Slashdot Mirror

That strikes me as an overstatement. Either that, or my search parameters meet my needs better than your search parameters, or some such nonsense.

From time to time, I do notice trash crop up in a search. Sometimes, the first 5 or 10 results are pretty obviously noise accompanying the signal. But, ten pages of results? Never. Not even a full page. Crap - I'm going to check something - some stupid term - UTERUS!

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=uterus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I clicks the first ten links:
wikipedia - not good, not bad, it's informational
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/19263.htm - looks alright, educational, I guess and seems to lead to other educational material (didn't check)
www.medicinenet.com/uterine_cancer/article.htm - looks alright again - educational, but there are links to what look like practitioners sites.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/226-hysterectomies-in-6-months-in-rajasthan/149579-3.html - news article, appears to be about forced sterilization, or unethical doctors
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/17/2171976/south-florida-activists-pen-the.html - 'nother news article about an activist group
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/prolapsed_uterus/article_em.htm - looks like a mirror of medicinenet above - same adverts, different article
http://www.nuff.org/health_theuterus.htm - you'll note I'm not digging deeply - looks like a nonprofit concerned with women's health?
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/uterinehealth/a/abouttheuterus.htm - looks like what the name implies - educational
http://www.pathologyoutlines.com/uterus.html - lots of links, looks like it's educational, but again, I'm not digging deep here
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5918 - another medicinenet mirror, this happens to be yet another related article

Somewhere, somehow, perhaps my settings tend to show pertinent results? I don't know - maybe you're trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

I can't say that I believe in AGW in the same way Christians believe in god. I can't say that I've heard arguments in favor of AGW that didn't accept that our climate is constantly changing, either. It would seem that the argument is that the climate is warming more than it would without mankind's influence.

Many people, like myself, who aren't scientists, but accept that there could be some AGW are more interested in solutions to any ensuing apocolypse. Those solutions are often built upon the "Tree of Knowledge called the Industrial Revolution". There could be no mass manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, fuel cells, electric cars or anything else that we dream up without the foundations of the Industrial Revolution. What we are suggesting is a Green revolution, which as a side affect disenfranchises energy suppliers that make all of their profit from non-renewable sources. It also disenfranchises localities that rely heavily on those non-renewable resources. For decades those same entities have been engaged in practices which we know to disenfranchise their employees and citizens, and which we have reason to believe disenfranchises the rest of the world. There is a big difference between accepting the likelihood of something that is supported by a broad selection of data, and another to believe a book that has no second sources.

What's more, the religious fanatics seem to rejoice in the glee of their apocolyps, as only the sinners get burned. Those of us that consider the merits and logic of scientific research are worried that everyone will get burned.

virtually all statistics gathered so far show that with U.S. private healthcare system, on average, people get less care for more money

At which point it is wise to consider whether private healthcare/socialised healthcare is the only difference or if there might not be something else in the mix such as the cost of malpractice insurance and the cost of defensive medicine driven by the failure of successive US governments to reign in the costs associated with their legal system.

Read, learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=25283

"Most Snarky Use of the Word 'Emetic'"

And, may I add, perfectly appropriate and accurate, when used in reference to a huge proportion of the great wasteland that is MySpace.

It's worth noting that pandemic isn't really defined by the virulence, just how well it spreads (and relatively suddenly). If a particular strain spreads well enough to affect 90% of the world (or continent, or country), it's a pandemic. If all it causes in 99% of those infected is a the sniffles and a bit of fever, well it's still a pandemic.

IANA physician or pharmacist, so this isn't qualified medical advice. Do research from better sources than Slashdot when health is concerned. This is just a tip to a couple of those sources.

They actually recommend against aspirin as a
fever reducer in children under the age of about 16, too. Reye's syndrome is a rare but dangerous sickness that can be triggered in victims of the chicken pox or flu viruses when given aspirin.

Any viral infection, particularly one in which the first symptom is fever, should not be treated with aspirin. This is true according to the NIH even in adults, but I've always heard it was especially true for children.

