Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps the other 101 participants were testing the South African version of the AIDS remedy: Lemon, Garlic and Beetroots ...

Daniel

So, if they indeed do use RFID you will be able to be tracked and not even know it. Since pretty much every item produced will end up having an RFID tag before too long, this opens up entirely new avenues for you and I to be tracked. Walmart and even the Postal Service (and many more) are starting to demand RFID from all of their vendors. I mean the New Jersey Blue Cross Blue Shield is doing a two year pilot program for implanting RFID chips in chronically ill patients. So if they wander off or pass out they can know who they are and what their condition is, etc. Same thing would and could apply to a demonstration while carrying the National ID card.

Once most items contain RFID tags, they could not only track you, but know what you are wearing, what color the items are, where you got them, and even how much money you have in your pocket (since at least the US $20 bill has RFID in them already). For fun you could explode some cash if you wanted. Even if most of this sounds way too "conspiracy theory" for you (or whoever reading), just think as far as retailers go. They would never use this wealth of information available to them by you passing through their scanners for any evil marketing plans. (;

I think you are right though. The implanted chip is probably the next "logical" step for a more secure form of ID. I mean if a card can be stolen or possibly counterfited, a chip in the hand is certainly more secure, especially if we link them to our bank accounts. The helpful and ever so watchful Target employees will probably think something is amiss when someone starts waving around someone elses hacked off hand to pay for that new Xbox 360 game. (=

It's interesting but not (yet) as significant as TFA makes out.

These are studies on transgenic mice, so it's more a proof-of-concept rather than clinical trials which will be some way off - mostly due to bureaucracy.

For those who want a quick *scientific-ish* summary:

It is widely believed that a protein called Beta-Amyloid is reponsible synaptic dysfunction in Altzheimer's disease. Another variant (Alpha-Amyloid) also does horrible things to the body such as renal failure and constrictive pericarditis. This often happens as a result of certain auto-immune diseases (which is my speciality).

These tests are based on the accidental discovery that a dysentry drug (PBT-1) has some effects on restoring some cognitive function in patients. The company pursuing this has created a drug which is more specifically targeted towards reducing levels of A-A. And... so far, so good. The mice show greatly reduced A-A levels and they perform better in mazes. I wish them all the best - Altzheimers is a horrible and frightening disease.

For those who would like a fuller summary in non newspaper-speak, try http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=47696

Antibacterial soaps are a marketing ploy and nothing more

Bzzt. Wrong.

Many antibacterial soaps contain additives such as triclosan or triclocarbon. Both the AMA and the CDC have recommended against the use of antibacterial soaps vs. regular soaps. The antibacterial soaps themselves don't seem to save you from any cough, colds and flus as at least one study published in Annals of internal medicine shows.

As for just being marketting, manufacturers would be at risk of false advertising, violations of which are the domain of the FTC

These particular antibiotic additives are effective in controlled settings (eg. hospitals) with proper application, but indescriminate use at home doesn't seem provide benefits, and in fact raises concerns about the development of resistant strains of bacteria.

The biggest hope for saving people at the start of a bird flu pandemic, before a vaccine is available, is the antiviral drug Tamiflu

• Flu drugs 'will not work' if pandemic strikes
  
• Tamiflu May Not Be So Effective Against Bird Flu
  
• Bird flu proving resistant to Tamiflu treatment
  

Though the popular perception is that excess sugar is a cause of diabetes, research has shown much less correlation (and no causation at all) between sugar and adult-onset diabetes. Instead it's more likely genetics, exercise, and fat intake that seems to cause insulin resistance and subsequent problems.

"If I repair your car today - no matter how good a job I do - you pay me once, and I get to eat today. If your car keeps running for another 20 years, you don't have to to keep giving me royalties because of what a great job I did. Hell, even a doctor only gets paid once for a life saving operation."

The basis here is that musicians, poets and authors are typically the three lowest-paying jobs. There's little or no job security. By comparison, it is relatively easy to make a steady income if you are a trained mechanic or doctor.

"However, if I make a hit album today, the RIAA, CRIA think that I should be allowed [or, more importantly, they should be allowed] to live off the proceeds of that record for the remainder of my natural life, as can my family for 50+ years after my death."

