Slashdot Mirror

The claim is that the biggest failure of science (the kind that everyone loves, as quantified by Facebook "likes") is its contributions to diet and fitness, which could be summed up as: The health benefits of food and exercise fluctuates as a function of the current weather in Denver. The conclusion is, much like Coloradan weathermen, that science is justifiably not to be trusted. Adams is convinced that people, being good enough at pattern recognition to ignore the forecast yet not good enough to know whether to bring an umbrella or a parasol, are not able to discern which science to believe and which to deny. He suggests that since people should not change their skepticism, science must improve. It is a tragedy that Science (and I mean Science the way philosophers refer to truth and to Truth) cannot improve. It is a divine numbered process set in stone, and I personally do not feel confident enough to risk pulling a Moses just yet.

Despite some unnecessarily patriotic support for the human tendency to be personally irresponsible, a solution was seemingly lost with the greatest generation. [1] People as a whole never have, never will, and never should put faith in science (or even Science). Science will not work without skepticism, and it is meant only to convince the educated with evidence. The uneducated (that's the 99.983% of us who don't read Nature) may become educated or remain ignorantly skeptical. Those are unfortunately the rational options. It was earlier than the 1930s when evidence that smoking was deadly began to emerge, yet smoking rates increased dramatically. There were decades of unhealthy skepticism as tobacco funded studies and paid doctor-actors (think Phil and Oz, not Who and Quinn) muddled the issue. It was not until the Surgeon General took the authority to tell people the truth that the smoking trajectory began to reverse. [2][3][4] And that's the heart of it, it takes someone respected and trusted to become a meteorologist (Dalton, Celsius, Roker) and not a weatherman ([5]).

Science did nothing wrong. [6] Science is not to blame for the grievances of people who grew up without a smartass friend having ever haughtily parroted, "you know gravity is just a theory." Not because lifespans continue to increase [7] or because the US leads the world in quality of life measures. [8] It would be circular reasoning to use scientific measures to judge science itself. Science is not to blame because Science is not an authority and it should never be accepted based on faith. The people who don't read Nature have to rely on faith in authority to believe what is true, and they need an educated authority who will not let them get wet. The enemy is not Science. The enemy is the person we all respect, the person we trust, the person whose authority over us has mislead us for decades as our health declines and we join her in morbid obesity. The enemy is Oprah. [9]

[1] "Science failed my generation on the topic of food and exercise the same way science failed my parents generation with cigarettes."

[2] 1957 Surgeon General Leroy E. Burney declared reason to believe of a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
1964 "Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General" is released to national attention.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN...

[3] http://trends.collegeboard.org... Readers of Nature are considerably less likely to smoke.

[4] http://www.ep.tc/realist/56/20...

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

[6] http://www.manolith.com/2012/0...

[7]

You know, a lot of the posts have been cruel and maybe a bit trollish, but I think that so far, you take the cake.

Are you genetically, physically, and mentally so perfect? I doubt it - at the least you seem to be in need of an empathy transplant.

She hasn't had a seizure in 9 years and her doctors were even thinking of weaning her off the medication. Do you ban everyone who "might" produce a child who has a chronic disease? And who decides? Before the discovery of insulin, type one diabetes was a death sentence. In 50 years, we'll probably have a permanent cure. 20 years ago there was one type of cancer that had a 100% fatality rate in children. Now - 5%. In the future - who knows?

You might want to consider your own future - because you are at risk.

The incidence of epilepsy increases dramatically beginning at age 60 years and the elderly are the fastest growing segment of the general population in developed countries.

Based upon the LR (lifetime risk) calculations in this population-based study, 1 in 26 people will develop epilepsy during their lifetime. Men have a higher risk of developing epilepsy (1 of every 21 males) than women (1 of every 28 females). This approach is more accurate than cumulative incidence, and it is better comprehended by most people who are accustomed to similar statistics provided for cancer.

Now throw in mental illnesses:

The projected lifetime risk estimates suggest that approximately half the population (47-55%) will eventually have a mental disorder in six countries (Colombia, France, New Zealand, South Africa, Ukraine, United States)

And lets not forget chronic physical diseases - heart, kidneys, diabetes, eyes, cancer, bladder, colon, etc.

