Slashdot Mirror

But Zhang wasn't the only person to figure this out - George Church's group reported similar results at the same time. The patent office inexplicably decided not to get Church's testimony on the conflict.

Though autism probably isn't one consistent, monolithic thing, it's long been suspected that one's autistic fate is potentially sealed before birth. A quick search yields: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

When Are Averages Useless
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that beer has utility in public health in certain contexts. I just don't like poor arguments.
Although, as to your argument, I may have an amendment. Besides boiling, there's some scientific credence to the idea that fermenting can help to protect humans from food poisoning. Here's a sample. Of course, there's some notorious caveats with that, e.g. coconut tempeh is not legal to sell in some places due to its propensity to foster a lethal type of food poisoning: Toxic Tempeh contaminated with Burkholderia cocovenenans.

There is also a lot of evidence that the so-called "Gluten Sensitive" are not actually sensitive to gluten at all. Instead they are probably FODMAP insensitive, and most of the "gluten free" products on the market are also low in FODMAP's.

That means a Gluten Free diet improves their symptoms, not because of the gluten, but because of a correlated change in FODMAPS. This is why most self-diagnosed people with a gluten insensitivity also claim to have problems with dairy products which are completely gluten free, but are rich in FODMAPs. Unfortunately, when you try to explain this to someone with a self-diagnosis, they seem to take the information as an attempt to call them stupid or crazy. It's not that their symptoms are imaginary, nor that the relief they get from a gluten free diet is imagined, but simply that they've misattributed cause and effect due to the correlation between FODMAP and Gluten in many foods.

I don't know much about quinoa on this regard, but if it is also high in FODMAP's despite being gluten free, then it won't help these people all that much.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

"While Celiac disease is believed to effect about 1% of the population, some studies have found as high as 6% of the population is effected by NCGS."

Since you're quoting the same source, here's another: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The conclusion? "The prevalence of CD in the United States was 0.71% (1 in 141), similar to that found in several European countries. "

There's quite a difference between 0.71% and 1%, it's about as large an abuse of "about" as you can get. There seems to be a lot left to learn.

I thought it was related more to the 1998 Lancet paper that really kicked off the anti-vaccination movement. That paper has since been thoroughly debunked, and retracted due to fraud and ethics violations. A good synopsis of the affair can be found here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

If you actually read the paper you linked, it's way more interesting and way less simple than you're suggesting with your claim that "Meat isn't bad for you, in any way shape or form." First: the paper notes that these results are inconsistent with results from a couple of other similar studies, and speculates that perhaps the reason is regional - all of the test subjects in this study were British, while a similar study conducted in the US showed a 12% decrease in mortality among vegetarians.

Second: while the overall mortality was similar among the tested groups, when they picked out eighteen common causes of death and looked just at those (cancers, heart problems, etc.) the groups which ate little or no meat all had lower mortality by 7-10%. So, somehow, British people who eat less meat are more likely to die for unusual reasons.

There are no conclusive, unchallenged papers saying so.

Why the weasel words? In nutrition research NOTHING is conclusive and unchallenged.

In fact, very nearly the opposite: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

You are cherry-picking the report, and then cherry-picking quotes from the report. This report actually found that veggies live longer, but without enough data to be "conclusive". Many other studies have found a stronger correlation.

EHP Article
tl;dr
health data was collected from community residents in 2005 and 2006 and from a follow-up medical survey of these participants between 2008 and 2011. They also included data from 4,391 DuPont workers. For each worker and resident, the authors estimated lifetime cumulative PFOA serum levels based on factors including drinking water source, tap water consumption, and any employment at the DuPont plant.
Of 32,507 individuals in the current study, 2,507 had primary cancers of 21 different types that were validated using medical records and cancer registries. The incidence of both testicular and kidney cancers increased with higher estimated PFOA serum levels. Although the dose–response trend was not statistically significant for kidney cancer, the association is supported by two other studies by the C8 Science Panel: a geographical study of cancer in the mid-Ohio Valley and a mortality study of DuPont workers.
Most notable study design limitation is that it is [largely] a survivor cohort
"The authors also found a positive association between estimated PFOA levels and thyroid cancer, but there was not a consistent dose–response trend, and the association was not statistically significant."
"small numbers of cases for some individual cancers, including testicular cancer, also may have led to imprecise estimates of association."
"Data from the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2000 showed that participants averaged PFOA blood concentrations of 5.2 ng/mL,4 whereas the cohort in the six counties exposed to contaminated drinking water near the DuPont Washington Works plant had concentrations averaging 32.9 ng/mL." SI-YMMV

