Slashdot Mirror

If you were logged in you'd realize just how stupid your comment is. I recommend all women discuss HRT (hormone replacement therapy) with their doctor if they're perimenopausal or postmenopausal. Combined with exercise, it reverses the age-related decline in muscle mass and strength, and the added muscle tone improves both posture and balance. Great way to avoid dowager's hump from a deteriorating spine, as well as helping to avoid bone fractures from falls. And if you do fall, your bones are less likely to break because it limits bone demineralization. Throw in the benefits in reduced risk of heart attacks, strokes, delayed dementia, and most cancers, so what's not to like?

BTW, slide 23 is wrong. The risk of blood clots, cancer, heart attack and stroke is only if you have an idiot doctor who prescribes premarin (horse estrogens) and progestins. Estradiol alone decreases all these risks, adding an average of 3 years to your lifespan - and those years are of better quality.

350,000 people fracture their hips every year as their bones demineralize, and 20% of them die within a year. If HRT can lower that risk, on top of all the other benefits, it's about time people got over the bs scare tactics of the Women's Health Initiative (which used only horse hormones), which have since been disproven. And yet almost 2 decades later, the message is still slow to get out.

According to this medical site, you are wrong:

http://www.medicinenet.com/scr...

Plecebo is 32% effective, so it is measurably effective versus doing nothing.

It's a case of some is good, more is not necessarily better. A few articles that came instantly to hand (tho the one I wanted, with hard data, managed to elude quick search):

http://www.medicinenet.com/scr...
http://www.thyroid.org/ata-sta...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://www.thyroidresearchjour...

To what degree it relies on underlying conditions...?? Fact is about 25% of the "healthy" population, and 80% of people over 50 years old, have some degree of thyroid dysfunction (an adaptation against starvation especially in less-productive ie. older individuals). Suddenly that risk pool doesn't sound so small, does it??

There are several studies that claim un-medicated stents don't improve life expectancy. They only reduce the need for future surgeries on that particular artery. http://www.medicinenet.com/scr...

I have no interest in legalising heroine, crack, meth, PCP, etc.

Medical meth exists under the name Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride). There's also medical coke. So why is Heroin (diamorphine) illegal while more potent opioids like oxycodone are legal to prescribe?

Granted, it accounts for about 1% of breast cancer patients, but it is usually many times more serious, since where many women will often have a routine mamogram screening every year, and any cancer development will have had little time to spread, often being entirely curable with a relatively simple surgery, men do not typically bother checking their breasts for cancer until they actually notice something is wrong, and by that time, it can easily be far too late for what would have otherwise been a very straightforward corrective measure.

It would seem from http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/e... last week's coverage that Newlink had already violated the terms of their license.

How would it seem so, since the very article that you link says "BioProtection Systems Corporation (BPS), now a wholly owned subsidiary of NewLink Genetics Inc., has performed at or above expectations thus far." Outside critics don't get to retroactively cancel a contract signed five years ago because progress under the contract doesn't meet their post-hoc expectations.

Seems like they sat on it as long as possible, then sublicensed to Merck.

Funny, the very article that you linked to says that "[l]ast week, we announced the beginning of clinical trials of the vaccine in Canada." Do you have any direct knowledge of the typical work and time involved in setting up clinical safety trials? I doubt it. Note the following:

Preclinical Testing: A pharmaceutical company conducts certain studies before the future drug is ever given to a human being. Laboratory and animal studies must be done to demonstrate the biological activity of the drug against the targeted disease. The drug must also be evaluated for safety. These tests take on the average 3 1/2 years.

At this point though, who cares about the lousy $50M,

TFA.

[T]hey should just get on with producing the fricking stuff while testing in parallel.

Because mass producing an experimental drug that has not been shown to be safe, much less effective, in vivo goes against more than a half century's worth of applied medical knowledge and ethics, notwithstanding the losses you would suffer if you stockpiled a drug that failed clinical trials? But hey, you can assume safety since nobody has been hurt yet, right?

No, I won't attempt to teach the basics of rhetoric and logic here, I studied them for years in a formal environment as opposed to you pointing to Wiki articles for fallacy definitions.

I'm sure you're well aware, then, of the argument-from-authority fallacy. I dare not link to Wikipedia, of course. That would make me a bumbling amateur, right?