FYI, much of the long-term royalties that help pay the rent -- radio airplay, covers and the like -- are administered through ASCAP/BMI and the record companies see none of it.

"Why are creative people rewarded in perpetuity, when doctors don't?"

Because -- as covered above -- trying to make a living in the creative arts can be very, very tough. It is by no means a guarantee of riches, or even a living wage.

"Because creative people get to write legislation."

Are you sure about that? I've known several authors, poets and musicians in my lifetime, and none of them have been involved in writing legislation.

Are you also positive that the medical industry doesn't have an effect on legislation? The pharmaceutical industry alone (which has a lobbying group that's distinct from the the medical device lobby, the HMO lobby, and so on) spent $44MM in 2003 and 2004 just on state officials. If this contradicts your understanding that the medical profession does not have an effect on legislation, please let me know.

If you are really intersted:

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Vide o_Game_FAQs.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=31961
http://www.youngmedia.org.au/mediachildren/05_07_v iolence_anderson.htm

Yup. It is all misleading math.

If you are interested in disproving it, it is relatively simple. Science is an open process. Do your own study. But major studies by disinterested third parties have demonstrated a positive, causal relationship between video games and violence. Other studies have confirmed. Peer review has taken place.

If you simply say "I don't believe it.. politics", I will lump you in with global warming disbelievers, 6,000 year old earth believers who think smoking does not cause cancer.

Effect of fluoridation of water on teeth, study
Tooth decay declined substantially in prevalence and severity when Hong Kong children consumed less fluoride ...

It just depends on who you wanna believe

Absolutely. I can think of no use of technology more harmful to society as a whole than the commuter's car. To keep it simple and in line with the "Terrorist" argument let's just look at deaths. In 2003 approx 42,000 US civilians died in auto accidents. Every few months, more Americans die in, on or under cars than have been killed in every terrorist act in over 100 years of American history. Freeways cause asthma in Children.

If the people who advocate for three hour airport procedures were willing to wait 5 minutes for a bus or a train we could begin to Reclaim our Streets.

Spread Of HIV In India Tied To Truck Drivers Soliciting Commercial Sex Workers

It's nothing (on a global scale) if the reported morbidity rates are anywhere near what they are now. Of course, that is the problem ... if the disease becomes highly contagious, then we have problems.

While we should be concerned about pandemics, don't panic (yet ;-).

Related to the quoted article, I can't find an original source of the report of Lance Jennings saying that there will be 75% mortality. This may be from the current reported cases, but to extrapolate this to the entire population seems a bit extreme. (Especially when your other article indicates that we have no idea of the incidence of infection.) Later in the Medical News article, a Chinese doctor predicts 300,000 fatalities in Hong Kong alone - which is a bit over 4% of the population. It is a significant number, but not the "end of civilisation" numbers predicted.

Mr. Bush has already made his intentions clear .

He has publicly stated if a pandemic strikes there will be martial law, and
the national guard, state police, local police, and "other" authorities will
block "all" travel .

My quetion to this is , who is gonna stop the birds from flying around ???

Want to take that to a WHOLE new level ???

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8788

Remember the civet cat and Sars ???? Oh my, guess what .

This virus is changing, and it is not done changing .

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8372

If this thing becomes transmitible to the common house cat, killing and eating birds in
every city that has alley cats . We got ourselves a recipe for a bad situation .

Another point of this strain that is being missed is the mortality rate so far .

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=5596

If this thing kicks off at anywhere near this supposed 75%, it will be worse than the plague .

Some current numbers put it under 50% and lets hope it becomes less deadly as it mutates .

Keep in mind the 1918 pandemic was 2 - 5%, and not with modern medicine .

This has the potential for a major catastrophe .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

20 - 50 million world wide died in a time before widespread food shipment and travel .

A pandemic has reoccured with regularity every few decades, but this is shaping up to be
the deadliest in modern times if the mortality rates are anywhere near what they are now .

I hope all countries around the world take this VERY seriously .

Ex-MislTech

Damn... I forgot. That doesn't work.