Mid-Ohio Valley tl;dr
Results:
Participants (n = 32,254) reported 2,507 validated cancers (21 different cancer types). Estimated cumulative serum PFOA concentrations were positively associated with kidney and testicular cancer [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.24 and HR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.79, respectively, for 1-unit increases in ln-transformed serum PFOA]. Categorical analyses also indicated positive trends with increasing exposures for both cancers: for kidney cancer HRs for increas
ing exposure quartiles were 1.0, 1.23, 1.48, and 1.58 (linear trend test p = 0.18) and for testicular cancer, HRs were 1.0, 1.04, 1.91, 3.17 (linear trend test p
= 0.04).
conclusions:
PFOA exposure was associated with kidney and testicular cancer in this population. Because this is largely a survivor cohort, findings must be interpreted with caution, especially for highly fatal cancers such as pancreatic and lung cancer.

Still with me?
Pyrolysis of PTFE is detectable at 200 C (392 F), and it evolves several fluorocarbon gases and a sublimate.
While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 260 C (500 F). The degradation by-products can be lethal to birds, and can cause flu-like symptoms in humans. See polymer fume fever.
Meat is usually fried between 204 and 232 C (399 and 450 F), and most oils start to smoke before a temperature of 260 C (500 F) is reached.

You're confusing fast food with meat.

Meat isn't bad for you, in any way shape or form. There are no conclusive, unchallenged papers saying so.

In fact, very nearly the opposite:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
CONCLUSIONS:

United Kingdom-based vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians have similar all-cause mortality. Differences found for specific causes of death merit further investigation.

60,310 people studied. That's a LOT.

But don't confuse "meat-eating" with "fast-food junky". And don't think that a vegan or vegetarian diet does ANYTHING for you. It doesn't. It's just the same, but you can't eat meat. If you're used to eating meat, that can make you miserable.

And if you go too strict, you can do more damage to your body and have to take an artificial supplement to restore what's missing from your diet (i.e. the stuff normally found in meat!).

And what you think wild-caught salmon is going to do differently to you than a farmed salmon, we can argue about until the cows come home but basically the stats say the same again: It makes NO difference.

Rather than try to argue on the basis of "this sounds good, and I think I'm helping", find some proper, serious, researched literature and narrow down what you're recommending.

Is it a) meat or lack of it, b) fish instead of meat, c) "free-range" fish over farmed fish, d) vegetarian over meat-eating, e) anything over fast-food?

Because confusing the issue in ONE SENTENCE between five different things, and getting most of those wrong in terms of actual science, is not the way to convince people.

You might as well tell me to only use organic pencils as they "draw better".

It's lethal in rats. Fatal familial insomnia is also pretty horrible, although one might argue that it's the prion that makes it lethal, not the sleep deprivation.

NASA has lots of pages dedicated to acquiring funding from government. Papers like this prove otherwise, though it's not political correct to publish such things these days.

Considering weapons ownership, or at least firearm ownership, does statistically increase your chance of premature death, its valid.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

The things you bring up, while valid points, do not in any way impact other people (outside of emotional stuff). Cigarette smoke does not stay with the smoker, it moves around and gets caught in the lungs of those around the smoker too (which is why these laws talk about 10m from playgrounds and 4m from building entrances).

By the same logic of harming others, perhaps we should ban internal combustion engines in and around population centers.

In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. "Attenuated" means reduced. High color temperatures (i.e. not f.lux) reduced good sleep, compared to lower color temperatures (e.g. f.lux).

"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. The "dark control condition" was the orange-tinted glasses, creating f.lux-like conditions. The "blue-light goggle" condition was a goggle that _added_ blue light, the opposite of f.lux. Read the abstract again.

"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. Lower color temperature (e.g. f.lux) made people more sleepy.

...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers".

No one sells f.lux. f.lux is free software. I am happy to link to it here: www.justgetflux.com

In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. "Attenuated" means reduced. High color temperatures (i.e. not f.lux) reduced good sleep, compared to lower color temperatures (e.g. f.lux).

"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. The "dark control condition" was the orange-tinted glasses, creating f.lux-like conditions. The "blue-light goggle" condition was a goggle that _added_ blue light, the opposite of f.lux. Read the abstract again.