Attempting to nitpick the name of the fallacy won't change the fallacy from true to false either, so it's a poor argument all around.

I wasn't being obtuse. I really don't get you.

Herd immunity does not claim 100% is needed, so you are again using fallacy arguments. You said yourself that some people can not be vaccinated so you provide an impossible condition and you know it.

Well, you not being vaccinated probably means one more potential carrier, right? ('Probably' because of the chance it wouldn't have worked on you.) The only way this doesn't affect me is if I'm 100% guaranteed to be immune. (Or, I suppose, if I'm 100% guaranteed never to meet you, or if I'm already infected.) I don't see that I can be missing much here, but if this reasoning is unsound, please point out in what way.

You not getting a vaccination doesn't affect me much, sure, but without 100% effective vaccinations, it surely has to affect me some non-zero amount. (The impossibility of 100% effective vaccinations doesn't affect the reasoning here.)

I was not unclear with what you replied "What?' to, so try and work on your reading and comprehension skills.

Condescension doesn't strengthen your position, but I thought it was clear: I don't know where you're getting this from: the irrational and fallacy ridden separation you attempt to make between people that "can't" and people that "won't" get vaccinated. I certainly wasn't trying to make any such distinction.

Regarding the facts, then: there seems to be a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and it's also not good for people with severe egg allergies. Regarding whether flu shots have saved lives, this source says it's unclear. (It's still possible it's saved many people from a few unpleasant days of flu, mind, and that alone could make it worthwhile.)

Even if you're right that flu shots in particular aren't worthwhile, vaccinations have proven themselves on other diseases. I don't think anyone would argue that flu shots are the most important vaccination.

I'm sure you're well aware, then, of the argument-from-authority fallacy. I dare not link to Wikipedia, of course. That would make me a bumbling amateur, right?

As stated, nitpicking a fallacy name does not make a fallacy true. A fallacy is still a fallacy, and falsity is still falsity. Faulty logic most often can be described using numerous "named" fallacies depending on the point of reference. Continuing to debate the point will never make faulty logic good logic, it's nitpicking and diversionary.

Well, you not being vaccinated probably means one more potential carrier, right? ('Probably' because of the chance it wouldn't have worked on you.) The only way this doesn't affect me is if I'm 100% guaranteed to be immune. (Or, I suppose, if I'm 100% guaranteed never to meet you, or if I'm already infected.) I don't see that I can be missing much here, but if this reasoning is unsound, please point out in what way.

You just said probably, which is a correct statement. Then again you claim you want a 100% guarantee. No such guarantee is possible no matter what the circumstanc

No, I won't attempt to teach the basics of rhetoric and logic here, I studied them for years in a formal environment as opposed to you pointing to Wiki articles for fallacy definitions.

I'm sure you're well aware, then, of the argument-from-authority fallacy. I dare not link to Wikipedia, of course. That would make me a bumbling amateur, right?

Attempting to nitpick the name of the fallacy won't change the fallacy from true to false either, so it's a poor argument all around.

I wasn't being obtuse. I really don't get you.

Herd immunity does not claim 100% is needed, so you are again using fallacy arguments. You said yourself that some people can not be vaccinated so you provide an impossible condition and you know it.

Well, you not being vaccinated probably means one more potential carrier, right? ('Probably' because of the chance it wouldn't have worked on you.) The only way this doesn't affect me is if I'm 100% guaranteed to be immune. (Or, I suppose, if I'm 100% guaranteed never to meet you, or if I'm already infected.) I don't see that I can be missing much here, but if this reasoning is unsound, please point out in what way.

You not getting a vaccination doesn't affect me much, sure, but without 100% effective vaccinations, it surely has to affect me some non-zero amount. (The impossibility of 100% effective vaccinations doesn't affect the reasoning here.)

I was not unclear with what you replied "What?' to, so try and work on your reading and comprehension skills.

Condescension doesn't strengthen your position, but I thought it was clear: I don't know where you're getting this from: the irrational and fallacy ridden separation you attempt to make between people that "can't" and people that "won't" get vaccinated. I certainly wasn't trying to make any such distinction.

Regarding the facts, then: there seems to be a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and it's also not good for people with severe egg allergies. Regarding whether flu shots have saved lives, this source says it's unclear. (It's still possible it's saved many people from a few unpleasant days of flu, mind, and that alone could make it worthwhile.)