See the pages about Reye's at MedicineNet, WebMD, or the US National Institutes of Health or ask your doctor for more info.

Aspirin also has other contraindications, but it has many positive uses as a medicine. Very little in life is without drawbacks, unfortunately.

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

That is part of the original or classical oath. I think that you will find that most modern versions leave that line out. See NOVA or medterms.com. The science of medicine has changed quite a bit in the couple of thousand years since Hippocrates' time. The oath has been updated in accordance with modern science.

Difficult to solve? How so?

I've worked in a company that used to sell via the internet (and postal mail before that). It was never a big issue before the internet, but the states are imagining millions going uncollected and that gives the money-loving pols a severe case of agita.

From a programming perspective, how hard is it to examine a couple of fields - country, state and zip code. All of the tax data resides in a table. The table is populated from data supplied via a subscription service - like now. That's how tax information is made available to businesses that need to keep up with changes for payroll and other uses.

This isn't a question of how it can be done, it's a political question of why it needs to be done.

Here's a novel solution - do away with all sales taxes - or local income taxes. In the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, we have both here. Some states have one or the other.

I'm hosed if they chose retina scanning. I get drusen deposits http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10015 .

Fortunately, it's not macular degeneration. But those deposits form and dissolve over time. That would make retina scanning a problem for me.

OHHhh A Priapism curse,turns you into a scare-crow with a boner that wouldn't stop!

Razed By TV is incorrect.
This may or may not be true. Mad cow disease can be caused by a problem with an allele in the cow's DNA.

Compared to other countries with similar economies, Canada's spending is in the ballpark, according to a report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. The latest figures on what countries spend on health care come from 2002, when Canada spent 9.6 per cent of GDP on health care:

* France 9.7%.
* Germany 10.9%.
* Denmark 8.8%.
* Sweden 9.2%.

At the high end of the scale is the United States, which spent 14.6 per cent of GDP on health care.

The story is from 2004 and they're quoting statistics from 2002, but I'd imagine those are still pretty close to what they are today. So it looks like you were correct, Canada spent around 9.6% our GDP back in 2002 while the United States spent around 14.6% of their GDP. My question is, does that ~15% of US GDP spent on health care take into account things like prescription costs? I know prescriptions can cost a lot more (sometimes 2-3 times more) in the States then they do here in Canada. Would perscription costs be enough to increase United States health care spending by that much or is there other factors?

Also, I found this Wikipedia entry, Canadian and American health care systems compared. Here's a quote from the "Wait times" section:

Canadians pay 9% of GDP to insure 100% of citizens, compared with 14% of GDP to insure 85% of Americans.

Here's a quote from the "Price of Health Care" section of that wikipedia article:

Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations' budgets. The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.[5]

However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this number is $3,372.[5] In 2004, health care consumed 15.4% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 9.8% of GDP was spent on health care.

Finally, I think the section on malpractice litigation is fairly interesting aswell:

Malpractice litigation

The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits accounts for some of the difference in health spending in the two countries. In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16.[68] Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417[69]. However, malpractice suits are far more common in the U.S., with 350% more suits filed each year per person.[68] While malpractice costs are significantly higher in the U.S., they make up only a small proportion of total medical spending. The total cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health spending.[70] Critics say that defensive medicine consumes up to 9% of American healthcare expenses.[71][72] In the same year in Canada, the total burden of malpractice suits was $237 million, or 0.27% of total health spending.[68]

I had to look up defensive medicine as I've never heard of that term before. That s

• Medterms.com"The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981."
• Another Link "In 1968 the Harvard Medical School Committee developed a definition of death. According to this definition, a person is brain dead when he or she has suffered irreversible cessation of the functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. "
• Biology, Consciousness, and the Definition of Death "Two landmark reports helped to generate a movement away from exclusive reliance on the traditional standard: the 1968 report of the Harvard Medical School Ad Hoc Committee and a 1981 presidential commission report, Defining Death. This second document included what became the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). Today all fifty states and the District of Columbia follow the UDDA in recognizing whole-brain death -- irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain -- as a legal standard of death. The UDDA doesn't jettison the cardiopulmonary standard, however. Instead, it holds that death occurs whenever either standard (whichever applies first) is met. One important consequence of this change is that an individual can be legally dead even if her cardiopulmonary system continues to function. If a patient's entire brain is nonfunctioning, so that breathing and heartbeat are maintained only by artificial life-supports, that patient meets the whole-brain standard of death."