If you look at the stats, it's pretty much impossible that anyone on the whole planet is "perfect" and will never develop problems.

You know, a lot of the posts have been cruel and maybe a bit trollish, but I think that so far, you take the cake.

Are you genetically, physically, and mentally so perfect? I doubt it - at the least you seem to be in need of an empathy transplant.

She hasn't had a seizure in 9 years and her doctors were even thinking of weaning her off the medication. Do you ban everyone who "might" produce a child who has a chronic disease? And who decides? Before the discovery of insulin, type one diabetes was a death sentence. In 50 years, we'll probably have a permanent cure. 20 years ago there was one type of cancer that had a 100% fatality rate in children. Now - 5%. In the future - who knows?

You might want to consider your own future - because you are at risk.

The incidence of epilepsy increases dramatically beginning at age 60 years and the elderly are the fastest growing segment of the general population in developed countries.

Based upon the LR (lifetime risk) calculations in this population-based study, 1 in 26 people will develop epilepsy during their lifetime. Men have a higher risk of developing epilepsy (1 of every 21 males) than women (1 of every 28 females). This approach is more accurate than cumulative incidence, and it is better comprehended by most people who are accustomed to similar statistics provided for cancer.

Now throw in mental illnesses:

The projected lifetime risk estimates suggest that approximately half the population (47-55%) will eventually have a mental disorder in six countries (Colombia, France, New Zealand, South Africa, Ukraine, United States)

And lets not forget chronic physical diseases - heart, kidneys, diabetes, eyes, cancer, bladder, colon, etc.

If you look at the stats, it's pretty much impossible that anyone on the whole planet is "perfect" and will never develop problems.

Thimerosal (thiomersal) is metabolised into ethylmercury, which is far less toxic than the methylmercury commonly found in e.g. tuna, and breaks down into safe inorganic mercury a lot quicker. This has been a source of confusion to laymen (and the Italian court), who have incorrectly compared the levels of ethylmercury from a vaccine dose against WHO health guidelines on methylmercury.

Many studies have been done on the actual toxicity of thimerosal, and the results still come up as "safe for use" at the doses involved. No link with autism has been found, despite many years of looking.

It mostly worked, although now I have trouble remembering people's names when I see their faces. I lost my job as an engineer because I was ditzy and forgetful for a few months after they removed a chunk of my brain out, but it was worth it. They used me as a subject in a study on recognizing numbers (since part of my skull was in a refrigerator somewhere). They also sent pulses onto cortical surface electrodes to see where the seizure focus was, and those produced visual hallucinations on the left side of my field of vision. Things in the left side of the room would look fuzzy, or colorful, or repulsive, or beautiful, etc. depending on which electrodes they zapped.

Give a nut-allergy sufferer sufficiently small injections of nuts and build it up gradually and the allergy goes away. (Oh, and P.S. peanuts are legumes - literally peas - not nuts, and hence someone who has a "nut" allergy to peanuts and other genuine nuts is quite difficult to explain in those terms).

(Everyone knows this, but we're just too lazy to keep saying "peanut" all the time) It turns out that "allergies" have a spectrum. About 80% of people with childhood food allergies outgrow them. For peanuts in particular, about 20% of people will outgrow their reaction.. A small number of allergy sufferers experience severe anaphylaxis. These are the people for whom epi-pens were developed, and there are probably 5000 of them in the US. These people can not likely be acclimated to their allergen by repeated exposure.

How many people are genuinely lactose-intolerant?

The incidence of adult lactose intolerance ranges from about 2% among Scandinavians through 20-40% among central Europeans and white US, to nearly 100% in southeast Asia. Source It seems to be less about your gut microbiome and more about recent evolution: if you come from a culture that exploited cattle and sheep, being able supplement calories with milk or cheese helped you survive the winter, and you evolved to maintain lactase expression post-weaning.

Inability to digest certain foods are legitimate pathologies. Celiac disease is a real thing; Lactase production is genetically regulated. You can't cure them by force-feeding. They may be over-diagnosed, egged on by hypochondriac parents and overworked physicians, but just because enjoy a good slice of cheese on crackers with peanut butter doesn't mean everyone can be 'trained' to eat them.