Even if you're right that flu shots in particular aren't worthwhile, vaccinations have proven themselves on other diseases. I don't think anyone would argue that flu shots are the most important vaccination.

Yes I would take that bet. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or are truly unable to understand what you read. Aspirin is the common name for acetylsalicylic acid. Acetylsalicylic acid is a member of a class of drugs called NSAIDs - NonSteroidal AntiInflammatory Drugs. All aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. All acetylsalicylic acid is an NSAID.

Do NOT cut and suck. Cutting into the bite site can damage underlying organs, increase the risk of infection, and sucking on the bite site does not result in venom removal.

Incising (cutting) and suctioning the bite area has not been shown to be beneficial, but a venom extractor (found in commercial snake bite kits) may be helpful if it is applied to the area within five minutes of the bite and left in place for 30 minutes. A 2004 study of mock venom extraction using a suction device, however, questioned the validity of venom extractors and suggested that their use is unlikely to be effective.

I can see why steroids require a prescription (my grandfather died in his 40's because he was over medicated with cortisone). But the warnings for albuterol sound pretty much like the warnings for any OTC medication, and they're considered rare side effects, only listed to cover their asses.

"Rarely, this medication has caused severe (rarely fatal), sudden worsening of breathing problems/asthma etc...".

http://www.medicinenet.com/albuterol-inhalation_solution/article.htm

More likely thinking of the adults having to deal with the sugar frenzy, not to mention the throwing up. And I wonder whether allergies and liability also plays a part.

Sugar-hyperactivity is a MYTH. Surprising, I know; but before you react, have a think about it for a while. The same is said to apply to E-numbers. Although some people are allergic to it, hyperactivity is very unusual.

Also, I don't understand the logic of this company, they destroyed Cadbury's in the UK after closing one of their large factories here. Now they want to restrict who can buy their products. If children are out alone, surely they can buy this product elsewhere? I can't imagine any shopkeep refusing a sale because it's a chocolate cake that was "designed for adults".

No matter how hard terrorists try, what if there is a disease that will wipe out 1/2 of the world's population in our lifetime anyway? This disease causes people to spontaneously fall into comas, go blind, become covered in open sores, spontaneously lose limbs, and die horrible deaths. And no, I am not talking about AIDS.

The media, public opinion, and policy makers have shown no interest in this incurable disease.

What if scientists say that half of Americans will get this disease in the next 10 years, 1 out of 4 Chinese are already affected by it, and 1 out of 3 Nepalese are affected? Maybe we are in the midst of the 21st Century Black Plague, and nobody realized it.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=122611
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa0908292
http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=25199

Boxers vs. Briefs: Increasing Sperm Count

An other option of course if to combat a lower sperm count is heave more sex.

http://www.medicinenet.com/caffeine/page3.htm#diuretic

Some research has shown that caffeine intake can also affect our fluid balance. In one study, 12 caffeine consumers were told to abstain from caffeine for five days and were then given 642 mg of caffeine in the form of coffee. Their urine output increased when given the caffeine. Another study done on eight men tested the effect of 45, 90, 180, or 360 mg of caffeine on urine volume. An increase in urine volume was seen only at the 360-mg dose of caffeine. One limitation to these studies is that they did not evaluate the impact of caffeine when consumed on a regular basis. A onetime dose may affect the body differently than daily consumption.

Back in 1928, caffeine was shown to have no significant impact on urinary output. Subsequent studies have shown that caffeine-containing beverages did not impact urinary output any differently than other beverages. Based on this, the Institute of Medicine recommends that "unless additional evidence becomes available indicating cumulative total water deficits in individuals with habitual intakes of significant amounts of caffeine, caffeinated beverages appear to contribute to the daily total water intake similar to that contributed by noncaffeinated beverages."

My bad.

So while cumulative water loss over an extended period of time is no different, it appears that caffeine after abstinence does have an effect in the short term as supported in this study and in the anecdotal comments.

I would say it's even less than growing up with. Who here remembers the story about gut bacteria in fat people being different and that it could process fat/carbs more efficiently (and extracting all the calorie value from it) and futhermore that the bacteria % could change in a span of 16 hours?

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=107514

I assume some people eat probiotic yogurt for similiar reasons? I would think that if you eat more and more sushi/seaweed, you'll have more bacteria that processes it in the gut over time?