Is it just me or is this sort of thing said about everything we're told is bad for us every once and a while? I remember a while back i even heard people saying that cigarettes helped with alzheimer's or something here it is
Alzheimer's delayed by cigarettes

• The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians--and How We Can Survive Them
• Kurt Vonnegut vs. the !&#*!@ (scroll down to "To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable medical diagnosis")
• How to spot a psychopath at work
• Is your boss a 'corporate psycho'?
• Psycho parasites lurk in most surprising spots
• USC Study Finds Faulty Wiring In Psychopaths
• The Origins of Antisocial Behaviour, Twin Study
• Original sinners? Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made

It wasn't hollow, I am a republican, and I hate liberal hippie assholes. George Bush supports bullshit stem cell research ,though half heartedly. In his own words http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20 010809-2.html Animal stem cells. pfft http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=24906 The US president said he will veto any bill that backs embryonic stem cell research. The president is being a fucking pussy and is scared to piss of the religious right. I do not understand how he can have balls when it comes to Iraq, but not this issue. Also, as much as I treasure my intellect, I think I like my hatred a bit more. Thanks for caring though.

"Companies don't give a crap about americans, even though the companies started in the USA, the CEO and board of directors are American, and they sell their product to Americans. They will move their factories and tech support and anything they can to Mexico or India or anywhere they can find cheap labor. The CEO's are pretty much trators and they are crapping on the USA."

I hate to burst your bubble, but the real "traitors" are Americans themselves not the people running America's companies. Why? Generally when given the option Americans would rather buy a cheaper product than pay more for American-made goods. Would you willingly pay a few thousand dollars more for a car that is in every way equal to a foreign car, for example, based on principle of supporting American workers?

It is estimated about $1,400 of the amount you pay for a GM vehicle goes straight to health-insurance costs for a GM employee. Let's say a Mexican worker's health insurance would contribute only $500 to the cost of every vehicle. Imagine that the Mexican car company is in direct competition with GM and produced an identical vehicle, but the only difference is price. Which one would you buy? Which one would most Americans buy?

Given that GM had a 1.1 billion dollar loss during the first quarter of this year, it would seem they need to find a way to turn around the company quickly. What will become of our auto industry once China starts producing cars en masse with employees that cost around $0.25 / hour? Will you continue to pay thousands more for American cars? Will foreign countries buy American cars even though they are much more expensive?

Try putting yourself in the shoes of these "traitor" CEO's and see what you would do to keep the company in the black. Are there bad CEO's out there? Sure there are. But there are many CEO's that would love nothing more than to continue to give Americans jobs. Bottom line is: if they can't turn a profit then not only do they lose the unskilled workers to foreign countries, the company ceases to exist and all the support, services, sales, tech, legal, finance, and marketing in the USA sink with the ship.

That might explain the difference in tone between the two pieces. The Betterhumans article sounds very promsing while the Beeb's is very toned down and doubtful.

But before you go and say, well duh maybe a website called Betterhumans is obviously going to put a positive spin on things, here's two more links on the Tennessee research that sound similarly enthusiastic.

One from Wired

And one from Medical News Today

In Toronto there was a cell transplant without immune suppression.

And any of this has to do with you wanting to make health-care unaffordable for most how precisely?

For refusing to "cave in" to a two-tier system, Canada has the greatest per-capita costs of any country with a national health care system

You are sorely mistaken. The highest per-capita medical expense by far is that of the USA.. Note the $5,775 (USA) vs $982 (Canada) per capita 2003 expense. That same article explains the breakdown of administrative costs, profits etc.

While the U.S. has problems with administrative inefficiencies and legal expenses, these are trivial to correct, by comparison. You are comparing apples to oranges and stating that rotten apples are more appealing than expensive oranges.

Yes, so trivial indeed that it is taking 200 years to "correct" ... and when they are finally done correcting they will end up with a ... "single-payer" Canadian style system, as that American report explains.

No, I fully understand insurance. I have adequate health, disability, and life insurance. But no sane person would purchase a health insurance policy that would not at least provide up to the amount of premiums paid to save their life for covered procedures. To force such a policy on one and not permit them to purchase another is criminal. If my house burns down, I get my house replaced. My premiums might go up, but so long as the loss (i.e. health problem) is covered, the insurer pays.