Prophylactic: A preventive measure. The word comes from the Greek for "an advance guard," an apt term for a measure taken to fend off a disease or another unwanted consequence.

In the article you yourself linked, Vermiform Appendix the first paragraph:

In human anatomy, the vermiform appendix (or appendix, pl. appendices) is a blind ended tube connected to the cecum (or internationally, "caecum"). It develops embryologically from the cecum. The term vermiform comes from Latin and means "wormlike in appearance". The cecum is the first pouch-like structure of the colon. The appendix is near the junction of the small intestines and large intestines.

The paragraph you quoted is from further down in the wiki article -

One explanation has been that the appendix is a vestigial structure with no current purpose.[citation needed] The appendix is thought to have descended from an organ in our distant herbivorous ancestors called the cecum (or caecum). The cecum is maintained in modern herbivores, where it houses the bacteria that digest cellulose, a chemically tough carbohydrate that these animals could not otherwise utilize. The human appendix contains no significant number of these bacteria, and cellulose is indigestible to us. It seems likely that the appendix lost this function before our ancestors became recognizably human.

The article is directly contradicting itself. Further, that whole paragraph is lacking citation, and should probably be removed. I'm not debating about the appendix and it's function or lack thereof, here; I'm stating that what Wikipedia says about the cecum is incorrect. Using it as evidence for your argument is fallacious, and you need to find another source.

To check out Wikipedia on the cecum, let's go to Cecum and take a look.

The cecum or caecum (from the Latin caecus meaning blind) is a pouch connected to the ascending colon of the large intestine and the ileum. It is separated from the ileum by the ileocecal valve (ICV) or Bauhin's valve, and is considered to be the beginning of the large intestine.

Which article is correct? Pick up an anatomy book, or try a google for "cecum" and pick anything but Wikipedia. From one of the higher links, Medterms.com:

Cecum: The cecum (also spelled caecum), the first portion of the large bowel, situated in the lower right quadrant of the abdomen. The cecum receives fecal material from the small bowel (ileum) which opens into it. The appendix is attached to the cecum. The word "cecum" comes from the Latin "caecus" meaning "blind." This refers to the fact that the bottom of the cecum is a blind pouch (a cul de sac) leading nowhere.

My final point: The appendix is not "descended from an organ in our distant herbivorous ancestors called the cecum". We have a cecum in our bodies currently, and it is what the appendix happens to dangle from. This is basic, high school and first-year anatomy. Is that good enough?

The corpora cavernosa is not a muscle!

"Stem cells from bone marrow can also, quite remarkably, give rise to non-marrow cells"

Do bone marrow cells exhibit pluripotent characteristics that lend them to the use metastasis puts them to?

Hey yo, what's a liberatrian? Someone for the freedom of upper heart chambers (i.e. atriums)?

Being that this is related to my work, and I've been following the debate for awhile on it, I can tell you it's more complicated than this lame article makes it sound.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a copy of their actual paper (it may not be published yet,) and newspaper articles just aren't conscious enough to be very usable as sources here. I have read some of this guys earlier papers, along with others, and I at least have some background on what they're talking about though.

It's been known for quite some time that handedness is associated with Broca's Area a part of the brain generally associated with language. However, the simplistic equation of Broca's area = language is not necessarily true - our understanding of the brain isn't that fine-grained, Broca's area may have several function, or may actually be several organs we're conflating. It's also definately associated with some motor functions, for instance facial gestures, and it's been argued that it's primary function may be one of motor control, not language. So what exactly handedness being associated with Broca's means is still clearly up for debate.