Although High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and Cane Sugar will cause the SAME AMOUNT OF OBESITY as they are both sugars, there is still something to be said about HFCS. People who are sugar sensitive, such as myself who is slightly hypoglycemic, notice severe differences between Cane Sugar and HFCS. In short, consuming the same amount of HFCS will cause an extreme crash/low a few hours later compared to Cane Sugar that is gradual (and not noticable in comparison to HFCS). I test this by drinking Cane Sugar Coca-Cola one day versus the normal HFCS Coke. Cane Sugar didn't give me that weird slight withdrawal feeling I got from HFCS.

That was a pretty accurate discussion on ethics and morals, yes.

I don't think the example was bad. I think that the right to privacy to protect from humiliation trumps the larger interest in a particular communicable disease. What I meant by "interesting" is that comparing the two interests provides a thought framework for considering the matter.

There are a few states that make failure to disclose VD a crime. It's a felony offense in 27 states if it's HIV. I saw several places saying that some states make failure to disclose herpes a crime, but I cannot corroborate that. Certainly, we know that it's actionable, which is to say that it's a wrong doing according to our tradition of common law.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51350

C//

It pretty pathetic. At the hospitals here there are always people hanging around outside the front entrance dressed in in gowns and towing IV drip devices. They stagger outside for a puff.

My wife's dad died of Nasopharyngeal carcinoma and if you google around the risk factors are to be asian and to like eating fish. He belonged to both of those groups and was 75 years old, so the cancer wasn't entirely a surprise.

He was noted in the family for insisting on sea food, and that may have been a factor in his otherwise good health when the cancer was diagnosed.

He got unlucky because he had a rare sensitivity to the chemotherapy drug he was given. It killed his bone marrow stone dead in the space of a few days. Once that happens your immune system crashes and you start to decompose.

I ride a bike to work because the men in my family generally die of heart disease in their 50's. I broke my arm in a crash in July, which is part of the down side of avoiding heart failure.

Having seen several sides of the medical industry in my life I am coming to the view that it is better to be as active as possible and accept the possibility of a sudden death. I am less worried about my own safety now, because I have started to dread being confined to hospital. My biggest fear is probably paralysis. Because it can happen in an accident.

I remember that my grandmother had a stroke at 80, her biggest fear was that she would live for years afterwards. This exact thing happened to her sister several years later. She took five years to die.

Personally I am actively working on transhuman solutions. I don't think the medical industry will solve many problems in our lifetime.

Using the new In-Cell growing technique many companies seem to be coming up with vaccines in a shorter period than earlier. Medicinenet has an informative article on Flu Vaccines and immunization candidates, and goes on to say why they are required. This is a good read to understand why vaccination is being given importance here. The 1918 "Spanish" Flu epidemic Virus which is very similar to the recent outbreak was re-created in a laboratory in 2005 by Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger and colleagues at AFIP. Comparison with Avian flu strains led to the conclusion that Human Flu Virus strains are derived from Avian flu virii.

Among young people and children Flu vaccines claim to be 70%-90% effective, while this drops down to 30%-40% in people aged over 65 who may have other secondary complications. Hence the scale of vaccination required for the present outbreak (which has been repeatedly noted for not being as lethal as the 1918 Flu strain) may be entirely different covering only those in a risk category. More stress is on drugs that help in combating the Virus in an infected individual. These are usually amino-acid chain suppressors like Tamiflu. There has already been mobilization and distribution of the drugs to combat such an outbreak. The WHO has done a recent donation of drugs to Nigeria. This is however related to continued support of a H5N1 outbreak since 2006.

The role and importance of the Vaccines that would be available is not yet certain. It seems that the stress is more on treatment. Insofar stress on prevention without the involvement of Primary Medical care personnel. Only those who suspect infection have been requested to visit quarantine or medical facilities for treatment. The W.H.O's present stand with the Flu Virus has been a direct result of criticism during the second widespread Avian flu H5N1 attack incidents in 2006. Attention is being given to Avian Influenza as a pandemic because it leads to complications and secondaries making it difficult to fight other diseases with stronger morbidity. -- No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)

Using the new In-Cell growing technique many companies seem to be coming up with vaccines in a shorter period than earlier. Medicinenet has an informative article on Flu Vaccines and immunization candidates, and goes on to say why they are required. This is a good read to understand why vaccination is being given importance here. The 1918 "Spanish" Flu epidemic Virus which is very similar to the recent outbreak was re-engineered in a laboratory in 2005 by Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger and colleagues at AFIP. Comparison with Avian flu strains led to the conclusion that Human Flu Virus strains are derived from Avian flu virii.