You might be suprised to learn then that no insurance company guarantees a penny to be paid out, never you mind "up to the amount of premiums paid". That is the whole point of insurance: the insurance company can and will deny any expenses they consider "frivolous" or "unnecessary". I.e. they can decide your house was not properly fire-proofed or that the bush fire constituted an exceptional condition of some sort. I am sure you can Google for one of the million stories describing this process in the USA. Furthermore, while the Canadian doctors only concern was that the procedure would have been a waste of effort, thus they only concerned themselves with the medical side of the equation, in the USA the insurance company will decide on purely financial grounds what is it "worth" to them to pay, vs. potential lawsuit expense. You of course did not realize that the Canadian system is merely a form of insurance, the "single-payer" medical insurance system to be exact and its rules of payment are far more relaxed then that of the USA, i.e. more procedures are administrered in less likely success scenarios then in the USA. But there will be always some poeple complaining that the Canadian doctors refused to authorize the One And Only Patented Emu Dung and Hollistic-Spiritual-Hypnotic Therapy With Fire Ants for someone in the final, inoperable stages of cancer for a mere $100k in a Church "clinic" somewhere in Brazil.

There was actually an article on this a few days ago.

Original research paper in Cell: Environmental Enrichment Reduces Alpha-Beta Levels and Amyloid Deposition in Transgenic Mice
Summary in Cell: Exercise Your Amyloid

Article in Medical News Today

Quote: Mice that keep their brains and bodies busy in an "enriched" environment of chew toys, running wheels, and tunnels have lower levels of the peptides and brain plaques associated with Alzheimer's disease compared to mice raised in more sparse conditions, according to a new study in the 11 March issue of the journal Cell.

Levels of b-amyloid peptides, which clump together to form the brain "tangles" or plaques that are toxic to nerve cells in Alzheimer's disease, were significantly lower in the enriched mice, say Sangram Sisodia, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues. The enriched mice may have been better equipped than their less-stimulated counterparts to sweep these peptides out of the brain, according to the researchers' analysis of gene and enzyme expression in the animals.

"This goes back to the old idea of use it or lose it, that using your brain keeps it more active," Sisodia says. "It's more common sense than anything, but what we didn't previously appreciate is that it might affect the pathology that is characteristic of Alzheimer's disease." ...

The researchers also found intriguing clues that an active body, as well as an active brain, might be a key factor in reaping the benefits of an enriched environment. The most physically active of the mice in the elaborately furnished cages had the most dramatic reductions in amyloid peptides and deposits. At least among this small group of mouse workout devotees, "exercise appears to play a significant role in modulating amyloid deposition," Sisodia and colleagues write.

The researchers caution, however, that it will take more experiments with larger numbers of animals to determine exactly how enriched environments benefit mice, whether through increased physical activity, a boost in visual, social, and spatial stimuli that awaken the brain, or some combination of all of these factors.

Sisodia says exercise, along with any kind of mental activity from reading to doing the crossword puzzle, are probably the equivalent of chew toys and running wheels for humans. "It's all very important in keeping the mind active and potentially staving off effects of old age."

...my new laptop won't lower sperm count? Seriously, I can't stand putting a hot laptop on (oddly enough) my lap, so they become tabletops instead for me.

These Turions better generate less heat or I'd have lost all hope. And feeling in my groin.

The Cleveland Clinic is looking for a patient to try this on.

You'll also need a new cell phone.

"And drug advertising will not make people spend money for drugs they don't need any more than they will spend on other advertised products (cars, beer, etc.) that the may or may not need"

Tell me another ridiculous, whopping lie please. Which of the following applies:

A. Do you actually believe this and are you ridiculously naive,

or

B. do you work for a drug company or a advertising agency?

"The FDA is still a decent watchdog."

OK so I guess you already told another whopping lie. A whistelblower within the FDA has tirelessly and at great risk to himself shown time after time the FDA has failed miserably at its oversight responsibilities, Here and here just for starters. Its widely recognized that the FDA has pretty much sold out to the drug companies and is working more as a partner to enhance their profitibility and is disregarding evidence of danger in their products to avoid costing the drug companies billions of dollars when their flagship drugs prove to be dangerous and should be taken off the market.