This paper by Corballis, is probably the best summary of recent research on the question that I'm able to find a clear link to for you right now - not that it's nearly thorough enough to serve that purpose really, but it does cover a lot of ground, and most articles like this are not available without subscription. Anyway, it has been argued that handedness was caused by language, but it's also been argued, for instance, that human language arose originally from a mixture of manual gestures, facial gestures, and involuntary vocalisations which change soundshape with those facial gestures, thus becoming distinguishable representations of them. In this scenario, Broca's primary function was motor control, and it became associated with language before language became the primarily vocal thing it is for most of us today.

What exactly Hopkins new data is, and what exactly he's arguing it shows, I honestly can't figure out from this article though. It's not even clear to me whether he's saying he has more evidence that Broca's is primarily a motor control centre, rather than a language center, or if he's found an association with another part of the brain entirely. I am looking forward to reading his actual paper.

Here is a description of Kuru, a brain wasting disease in humans transmitted by the traditional eating the brains of the deceased.

I am a biologist and I remember researching this when I was an undergrad:

Studying Kuru is much easier for researchers, because they can simply ask people who were involved in the tradition about symptoms and the spread of the disease. They were able to figure out that there are several different alleles in the wild (sections of DNA that code for proteins; each human has 2 copies of DNA for each protein). They found some of the alleles encoded a protein that was more resistant to corruption by the prions than others. They also found that people who were heterozygous (have 2 different copies of the protein) would take much longer to die of the disease than those who were homozygous (have 2 of the same copies).

Heterozygousity levels were high, as expected for those who had taken part and survived the old-fashioned (and now outlawed) practice of eating your dead relative's brains, because homozygotes were very susceptable to dying from this practice, and their levels would be somewhat lower due to selective pressure (ie death) in the past (but via genetics there would always be some homozygotes in each generation).

This is all well and good, but the real slammer here is this:

heterozygousity levels were also abnormally high in the general population around the world for this protein. This could have several meanings (i'll go into 2):
1. We are the descendents of cannibals.
2. Everyone dies of alzheimer's if they live to be old enough (ie they don't die of something else first).

Cannibalism could explain the abnormally high rate of heterozygousity for this protein. Supposedly, archaeologists and those types have uncovered widespread (ie global) evidence of cannibalism, but also found that is relatively rare at any one time. If people were eating other people on a large enough scale, this could cause selection against homozygotes in the long run.

Because of human family structure, old people (past breeding age) can still positively influence the fitness (reproductive cabability) of younger family members. This theoretically would produce selective pressure against homozygotes, although other factors might render it insignificant.

In any case it is clear that brains are not quite perfect as of the latest release. Some other interesting tidbits are that heavy smokers and drinkers have a slightly lower incidence of alzheimer's. This could be because they die of other health problems earlier, but I believe the study adjusted for details like that. The mechanism for this could be the higher incidence of "shock proteins" and "chaperone proteins" in cells that are more used to being stressed by the nasty destructive chemicals in ciggarettes and booze.

*takes a swig of beer*

These chaperone proteins help to fold newly-made proteins the proper way. Shock proteins help to
keep your proteins from getting messed up from exposure to heat, chemicals, other proteins, etc.

Whew..there is some much to explain, I can't give much more than a brief overview. any questions?

According to:
http://www.medterms.com/

The male gonad is the testicle (or testis), located behind the penis in a pouch of skin (the scrotum).

The female gonad, the ovary or "egg sac", is one of a pair of reproductive glands in women.

I trust it more than I trust someone called Lord Kronos.

According to this (and since it's on the internet, it must be true, right?):

Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing when it was found that some people had more than one blood type. Most of them proved to be "blood chimeras" -- non-identical twins who shared a blood supply in the uterus. Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation. Twin embryos often share a blood supply in the placenta, allowing blood stem cells to pass from one and settle in the bone marrow of the other.

Anther great aricle about Chimera twins that I was reading eariler is here. Man this stuff is really interesting. It actually says that about 8% of non-identical twins are chimera twins. That's actually pretty high.