Among young people and children Flu vaccines claim to be 70%-90% effective, while this drops down to 30%-40% in people aged over 65 who may have other secondary complications. Hence the scale of vaccination required for the present outbreak (which has been repeatedly noted for not being as lethal as the 1918 Flu strain) may be entirely different covering only those in a risk category. More stress is on drugs that help in combating the Virus in an infected individual. These are usually amino-acid chain suppressors like Tamiflu. There has already been mobilization and distribution of the drugs to combat such an outbreak. The WHO has done a recent donation of drugs to Nigeria.

The role and importance of the Vaccines that would be available is not yet certain. It seems that the stress is more on treatment. Insofar stress on prevention without the involvement of Primary Medical care personnel. Only those who suspect infection have been requested to visit quarantine or medical facilities for treatment. The WHO's present stand with the Flu Virus has been a direct result of criticism during the second widespread Avian flu H5N1 attack incidents in 2006.

Interesting rumour. I'm slightly interested to know what your basis for this assertion is

Half a dozen of my friends figured this out the hard way. Their doctors all traced it back to drug interactions between antibiotics in the -cycline family (minocycline, tetracycline, etc.) and their low-dose oral contraceptive pills. But since anecdotes aren't proof, I spent about five minutes Googling:

Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3 (about 3/4 down the page)
Reference 4
Reference 5

Many sources I found note that it is difficult to conduct formal research in this area because women don't want to take antibiotics as part of a study and risk getting pregnant. It is difficult to prove what happens, but my friends have traced it back and told me what their doctors said. I hope sexually active readers hear this and protect themselves.

I had an unfortunate incident of that. I came in with depression/anxiety, and my doctor put me on Paxil. Not because it was the best choice, but because it was the NEWEST one, and the lovely dinner the pharamceutical company paid for had these nice salesmen who told all the doctors how safe and effective with it.

After one night on it, I stopped it and made another appointment with the doctor. To say I had a bad reaction would be an understatement. I'd describe it as extreme anxiety with hot sweats and other wonderful symptoms. Cut to a few years later, I start reading in the news about "unreported" side-effects of Paxil and the drug maker being forced to issue updated clinical notes. Now the warnings list all these things.

The appallingly bad knowledge, especially about new drugs, family doctors have is downright frightening.

All of the marketing and nice dinners by the Paxil salesmen aside, reading this makes me wonder just exactly what the FDA did to approve this drug? One would think that SOME of the testing they would do would have revealed some of these side effects prior to it hitting the market.

Of course, with billions at stake, there's just no chance that pharm-grade palm grease wasn't applied between parties to gain approval, right? Riiiiight...Yeah, funny how things go "unreported" until absolutely necessary...

I had an unfortunate incident of that. I came in with depression/anxiety, and my doctor put me on Paxil. Not because it was the best choice, but because it was the NEWEST one, and the lovely dinner the pharamceutical company paid for had these nice salesmen who told all the doctors how safe and effective with it.

After one night on it, I stopped it and made another appointment with the doctor. To say I had a bad reaction would be an understatement. I'd describe it as extreme anxiety with hot sweats and other wonderful symptoms. Cut to a few years later, I start reading in the news about "unreported" side-effects of Paxil and the drug maker being forced to issue updated clinical notes. Now the warnings list all these things.

The appallingly bad knowledge, especially about new drugs, family doctors have is downright frightening.

If you want to know how my story turned out, I got a referral to a psychiatrist who had many, many years of experience and helped me figure out my problem was a combination of biology, a sleeping disorder I'd recently been diagnosed with and really bad work environment. He helped me figure out which drug worked better for me (one that was new, but was relatively less marketed), talked me through how to make the appropriate changes in my thinking and lifestyle to survive bad times and then after the appropriate monitoring time, sent me on my way, and I've been overall pretty good.

The lesson here is our doctors need real medical knowledge to draw on--not just what the marketers and sales people tell them. Family doctors are usually over worked trying to pay the office rent, the receptionist, the malpractice insurance, etc. And they don't have the time or energy to keep learning anymore, and what they do have time for is usually not of high quality to begin with.