"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. Lower color temperature (e.g. f.lux) made people more sleepy.

...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers".

No one sells f.lux. f.lux is free software. I am happy to link to it here: www.justgetflux.com

In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. "Attenuated" means reduced. High color temperatures (i.e. not f.lux) reduced good sleep, compared to lower color temperatures (e.g. f.lux).

"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. The "dark control condition" was the orange-tinted glasses, creating f.lux-like conditions. The "blue-light goggle" condition was a goggle that _added_ blue light, the opposite of f.lux. Read the abstract again.

"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. Lower color temperature (e.g. f.lux) made people more sleepy.

...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers".

No one sells f.lux. f.lux is free software. I am happy to link to it here: www.justgetflux.com

Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 2):534-6. "Pregnancy in true hermaphrodites and all male offspring to date." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
'Sex' is a multi-dimensional concept, and always has been throughout human history. Some of the axes:
Chromosomes (XX, XY, XXY, X0, XYY, XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXYY, XX/XY mosaic, ...)
Gonads (testes, ovaries, one of each, ovotestes, ...)
Hormones ( testosterone; estrogen, ... )
Genitals ( visible 'private parts')
Secondary sexual characteristics ( early or late puberty, man-boobs )
Brain structure (psychology and behavior)
Gender identity (What you think you are)
Gender role (What other people think you are)
Preference (What you like according to valence, magnitude, and number)
If you apply a statistical distribution to all of these over the human race, the binary distinction doesn't exist, except maybe on 1960's TV. Or just get out and about on a Saturday night. :-)

Here's 3; the rest are, IMO, not citable, since they use weasel words, such as "may", "might", "could", "should be studied more thoroughly" -- although they do stop just short of "hey, give us a grant, our graduate students are starving, and can't think up anything original".

"In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep ...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers". I'm not going to link to them, because IMO, they are snake oil.

Your turn.

Here's 3; the rest are, IMO, not citable, since they use weasel words, such as "may", "might", "could", "should be studied more thoroughly" -- although they do stop just short of "hey, give us a grant, our graduate students are starving, and can't think up anything original".

"In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep ...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers". I'm not going to link to them, because IMO, they are snake oil.

Your turn.

Here's 3; the rest are, IMO, not citable, since they use weasel words, such as "may", "might", "could", "should be studied more thoroughly" -- although they do stop just short of "hey, give us a grant, our graduate students are starving, and can't think up anything original".

"In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep

"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep ...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers". I'm not going to link to them, because IMO, they are snake oil.

Your turn.

USDA has been political forever. They don't seem to be able to actually follow the science.

Just look at all the different food guidelines they've put out over the years. The 1992 "Food Pyramid" was known to cause obesity and type-2 diabetes. THEY WERE TOLD THIS. The original food pyramid had vegetables as the base, but the processed-food-industry complained and it was changed.

The USDA may be the single most harmful US govt organization.

According to the NIH - 2/3rd of Americans are overweight. 1/3 of Americans are obese. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/heal...

Why do you think that happened? Because they trained everyone in govt mandated "health" classes to learn it. Evil.

I'm replying to myself. I think it uses random forests.

It only takes a cursory search to find this NIH page advising that colloidal silver is toxic and that no health benefits have been confirmed by studies. You're encouraging people to take something that's universally seen as dangerous on the basis of completely unfounded claims of healing effects.

Stop this nonsense. The stuff is not dangerous and if universally means "you" and said agencies, then you don't understand the meaning of the word. We use this stuff in the field (military) all the time and it has proven to be more durable in tough environments than antibiotics and faster acting. Get out and do some real research and you will find this stuff in use by governments around the world and even in hospital settings. Stop spreading misinformation the NIH is not the end of the line for "information".

Used by the military? What uses are you talking about? Are you in the military, or are you repeating something you read on the Internet?
I've heard that it serves as a topical antibiotic for wounds and in wound dressings, but that is about it.

The above poster claims that silver is used to cure these things:
yeast; bacteria (tuberculosis, Lyme disease, bubonic plague, pneumonia, leprosy, gonorrhea, syphilis, scarlet fever, stomach ulcers, cholera); parasites (ringworm, malaria); and viruses (HIV/AIDS, pneumonia, herpes, shingles, warts).
If you think that the military is using silver to cure the things mentioned in the above post, then you're an imbecile.