The number of times the epipens were required? Once or twice a year among 400+ children.

So what you're saying is that unless a child is going into anaphylactic shock, that whatever they're eating is perfectly good for them? That seems like an awfully high bar.

How many people are genuinely lactose-intolerant? Those from cultures who don't consume lactose.

Actually, it's anyone who doesn't have a specific gene only present in certain white people. Those people have managed to fuck their way around a bit, so some other people have it now too, but in most populations of not-that-white people it's not-that-prevalent.

Consume lactose and you won't be lactose intolerant

Sigh. "Lactose intolerance in adulthood is caused by gradually decreasing activity (expression) of the LCT gene after infancy, which occurs in most humans." So most children can drink milk without significant ill effect, but most adults cannot. And it doesn't have to send you to the hospital with a restricted airway to have significant negative health effects.

In the same way, that many more people are genuinely allergic to nuts now because mothers refuse to consume them during pregnancy.

I'm sorry, has this been proven? Or are you just making more unfounded assertions?

The feminist argument is that this skew in gender balance is the result of prior socialization. But this claim of nurture over nature is not only unproven, it is utterly untestable.

I don't think this is completely untestable. The claim that gender differences are purely due to socialisation would seem to be contradicted by studies like this: Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children

Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...

Since you apparently are unable to use Google: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... http://www.life.org.nz/euthana...

In most assisted-suicide schemes, the burden of proof is on the "killer", not on the prosecution.

Methinks you trust Systems too much.

The present paper provides evidence that these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions and that transgressions are not prosecuted. For example, about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported. Increased tolerance of transgressions in societies with such laws represents a social "slippery slope," as do changes to the laws and criteria that followed legalization. Although the initial intent was to limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to a last-resort option for a very small number of terminally ill people, some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite. In the Netherlands, euthanasia for anyone over the age of 70 who is "tired of living" is now being considered. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore places many people at risk, affects the values of society over time, and does not provide controls and safeguards.

-- Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls, J. Pereira, MBChB MSc. Current Oncology. 2011 Apr; 18(2): e38-e45.

despite spending almost 100 minutes and 1100 calories a day, I still can't get rid of the last 5-10 lbs of flab. It doesn't matter how little I eat.

You are getting more than 1100 kcal a day then. Most likely your issue is that food labels are lies, and you are receiving more kcal than you believe.

Here's your godwin: multiple sources indicate that the life expectancy of a worker at Auschwitz was about 4 months. Their rations were between 1300 – 1750 calories per day. I'm sure that a lot of those people were getting fat on that diet, because all these people on the internet are saying that they put on loads of weight while exercising and eating 1500 calories per day.

Yep, we've all seen the pictures.

Let's put this into perspective: you would be burning more than 1,100 kcal even if you were in a coma: Energy expenditure during barbiturate coma.

If you don't believe me, feel free to search pubmed for more BMR/RMR studies. They are all in rather close agreement. I encourage you to calculate what your RMR truly is. I guarantee you that it's higher than 1,100 kcal.

I acknowledge that there are differences in intestinal absorption rates of nutrients, but after a certain lower bound then claims like this do in fact violate thermodynamics. Do you believe a non-radioactive rock, just sitting around, could maintain a temperature above ambient without using energy? What if the rock needed to move itself around *and* stay above ambient temp?

Okay, so now we've proven you don't have magical thinking, you need to reconcile your RMR calculations with what you believe is your daily energy intake. When you find out these are inconsistent, which will you believe has been falsified? Thermodynamics, or the amount of energy you believe you have metabolized?

Good find! Here's an interesting study on how over-activation of Toll-Like Receptor 5 by certain bacteria was highly correlated with obesity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Wow there certainly is a lot of malice here in regards to people's attitudes towards herbal supplements. Check out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... and read up on the efficacy of various herbal supplements. There is a big difference between homeopathic and herbal supplements. Some herbal supplements do actually have noticeable and measurable benefits and often minimal side effects. A lot of extracts are where the efficacy shows. Many extracts are standardized for a certain amount of desired active constituents. You just have to use a reputable brand and find a product that works for what you need. There isn't an herbal cure for everything, but there are a lot that will help treat or prevent certain conditions For example there are are quite a few herbal extracts that can help with diabetes, such as certain strains of cinnamon extract, or gymnema sylvestre (both which have been shown to be significantly beneficial in scientific trials).I just recommended boswellia serrata extract for my Uncle for his arthritis, he started taking it a few days ago and has already noticed significant relief. Then there is peppermint oil as another posted mentioned for IBS.