"But I don't think that the typical prescription drug ad on tv is false. Annoying, maybe, but that's it."

Well you are wrong. Those adds in effect are telling you their drugs are safe, with the caveat of all the often disturbingly dangerous side effects they quickly rush through at the end.

Well in the cases of numerous drugs they are pushing it turns out they are in fact dangerous, they had the data that showed they were safe and they've been colluding with corrupt officials in the FDA to suppress it. The short list Bextra, Cresto, Meridia, Serevent and Vioxx. Celebrex is under suspicion being in the same class as Vioxx and Bextra. Chances are high Vioxx has killed a substantial number of people, its impossible to tell because they all died of heart attacks and strokes. Many experts are reviewing the case for XOX-2 inhibitors and have concluded there is no actual rationale for them. Ibuprofen at a few cents a pill may be as effective versus COX-2 at 3 dollars a pill. Merck and Pfizer just marketed COX-2 as a miracle drug, brushed all the negative data under the rug with the help of the FDA. and conned everyone in to switching from a generic over the counter drug to a patented prescription drug that they've profited to the tune of billions on, and which have probably killed and people based on the suppressed data.

To retiterare what I posed when this started, all indications are Vioxx and Bextra should be banned but the FDA formed a committee stacked in the favor of Pfizer and Merck and lo and behold they voted to put them back on the market because it would have cost Pfizer and Merck billions to take them down and we value profits over killing people. 10 of the people on the committee have done consulting work for the drug companies in the past, had a of conflict of interest and shouldn't have been on the panel. They voted 9 to 1 for the drug companies. Without their votes Vioxx and Bextra would have been voted off the market.

A similar problem exists with antidepressants. All indications are some of them are causing more problems than they solve. Some were never tested on children but the drug companies successfully marketed them for children anyway. It was a huge growth market. What parent with a problem child wouldn't snap up a magic pill that fixed their kid. Unfortunately it turns out that in children, rather than curing depression they often push children in to hallucinations and suicidal tendencies.

"The Internet is a great communications medium, and it doesn't take billions to use it"

And it wont have any measurable impact against the power of drug companies. Television dominates the lives and thinking of most Americans and you have to be rich to exploit it.

My posting here is pissing in to the wind.

All in all I appreciate your enthusiasm but you are pretty naive about how the real world works. It would be great if everything on Television was true and for the greater good but its not, its brainwashing propaganda designed to make rich companies richer. TV has turned in to the oracle of deception and doom for Americans if not the world. Its a fatal flaw in capitalism that most people will do anything they have to, to turn a profit and get rich, and they don't care who they hurt or the damage they cause.

If you want to bring drug prices under control in the U.S. the first really easy step is to outlaw advertising prescription drugs to the public. You can follow the model under which cigarettes are outlawed.

There is zero reason to be pushing prescription drugs on TV. They should only be advertising to doctors and then only with factual information, audited by an unbiased third party, and not marketing them like underarm deodorant with catchy names and pretty colors.

The drug companies are spending staggering sums on advertising to increase their market share which has several results:

- They inflate drug prices in order to fund the advertising
- They push people to push doctors to give them drugs they may or may not need.
- The money they are wasting on advertising would be better spent on R&D and safety testing.

I also wager drug companies have dubious rights to many patents in the first place. Much of the basic research is being done by publicly funded universities and institutes, and the drug companies just jump in when they see something which they can profit from, patent it and bring it to market. If public funding is involved in the research that led to the drug the drug companies really have no right to patent it. Even if the drug companies develops the drug they are often massively subsidized with tax breaks and grants.

Here is an interesting editorial on cancer drug development. In the past the lions share of drug discovery came through the National Cancer Institute and its grants to universities and institutes. It appears the Bush administration is slashing NCI funding and striving to push drug discovery in to the private sector, the drug companies. The only problem with that is it is likely only discoveries that look profitable to the drug company will be pursued. In many respects its the same shortsightedness you see in all American business. If its not near term profitable basic research will be axed, treatments for things that don't affect large numbers of people will also be axed.

All in all this is an arena were public funding will probably work better than private enterprise.