It only takes a cursory search to find this NIH page advising that colloidal silver is toxic and that no health benefits have been confirmed by studies. You're encouraging people to take something that's universally seen as dangerous on the basis of completely unfounded claims of healing effects.

Stop this nonsense. The stuff is not dangerous and if universally means "you" and said agencies, then you don't understand the meaning of the word. We use this stuff in the field (military) all the time and it has proven to be more durable in tough environments than antibiotics and faster acting. Get out and do some real research and you will find this stuff in use by governments around the world and even in hospital settings. Stop spreading misinformation the NIH is not the end of the line for "information".

It only takes a cursory search to find this NIH page advising that colloidal silver is toxic and that no health benefits have been confirmed by studies. You're encouraging people to take something that's universally seen as dangerous on the basis of completely unfounded claims of healing effects.

So, just like every internet accessible medical device ever.

Your link about internet accessible devices does not appear to be accessible from the internet. I'm getting DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN



Make America great again with showers of gold!

So, just like every internet accessible medical device ever.

That is you stating your personal opinion while ignoring science, ironically enough. Your accusations of withheld information don't really make sense, because there isn't like "The Association of 12 step programs" keeping all their records secret. It's a group of unaffiliated organizations using a similar approach.

Scientific studies and meta-studies, on the other hand, say 12 step programs have a "robust medium-size effect." Per a scientific study.

How large is the relationship between AA exposure and abstinence? As shown in Figure 1, which draws on a longitudinal study of male inpatients in Veterans Administration programs, rates of abstinence are about twice as high for those who attended a 12-step group such as AA following treatment. One-year follow-ups considered 12-step group attendance and abstinence from alcohol and drugs, while the 18-month results reported AA attendance and alcohol abstinence. Results are remarkably similar, at 1-year and 18 months, for these different exposure and abstinence measures. About 20%–25% of those who did not attend AA or another 12-step group (or receive any other form of aftercare after the inpatient stay) were abstinent from alcohol and drugs at 1 year [15], and from alcohol at 18 months (combined alcohol and drug abstinence were not reported at 18 months) [16]. The rates of abstinence were about twice as high among those who had attended AA or another 12-step group (but no other form of aftercare). In terms of effect sizes, this translates to a robust medium-size effect (h=.5) [17, pp.181–p.185].

If it costs more and a dentist tries to use only the new fillings so he can make more profit, patients will simply go to a different cheaper dentist who uses the old fillings.

If it costs less and a dentist tries to use only the old fillings so he can preserve his profit, people will simply go to a different cheaper dentist who uses the new fillings.

Either way, the dentist who tries to take the route with larger profit margin will lose customers and probably go broke.

Yeah, if only things worked like that when it comes to medicine and dentistry. Usually to get a quote on a procedure from a dentist, you'll need to pay for an exam, which is probably at least $50-100, and if they insist on new X-rays (as many offices do), that's quite a bit more.

So, you can try out another dentist for a "second opinion," but you'll likely ending up losing any gain in savings (and probably more) by doing the switch.

My experience talking to friends and family makes it pretty clear how many dentists these days seem out to make profit with unnecessary costs and procedures.

That's not to say there aren't "good" dentists out there. I have one. She's awesome. I don't have any problems and have good indications for bone and jaw, so she decreased recommended frequency for X-rays, whereas most dentists these days seem to insist on doing new ones at least once per year, no matter what. The only thing her office occasionally does is have the hygienists mention the possibility of whitening treatments or whatever, which I'm sure is an attempt to "upsell" patients -- but they're not pushy about it, so I don't care.

Meanwhile, just about everyone else in my family has gone from dentist to dentist over the past decade, often treated with a recommendation for multiple thousands of dollars of dental work after a first visit. Heck, I have a relative who is nearly 100 years old who recently had 3 teeth pulled by a dentist for no apparent reason -- well there were stated reasons of course, but not sufficient to deprive a 100-year-old woman from her teeth that she wasn't having problems with -- and charged her a ridiculous amount. (She was having trouble with one tooth; the dentist took 3. Now she only has a handful of teeth left in her mouth and has trouble chewing food.) Of course, now the dentist is trying to sell her dentures or even implants and the cost of many thousands... for a woman who is nearly 100 years old! Why not just leave her remaining teeth in unless she's having noticeable problems?? How many more years can they be expected to last? I've had other family members who asked if there was a cheaper option or who only wanted to fix one or two teeth, but the dentist refused unless ALL the recommendations were fixed (again, costing several thousand dollars).