I would also like to point out that not everyone who believes in the efficacy of some herbal supplements is against modern medicine or is some kind of all-organic-consuming naturalist. I just wanted to make a point that there is a huge difference between homeopathic (placebo dilution), and herbal extracts and supplements.I hope this sort of scandal doesn't make it any harder to sell and purchase herbal supplements, but rather just points out the frauds and could potentially show who is true from analyzing their products.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20587679

Try this study, then: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

That meta-analysis of 21 different studies failed to find any evidence of saturated fat intake being a significant risk factor in development of CVD. The study included data on men and women of all ages.

That sort of directly contradicts your claim that science has proven that saturated fat is a risk factor for heart disease, doesn't it?

For men, it is true that the optimum weight/BMI* is "normal" and any increase is bad.

Actually no, overweight is the optimum. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

People who are overweight are 0.94 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are slightly obese are 0.95 times as likely to die as people who have normal weight. People who are very obese are 1.29 and 1.41 times as likely to die as normal weight. Basically - being really heavy is very bad. Being a little on the chubby side is not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [Effect of fluoride on human hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis hormones].
(PubMed)

RESULTS:
"The concentrations of fluoride in the water, food and soil of the fluoride polluted district were significantly higher than those of control district (P 0.05). The serum level of LH in men of fluoride polluted district was significantly higher than that of control group (P 0.05), and the serum level of T in men of fluoride polluted district was significantly less than that of control group (P 0.05). "

As far as I can tell the only side who is unscientific is the GMO companies.

You haven't looked very far then.

So it puzzles m that the Slashdot consensus is so strongly in favor of mandatory vaccination while being ambivalent, at best, about the government tax and patent programs that fund biomedical research.

We already have vaccines that cover most of the airborne infectious diseases. This is a discussion on whether or not to require them for going to public schools.

By the way the Government does spend money on vaccine research. Also, vaccines can be patented.

Or go for the negative case and consider whether those studies are sound.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Which is handily ripped to shreds here:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blog...

Well this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

This one directly contradicts your claim that all evidence points to saturated fat being a risk facor:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
It has an amusing review here: http://high-fat-nutrition.blog...

Lowering your LDL doesn't help either.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Again with an amusing review by Peter:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blog...

I can go on like this for hours. There is an ocean of evidence that saturated fat promotes health. You just have to look for it.

Well this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

This one directly contradicts your claim that all evidence points to saturated fat being a risk facor:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
It has an amusing review here: http://high-fat-nutrition.blog...

Lowering your LDL doesn't help either.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Again with an amusing review by Peter:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blog...

I can go on like this for hours. There is an ocean of evidence that saturated fat promotes health. You just have to look for it.

Well this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

This one directly contradicts your claim that all evidence points to saturated fat being a risk facor:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
It has an amusing review here: http://high-fat-nutrition.blog...

Lowering your LDL doesn't help either.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Again with an amusing review by Peter:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blog...

I can go on like this for hours. There is an ocean of evidence that saturated fat promotes health. You just have to look for it.

I had this discussion with a friend recently. He'd reported great success in his family using elderberry extract to get over the flu. I'm pretty open-minded to trying new things (trying it can't kill you, usually), so when I started exhibiting flu symptoms after babysitting my sister's kids while she had the flu, I gave it a shot. I grabbed a bottle of elderberry extract 16 hours after the first symptoms appeared (slight tickling in sinuses that morning, progressing to a slightly sore throat by the evening). And I took the doses as suggested. I took no other medication.