I for one am looking forward to this. It doesn't just benefit America--it could benefit everybody.

Sugar does not cause hyperactivity!

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52516

Uh,you want me to stop whining about DRM by buying a box that was built first and foremost FOR DRM? Does that make ANY sense to you? And if I'd have wanted a freaking console I would have got one,thank you very much. There are plenty of us out there that can game just fine on a keyboard and mouse,but those game controllers cause pain(in my case this,but I have talked to many with other conditions who also can't take a controller) and more importantly you are missing the point.

The point is this: the DRM does NOTHING to stop piracy. I repeat,it does NOTHING AT ALL to stop piracy! Don't believe me? Go to any torrent site and you'll find games INCLUDING Xbox360 and PS3 often before the release date. And if they want to stop casual piracy that is as simple as the old altered disc sector trick. So the ONLY folks they are burning is guys like me,you know,the ones who will actually give them money for their game.

So if trying to play games with those damned funky inaccurate controllers and swapping games everytime you want to play and watching on a TV make you happy,so be it. But this is NOT about consoles,this is about the PC version of Dead Space. And as a firm believer in the free market I will vote with my hard earned cash and avoid EA like the clap until idiots like the CEO of EA stops calling me and everyone who dares to complain a pirate.

And I quote "I'm guessing that half of them were pirates and the other half were people caught up in something that they didn't understand." So if I don't accept a lousy 3 installs for their precious $60 "IP" then I'm a pirate or too stupid to understand what I'm talking about. Sorry Mr. CEO,but I understand EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You want me to come crawling to you when my machine breaks,when your DRM fucks up,when I upgrade my PC,etc. But I am of the opinion(and apparently I am FAR from alone) that when I purchase something I can use it as long as I want,which is why it's called a purchase and not a rental. I have bought a TON of EA games in the past,but until I actually GET what I PAY for from EA they won't see another dime from me.

Please keep in mind that while positive attitude certainly doesn't seem to hurt your chances with cancer, it also really doesn't seem to help at all. Source.

And what the parent post is referring to seems very very far outside the pale as far as any info we have on the causes of cancer. It to me even seems to be a bit of blaming the victim for the disease.

Attitudes like that will not help in any way to actually progress our attempts to cure cancer. Science, like the topic of this thread, hopefully will. That is assuming that this turns out to work. Lets hope.

He forgot to mention that it's a fairly new law, and it seems to be working, 18% drop and all. Also even in 2004, the U.S. still tops the list, of gun violence deaths.. Both those were from this simple search.

Physical pain also happens all in your head. That doesn't make it any less real. I think what you're trying to say is that depression is a mental condition. However, in actual fact, there are forms of depression which have neurochemical causes.

Some of the recent increase in mentions of MRSA on death certificates may be due to improved levels of reporting, possibly brought about by the continued high public profile of the disease.

Importing ought to drive up the cost, especially if they have to be imported illegally, as customs will still catch quite a few. Guns have a significant bulk/cost ratio difference from drugs, that I should think would make them an unattractive import candidate.

Thanks for bringing up Britain, who in 2002 had .41 gun deaths per 100,000 people, versus the U.S.'s 14.24... more than 30 times as many per capita source. Obviously this strategy just isn't working out for the Brits and they need to rethink the whole plan. A single shot zip gun is not going to be anywhere near as reliable or accurate as a .22 pistol, and carries the additional risk of blowing up in the owner's hand at a relatively unacceptable rate. Homemade automatics would have similar issues with respect to mass-produced, high-precision firearms-- they just don't scare me as much. Not to mention that far fewer people have the knowledge and motivation to actually do this, than do walking down to the sporting goods store and buying a gun.

I'll concede this point, since I have no source, with a question: how do they typically deal with the waiting period? Do they mail you the gun later?

A generalization, I admit. I would wager that far more humans are killed by handguns than animals are each year. Besides, it would seem, that handguns used for hunting are of a different class than say semi-automatic 9mm or .45 weapons. I wouldn't think a handgun would be a very sensible hunting weapon, especially something that's likely to break your wrist, but hey... to each their own huh.

Ah, the oft quoted self-defense argument.