Talk to old people sometime about their experiences with dentists. Unless they're lucky to have an honest one, you may be surprised at what you hear. (To be fair, I think many of today's dentists also are trained not to distinguish between absolutely essential care and other stuff that's not always needed or could provide a more temporary fix. Yet another family member had a dentist for 30 years -- this family member always had tooth problems even from when he was a kid. But this dentist kept this family member well for decades, fixing little problems as they came up. The dentist retired and the new dentist came in... suddenly this family member needed thousands of dollars worth of dental work, and the dentist claimed over half of his teeth should be extracted or were "pre-extraction". We're talking about a retiree approaching 80 years old. Why not let him keep his teeth? The newer plan seems to be if a tooth isn't perfect, extract and recommend an implant or something. Most people can't really afford that sort of thing, particularly older people.)

I'm sure you think I'm making some of this stuff up. But we KNOW dentists do things like unnecessary extractions. Heck, there are studies claiming that over 2/3 of wisdom tooth extractions are unnecessary. But they're a serious cash cow for dentists and oral surgeons.

Dynamics of positional warfare malaria: Finland and Korea compared, a more reputable source then.

Here's the original paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
In it's conclussion, the paper clearly states "0, 1, 2".
Without the "3" that the journalist seems to have added out of his own ignorance for some inexplicable reason.

"Hurr...the scientists say ternary, but there's no three in their counting...clearly the scientists are missing the '3'"

Is moving the goalposts your hobby or just a bad habit of yours? These people were pronounced, in a clinical setting, dead as per your request. These people didn't have 'localized circulatory collapse,' they had their heart and breathing stop, and as the paper notes, this is probably an under-reported problem. Moreover, I donno how to break it to you, but O2 consumption monitors work on the assumption that you are experiencing respiration, something that if you are doing when somebody starts CPR on you? They're doing it very wrong.

It seems unlikely for two reasons that O2 consumption monitoring would have not identified these people as dead, anyway. For one, if you'd read the paper, you'd know it explicitly discusses means for detecting Lazarus syndrome without relying on chance. If it'd work, they would suggest it. Perhaps more to the point, several of the cases in the lit suffered the kinds of damage that strongly indicate oxygen deprivation--no respiration was taking place, meaning you'd be unlikely to notice much difference between it and a fresh corpse since the microbes involved in decomposition also consume oxygen. (How do you think vacuum-preservation of meat works, magic?)

Oh, and the paper covers what medical science defines death as though I suppose it might be hard to understand if you don't have a biomedical background. (Here's a bit of help: in asystole the heart isn't even twitching, the heart monitor flatlines, and it is very, very memorable once you've seen it happen. So of course the physio lab on how heart monitors work required we wrap up with flatlining our pithed frog...)

It's a quite fascinating piece of work and baffling for someone like myself with a CS degree but no real understanding of semiconductors, so it's no surprise the journos couldn't really report well on it. A brief glance at the paper shows the researchers make no claims about this ever being a mainstream technology. I think they're doing the usual academic thing of just learning about possibilities for possibilities' sake. It seems to indicate fundamental properties in memoristor devices, but it's not "calculation in memory" because using it properly requires control circuitry, so it becomes just another type of processor.

Please don't confuse research papers with journalists' descriptions of research papers.
Here's the original paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
In it's conclussion, the paper clearly states "0, 1, 2".
Without the "3" that the journalist seems to have added out of his own ignorance for some inexplicable reason.
Popular science journalism more often than not badly fucks up perfectly reasonable research papers.
Remember that the people writing up these pieces are journalists, not experts or even trained in the fields they write about.

Review that happens to not only mention the outcomes of 38 medically-documented cases published in journals of a particular type of it, but also the possible causes and measures to take. Will that do?

Here's an NIH paper on how Iran does it, and their model seems to work particularly well:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

This will probably never happen in the US though. Too many people have this idea that it will lead to widespread organ theft, thanks to an old urban legend promoted by an episode of Law and Order where a dude woke up with a missing kidney. So far, there haven't been any actual confirmed cases of organ theft anywhere in the world, only unproven rumors.