Public institutions already do much of the important work, and their role could be easily extended to do the drug trials. The payoff to the country as a whole would far outweigh the cost in tax payer dollars. In fact it would probably reduce our tax burden especially with a Medicare drug benefit coming online which the drug companies are going to exploit to pocket hundreds of billions of tax dollars.

All in all I'm not really sure what drug companies actually add to the process. The drug trials they are supposed to be doing at great expense to bring a drug safely to market have recently proven to be suspect if not outright fraudulent. When there are billions riding on a new drug they are going to do their best to brush negative results under the rug and obviously have, and whats worse the FDA increasingly rubber stamps it when the do. The FDA has stopped being an impartial watchdog and is increasingly a business partner with the drug companies. Here is a pretty good read on the recent FDA committee vote to let Vioxx back on the market and keep Bextra and Celebrex on the market. Ten of the people on the committee had past financial ties to the drug companies involved and voted 9 to 1 in favor of the drug companies. Without those biased votes Vioxx would have stayed off the market and Bextra would have been taken off, Celebrex would have still won the vote.

At the end of the day the main things drug companies seem to really bring to the table are marketing, advertising and profiteering and needless to say those are all extreme negatives.

The current techniques for stem cell extraction use viable embryos which are, by definition, human beings, and the process of extraction kills them. This is the heart of the controversy and the reason for the limitation on federal funding.

There is a new procedure for extracting stem cells from non-viable embryos, which has only just been postulated, and the technology for doing so is in its infancy, having only been demonstrated last year (2004).

I am not a biologist, but I had a conversation with Dr. Landry about this last week, so my information comes unfiltered by the media.

From an upcoming paper in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: People in negative mood states think more logically.

From the URL:

People in a positive mood such as happiness were shown under experimental conditions to have relatively unreliable memories, and show poorer judgement and critical thinking skills.

By contrast, those who experienced a negative mood such as sadness were shown to provide more reliable eyewitnesses accounts and exercise superior thinking and communication skills.

[...]

In a second experiment, researchers put different subjects in a positive or negative mood state and asked them to write down an argument in favour of a particular proposition.

When their arguments were analysed for their quality and persuasiveness, subjects in a negative mood were shown to be far more effective in their critical thinking and communication skills.

If you'd rather be happy than correct, you're more likely to vote Democrat. (G'wan, relax in the safety of your own delusions, rather than confront reality, ya hippie freaks!)

"The finding makes sense in evolutionary terms," says Professor Forgas. "Animals that are wary of their environment are more likely to perceive threats to their survival.

If you'd rather be correct than happy, you're more likely to vote Republican. Because you don't get to be CEO of Intel without knowing that "Only the paranoid survive!" (What a shocking display of greed and insensitivity, where's his compassion, won't somebody please think of the chillllllllldrun!)

Looks like the stereotypes for both parties hold true. And the stereotypes are valid for a reason -- a person's choice of Party doesn't make their brain work a certain way... their brain merely predisposes them towards joining a certain Party.

(Of course, when I'm elected Emperor, I'll advance humanity by deeming my opponents mentally-ill. And as an exercise in compassion, I'll even help them get better. W00t!)

The anti-smoking vaccine is only in phase I testing (safety), while the anti-cocaine vaccine is in phase II (effectiveness). But it looks like both are going to work.

In some ways, the anti-smoking vaccine is more promising. The cocaine vaccine might well be overwhelmed by injected overdoses. That's unlikely to happen with smoking.

If somebody who was born with no immune system was infected with HIV, the virus would probably feast on the miroglia, which are important support cells in the brain.

If a nanite was infecting you, the eric drexler idea is that carbon atoms are guided into covalent bonds by mechanical rather than chemical processes. Hence his whole "dimonds for dirt" concept. This allows you to spend more energy more efficiently synthesising compounds, because you rely on controlled trajectories, rather than brownian motion or loosely constrained molecules that biological life relies on so heavily.

But since I don't have the bandwidth, I'll point you to the original article. Here. And this is pressingly relevant because these traditional journals are claiming that they're upholding the scientific tradition, while, in fact, the evidence is that they are pressing their editorial slant to try and bend the agenda of independent researchers to their whims.