In general, research shows that guns increase, not decrease, the health risk of gun owners: risk of domestic homicide increases three times when one has a gun, and suicide increases fivefold if a gun is present in the house. A published study showed that when guns are bought for self-protection, they are 22 more times more likely to be used to kill someone the owner knows than to be used against strangers in self-defense.

I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, but guns are not good. They are dangerous, deadly weapons. Gun control and Border control are a really really bad analogy for any number of reasons.

I remember somebody I know telling me about how she was stopped and searched, etc at the airport because she had traces of nitro on her hands and in her purse. Now why would she have that? Well her husband used it as a medication for his bad heart.

You'd be surprised at the rather harmless (explosion-wise anyways) uses many of these chemicals have, and I'm sure the airport guards may be as well. I've heard many cases of funky medications giving weird results in various situations. Did you know that taking a breathalizer test shortly after pumping ventalin (for asthma) will often result in a false positive?

My friend heard this and decided to test it with a police officer (first by passing the test, then by puffing and taking it again). They were both quite surprised at how much it skewed the reading. The officer basically stated he'd never heard of such a thing, but he'd definitely keep it in mind and pass it along to others for future reference as in a situation where he had not watched her puff and taken the earlier reading my friend would have been on her way down to the station on DUI charges.

Google is your friend.

Top 10 Causes of Death Worldwide
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art iclekey=62218

However, other leading causes of death differed depending on countries' incomes. Here is the list for high-income countries:

      1. Heart disease
      2. Stroke
      3. Lung cancer
      4. Lower respiratory infections
      5. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
      6. Colon and rectum cancers
      7. Alzheimer's disease and other dementias
      8. Type 2 diabetes
      9. Breast cancer
    10. Stomach cancer

Here is the list for low- and middle-income countries:

      1. Heart disease
      2. Stroke
      3. Lower respiratory infections
      4. HIV/AIDS
      5. Fetus/newborn (perinatal) conditions
      6. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
      7. Diarrhea
      8. Tuberculosis
      9. Malaria
    10. Road traffic accidents

The autism spectrum includes a range of conditions from severe symptoms in which the afflicted is non-functional to high-functioning autism like Aspbergers. The reason it is considered a spectrum is that most of those diagnosed with autism have some combination of traits that are found somewhere on the spectrum. Common traits usually involve sensory processing issues and nonverbal communication deficits.

The most US-centric report about the idea that the United States is filled with gun-toting violent crazies still fails to exonerate the United States entirely. The key column here is Firearm Homicide. The rest are just there to confuse you, pointing out that violent deaths don't always involve guns. Duh. While it's true that Estonia, Brazil, Mexico and Northern Ireland have higher Firearm Homicide rates than the US; Canada, Germany, Singapore, Japan, England, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Israel and Spain have only 25-50% of the Firearm Homicide rate per 100,000. OK, so there's more violent people out there, but even statistics that are attempting to prove your point have a difficult reality to overcome.

Here's the other side of the coin, which is what most people think of when they think of the United States and their gun problem. The numbers aren't substantially different, but the presentation sure is. Gotta love statistics -- I had to read these two articles for 30 minutes before posting to be sure I didn't put my foot in my mouth.

Guns make people safer! That's why America, with the highest guns per capita of any first-world nation, is the safest nation on Earth, right alongside such sterling examples of crime-free zones like Costa Rica and Colombia.

Get a goddamned grip. The US has more guns -- and more gun deaths -- than any other developed nation.

Clearly the solution to today's situation would have been for everyone to have guns, then people could have started firing recklessly into the fray and that would have been really fucking great!

Gun-licensed countries -- practically those with bans have far far lower crime.

Both of those links you provided were about deaths caused by guns NOT about crime rates being lower for countries that ban firearms. In the first page, Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List, crime doesn't even appear. On the second page the only place where "crime" appears is at the top where it says "Searching for U.S. Crime Stats? Check out StateMaster" and towards the bottum where it says " DEFINITION: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population." Neither of these sipport your aims instead they are totally different things.

The table with gun-related deaths statistics that you link to does not prove that total gun ban in the UK works.

The Netherlands, where gun ownership IS LEGAL, is on the bottom of the list with 0.7 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, very close to England's 0.45 (compare that to USA's 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people).

Um, maybe you should check out the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD.

I have. At least where reliable data is available and reasonably accessible. You, clearly, have not.

The UK has the fastest growing rate of gun crimes in all of western civilization.