The truth is, harvesting organs is not at all simple and it takes a lot of effort (and knowledge) to keep them alive outside of a body. Contrary to popular belief, you can't freeze organs, they can't come from a person who is dead on arrival, (only about 3% of all deaths are viable for organ harvesting) and you actually need a whole team of doctors just to harvest them, never mind implanting them.

And by the way, if you search Google for 'organ theft', the first two links are crap.

The first is a wikipedia page that mentions people selling their own organs on the black market, which does happen but it's by definition not theft, and the rest of the sources talk about a Kosovo incident that hasn't been confirmed; even Wikipedia's own dedicated page about the topic says so.

The second Google link is this:

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Note that ALL THREE of the examples cited are either false or didn't result in actual organ theft.

- The Chinese kid's eyes were gouged out by his aunt.
- The African girl had nothing happen to her, and they wouldn't have done anything without her positive consent at any rate (it was a UK hospital, after all, and the donor has to agree multiple times over the span of a few weeks.)
- As for Kendrick Johnson, the fact that the brain was missing should immediately raise a red flag, and indeed it turns out that the doctor who performed the autopsy removed them, and the funeral home inserted newspaper to fill in the body cavity (which is legal; same with other common materials like cotton and sawdust.) After Kendrick Johnson's family lost the lawsuit, they're now being sued for defamation by multiple parties, and will probably lose.

I have a feeling that many cannot remember the "mad cow crisis" in the 90s. Because after the crises var-CJD/MCD has not gotten much attention lately.

Background:
The interesting thing was, that there was some evidence that MCD was being transmitted onto cows by feeding them carcass meal (pulverized dead leftovers from slaugther - everything not sold .. like brain, eyes, bone, spinal matter, ..) which was then restricted.

There were secondary hints, that the initial prion mutation could be the effect of a chemical agent used some years before in agriculture.

Note: those prions could really multiply every generation through this kind of "recycling".

However that crises took shape in england where it was observed that a higher than usual incident rate of CJD in humans occured and a conclusion was finally drawn between MCD and vCJD. Hint: "piri piri"

Which finally lead to carcas meal ban in Summer 1996.

The UK was at the center of the outbreak with very high incident rates. Public was kept in the dark for some time.

Stastics:
Now the interesting fact is in [1] which tells us, that there was a peak in 1992 contrary to the ban of 1996 I cannot explain that drop, it could be that using brain and spine for carcas meal production was forbidden.

For a long time there was an import ban on bovine meat from UK in the EU.

Interstingly there was a test developed for live cattle[2],
which is not being used.

The "walking dead" moment:
Now the interesting point is that MCD-crisis is not really over, and this testing method explains that we might be infected by prions from cows with MCD, and even if a cow is not diagnosed with MCD - only cows older than 24 months are tested. A normal cow could carry those prions and we ingest those prions. However those cows never get diagnosed because not reaching the age where they'd show symptoms.

And yes the sad moment is "some might be infected"
the question who is infected?

Sometimes it is only good to know for others (blood donation recipients) but not for you ?!

Another conclusion can be drawn, that when having still cows with MCD it is likely that even now people get infected by MCD-prions, as of now.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/w/ind...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Not banned, but scheduled 4-5. (i.e. banned for most poor people.)

.

The National Library of Medicine (National Institutes of Health) lists bupropion as not being a controlled substance. .Here is a Justice Department's list of all controlled substances.. Bupropion, aka Wellbutrin, is nowhere to be found.

What freaks in prison do is of no consequence - they also try to shoot up with peanut butter if someone tells them it gives a sugar high and huff aerosols. It's simply not open to widespread abuse.

Drugs are used to mitigate a lack of certain neurochemicals in the brain

The effect of drugs in treating depression is part of the evidence used to support the neurochemical imbalance theory of depression. However, there is some debate as to whether the success of drugs in treating depression is the result, primarily, of the placebo effect.

Yes, some of this is probably the result of poor matching of patient to drug/dosage and/or over prescription by under qualified GPs.

The researchers are not claiming that Vitamin D deficiency causes autism. They are claiming it increases the "Risk of Developing Autism", which is subtly different. Lots of chronic diseases and conditions are not so cut and dry as "Vitamin D deficiency causes Rickets".

Pedantics. The basis is the same. If more children become autistic among women who have a deficiency of Vitamin D, then there is the possibility of having women who get the proper amount having children who do not become autistic. Perhaps the lack of vitamin D does not specifically cause autism, but it might block what does specifically cause autism in a child who is predisposed.

