bringing in the free market is another red herring. But while we're on that topic, a totally free-market healthcare solution pits money against lives. Guess which one always wins?

And to look into the future a bit, don't try to bring up lifestyle problems in the US, because Greece is fatter than we are and citizens live longer, paying about a third what we do, with a universal healthcare plan.

If you are referring to the meconium, this doesn't actually happen with most babies. About 10 to 15% of babies pass meconium before or during birth, and about 2 to 5% of those aspirate/ingest it. It is more typical to pass meconium about 12 hours after birth, and minimal diaper changing skill will prevent any of it from being consumed :)

And a lot of times children eat dirt because they're mineral deficient, not because they're stupid.

"does-it-ome-with-a-million-minutes "

OME as in Otitis Media with Effusion?

I thing you could get it after a million minutes of continuous speaking :)

Want to move your children towards computers? Simple. Just keep a computer turned on in the house, and don't freak out when your children get close to it.

In terms of programming, the first thing that got me moving in the direction of coding was probably playing with physical lego blocks. Being able to think of and build subcomponents and put them together into larger designs is the basis of code design.

first programming language? think it was basic and logo at the same time.

but why are you so intent on forcing your kids into technology? push too hard and they might hate it.

or push too hard and it may affect other skills of greater importance in life -- like socializing skills and full body motor skills.

the analogy is with walkers. forcing a baby to walk when they want to crawl doesn't help 00 it hinders. Similarly,

According to Dr. Alan Greene, you are correct in your supposition that independent studies contradict each other regarding this issue. However, both are true, from a certain point of view:

"Is antibacterial soap the best cleansing agent? The scientific studies comparing antibacterial soap to regular soap give apparently contradictory results. Some studies show it is better, others that it is worse, and others seem to show no difference. Taken together, these studies indicate that antibacterial soaps are more effective at reducing infections by some organisms (especially staph and strep); they are worse at preventing some types of infections (especially by some of the organisms called gram negative bacteria, since the antibacterial soaps kill much of the beneficial bacteria that normally live on our skin and protect us from some of these gram negative organisms); and they make no difference for some types of infections (such as cytomegalovirus [CMV], or Clostridia -- the bacteria that cause gangrene)."

The answer depends on the type of bacteria you are trying to kill. I have also read that most people don't leave the soap on their hands long enough to have a serious antibacterial effect, anyway. At most, people usually leave antibacterial soap on their hands for a maximum of 20 seconds. It is recommended that, if you wish the antibacterial properties to come into play, you leave the soap on your hands as you would a moisturizing lotion.

Obviously, this is not an ideal solution. I suppose one could try to find out "how long" the chemicals would need to remain on your skin long enough to kill whatever might be present, but otherwise it would seem that the antibacterial effects would be wasted, and thus, detrimental at best. I'd suggest dipping your hands in rubbing alcohol or something similar for the 20 seconds that you'd have otherwise spent making sure the soap touches every part of your hands.

This is not the case - instead, asthma seems to be a first world disease.

Me thinks you spout opinion and nothing more. Here is a little reference to refute your assertions:

http://www.drgreene.com/21_884.html

Argue your points with this doctor. He apparently differs from your opninions greatly.

There is new research out dealing with ADHD and sleep:

Sleep deprivation and ADHD

Sleep deprivation effects

Sleep deprivation may be undermining teens health

Other sites from Google

Ozone is ozone, but we only like it when it's it the upper atmosphere where it can block UV radiation. Down here it is a poison.

In particular read and understand the effectiveness and safety studies. However, that said.. it sounds like a miracle drug as far as ADHD goes.

Recent studies have shown that one of the factors in ADHD children is the fact that they aren't getting enough sleep. With Ritalin being a stimulant, this "wakes" the child up enough so that their own self control can take over. While I don't think this is the problem in this case (with such a high IQ level), it is something to think about.

• Links:
• ADHD and Sleep Problems
• Sleep Well, Do Well
• Some Notes on Sleep Disturbances in Children & Adolescents

Tons more info here.