Yes. The reason the rates increase so much, is because the actual numbers are so low.

Gun Death Rates per Nation

If you're trying to be honest about the statistics, avoid harping too much about relative increases in rates - that's like bragging about your brother growing richer faster at a rate faster than Bill Gates.

Ryan Fenton

As much as I hate to step on the toes on someone advocating civil liberties there is a thing I would like to argue with you about.

You seem to be saying that all drugs are harmless. Tell this to any father whose daughter has been introduced to drugs like Cocaine at a party, gotten addicted, travelled down the path to where she has to do unspeakable things for money to buy more, and then eventually died from an overdose or suicide. I think you'll have an argument on your hands. I've seen this happen. It's horrid. You can't group all drugs in the same backet. Drug pushers destroy lives for their own profit, and they have some pretty devastating, instantly addictable weapons in their arsenal that they use to draw young people, particulary girls, into their net.

I guess you could say that people should be allow to make the choice about whether to be enslaved by drugs, but often young people don't understand the nature of the enslavement until it's too late. Experience is often something you get after you needed it.

Why should a white family be harassed when the people on the watch lists are usually non-white? It has nothing to do with being racist, but it has everything to do with being efficient.

Efficent, or lazy?

If the screeners don't pay attention to white people, how long do you think it will take before the bad guys figure out a way to look white?

You think it can't be done? I say bullshit. $2000 and 3 years and I can turn almost any middle-eastern or pakistani into a blonde, blue-eyed, lilly-white Biff McWhitey.

The drug to permanently bleach the skin is readily available - topical monobenzone aka "benoquin." 3 years of treatments with benoquin is enough to fully bleach out anyone. If you only need to do visible parts of the body like face/neck and hands, it's only about 9 months.

Bleach the hair blonde.

Blue contacts for the eyes.

That's how easy it is to exploit your so-called "efficiency."

Do it to a guy with a small frame with asian genes and he could easily pass as a woman too.

Feel safe now?

None of this means, of course, that real-world rape victims "really want it." "Women who find submission fantasies sexually arousing are very clear that they have no wish to be raped in reality," say Leitenberg and Henning. In their fantasies, women control every aspect of what occurs. And their scenarios are far less brutal than real-life attacks. Typically the fantasy involves an attractive man whose restraint is simply overwhelmed by the woman's attractiveness. These fantasies serve the same psychological purpose as scenes of irresistibility. "It's different means to the same end" says Leitenberg. "We want to be desired."

"Other studies found that 51 percent of women fantasized about being forced to have sex, while a third imagined: "I'm a slave who must obey a man's every wish."

story

I can barely stomach the thought of gastroenteritis from my pictures, nevermind blindness.

but I don't have a problem with this.

Once kids get much past 10 or 12, it becomes increasingly difficult to change their eating habits.

And with the evidence mounting that junk food contributes to a wide range of diseases I don't see how parents keeping on watchful eye on their children could be a bad thing.

Ah, but that's what vitamins and flax seed oil are for. Having a master's degree in biology, I'm quite aware of dietary requirements.

I lift weights most days and have bulked up considerably over the last few years (up to 190 lbs from 165). Most people would consider me in excellent health.

On the other hand, my stepfather recently died of pancreatic cancer, a disease closely linked to eating processed meats. My father-in-law just had a heart attack a few months ago. Both had traditional high-meat American diets.

My father, who married a Japanese woman, has been following a "flexitarian" diet, as well as exercising reguarly. He's in great shape.

All anecdotal, of course, but the research continues to pile up. Diets heavy in fruit, vegitables, and whole grains are generally good for you. Minimizing fats, sugars, and processed foods is best as well.

When the side of the head where the phone was held was taken into consideration, the tumor risk was almost four times higher for the side where the phone was held and normal for the other side.

• general rise in cell phone use should have corresponding rise in these neuromas but that is not observed.
• Only analog phone use was studied but most cell phone use now is digital
• The neuroma in question is typically so slow growing that many people carry them around undiagnosed for years. [i.e. if they had done the expensive MRI scan on the 600 "healthy" control subjects, they might have to adjust their numbers]
• A well identified genetic defect is known to cause the neuromas spontaneously

*sigh* And I wish I were more joking when I say that... The definition of "medical risk" when it comes to abortions ranges from ectopic pregnancies to weight gain.