Even with the moral questions ignored, it may be impossible to show a 1:1 causation between any single environmental factor and autism development, but we can potentially learn which factors can causally influence risk.

Sure. It's like the tobacco industry laywers argument - though not in the service of obvious evil.

But there is hardly any good reason to set out purposely deprive anyone fmor a proven nutrient, so what we do is take the moral yet roundabout method of a push for all people to address the lack of vitamin D since present day lifestyles and some people's genetic dispositions and locations do not match. As well, it is well documented that Vitamin D is a real problem today : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele...

We know the effects of a lack of vitamin D, it is not in doubt. So that's where the moral problem of a controlled experiment comes into play. If the concept of vitamin D deficiency is related in some manner to development of autism, it is hard to come up with a moral way to deprive people of it.

The only possible moral experiment would be to have a recommendation that all women receive enough vitamin D, then take a control group who are specifically tested and monitored for proper Vitamin D levels, then comparing the autism rate of their offspring to the general public. It's not remotely perfect, but as noted, some of the most likely Vitamin D deficient people have a well documented and well deserved suspicion of human medical experimentation. It isn't paranoia when you can point to historical documents. I've no doubt that you can tell an American of African descent that she need to make certain she gets enough Vitamin D, but you will probably get a different reaction to asking her to be in a study, and "here - take these". People who have been purposefully infected with Veneraial diseases, and treated by being not treated, who have infected their wives and children (congenital syphilis) by race are perhaps not going to trust that approach.

Regardless, can you come up with a moral excuse for anyone to be deprived of Vitamins?

I'll stick with one, just because I don't have time right now.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I agree. When I filtered out Trump from my Google search, I still get hits from both clauses. For example, an official government document on the legality of federal employees accepting employment from outside the US (an emolument being a salary or similar compensation for said employment). It appears to be targeted towards people with paid positions on advisory committees for the US's National Institute of Health who might also have paid positions in a foreign government's service. For example, a researcher or teacher who is on such an advisory committee who then accepts a position with a public university in another country or even has said university cover or waive certain costs or payments for a temporary visit (as say, during the course of a conference).

Given the prevalence of the usage, I'm forced to accept your rebuke.

Absolutely: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2394564/

Babies have been getting bigger for a long time.

This is well documented in medical literature:

- "These findings suggest that US and Canadian babies are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "We conclude that Canadian infants are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "Results presented in this study demonstrate that even when migratory effects are eliminated, a secular increase in birth weight is observed" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Babies have been getting bigger for a long time.

This is well documented in medical literature:

- "These findings suggest that US and Canadian babies are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "We conclude that Canadian infants are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "Results presented in this study demonstrate that even when migratory effects are eliminated, a secular increase in birth weight is observed" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Babies have been getting bigger for a long time.

This is well documented in medical literature:

- "These findings suggest that US and Canadian babies are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "We conclude that Canadian infants are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "Results presented in this study demonstrate that even when migratory effects are eliminated, a secular increase in birth weight is observed" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Though there are a variety of non-volatile phosphorus species (e.g. metal phosphides), the presence of phosphorus in the upper atmosphere of Solar System gas giants sufficiently indicates to me that in hydrogen-helium dominated systems, appreciable amounts of phosphorus would be available. Phosphorus might be a limiting nutrient in such an environment, but it is also in some terrestrial environments (that's why farmers apply "NPK" - nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium - fertilizer by the tonne).

the hoopla over supposed replacement of it with arsenic in a certain bacteria has proven to be false.

That was indeed a false result.

Replace phosphorus with arsenic and you get dead organism.

That way of building life without phosphorus doesn't work. That is not a proof that no way of building life without phosphorus works. (But you'd probably have to do a lot more than just a straight swap of P for As.)

`This is a slow change, by human measure`
Plants also need to migrate, and they might not move fast enough :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Yes it does, that's why it's called ethics.

As in, it's unethical to take a course of action that you know will result in permanent harm to the patient.

Not treating IBS can potentially result in non-life-threatening discomfort. With patient consent that's an ethically acceptable risk.

Not treating brain cancer can potentially result in mental disability and death. It is not ethically acceptable to provide no treatment when you KNOW that no treatment will result in an unacceptable outcome. So you provide the standard treatment and compare the experimental treatment to that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

=Smidge=