Over the next 12 hours, I developed the full-blown flu. I've had colds, and I've had the flu before, and this was the flu. I felt like I'd been run over by a truck, and could barely crawl out of bed. It was so bad I was tempted to take sleeping pills just so I could sleep through the misery, but I held off so as not to contaminate the experiment. By 36 hours the aches were gone. At 48 hours the runny nose ended and my fever broke. All I had left was a slightly sore throat.

I was quite frankly amazed at the efficacy of a so-called homeopathic remedy. I did a bit more research and found that scientific studies have shown that elderberry extract is effective against the flu. I suspect the only reason it hasn't been studied more extensively is that there's no money to be made from it. Someone pays to fund the study, proves it's effective, and anyone can make the medicine. Nobody wants to be the one stuck paying for the bill (the study), so nobody bothers funding it.

Anyway, my point is, don't be so quick to dismiss homeopathic remedies. There's a widespread misbelief that everything is false until proven true. Science operates on that premise because it assigns burden of proof in inverse proportion of difficulty of proof. e.g. You can't prove a negative, so science places no burden of proof on those who believe the negative state. But this does not mean the negative is automatically correct. Logically, things actually break down into three states - unknown/cannot be determined, true, and false; and the vast majority of things fall into the first category.

There are probably many homeopathic "remidies" as you put it which actually do work, they just haven't been as thoroughly studied as a drug from which some pharmaceutical company stands to make $billions. By all means dismiss as quackery the remedies which have been tested and fail to do better than a placebo. But it's a gross illogical leap to then conclude that all such remedies are quackery before they've even been tested. And that the PharmCo method of coming up with a new molecule, and testing it extensively in rigorous controlled studies is the only way to come up with viable treatments.

I had this discussion with a friend recently. He'd reported great success in his family using elderberry extract to get over the flu. I'm pretty open-minded to trying new things (trying it can't kill you, usually), so when I started exhibiting flu symptoms after babysitting my sister's kids while she had the flu, I gave it a shot. I grabbed a bottle of elderberry extract 16 hours after the first symptoms appeared (slight tickling in sinuses that morning, progressing to a slightly sore throat by the evening). And I took the doses as suggested. I took no other medication.

Over the next 12 hours, I developed the full-blown flu. I've had colds, and I've had the flu before, and this was the flu. I felt like I'd been run over by a truck, and could barely crawl out of bed. It was so bad I was tempted to take sleeping pills just so I could sleep through the misery, but I held off so as not to contaminate the experiment. By 36 hours the aches were gone. At 48 hours the runny nose ended and my fever broke. All I had left was a slightly sore throat.

I was quite frankly amazed at the efficacy of a so-called homeopathic remedy. I did a bit more research and found that scientific studies have shown that elderberry extract is effective against the flu. I suspect the only reason it hasn't been studied more extensively is that there's no money to be made from it. Someone pays to fund the study, proves it's effective, and anyone can make the medicine. Nobody wants to be the one stuck paying for the bill (the study), so nobody bothers funding it.

Anyway, my point is, don't be so quick to dismiss homeopathic remedies. There's a widespread misbelief that everything is false until proven true. Science operates on that premise because it assigns burden of proof in inverse proportion of difficulty of proof. e.g. You can't prove a negative, so science places no burden of proof on those who believe the negative state. But this does not mean the negative is automatically correct. Logically, things actually break down into three states - unknown/cannot be determined, true, and false; and the vast majority of things fall into the first category.

There are probably many homeopathic "remidies" as you put it which actually do work, they just haven't been as thoroughly studied as a drug from which some pharmaceutical company stands to make $billions. By all means dismiss as quackery the remedies which have been tested and fail to do better than a placebo. But it's a gross illogical leap to then conclude that all such remedies are quackery before they've even been tested. And that the PharmCo method of coming up with a new molecule, and testing it extensively in rigorous controlled studies is the only way to come up with viable treatments.

>Why? People buy it anyway and the studies cost many millions of dollars. They have NO interest in proving (or disproving) anything about these supplements. In fact they had congress pass laws explicitly preventing the FDA from regulating them so that they wouldn't have to prove their claims.

Fun fact. There are actually peer-reviewed scientific journals, for reporting these kinds of results. Some common "alternative medicines", like tea (boring, I know), have had literally hundreds of studies on their effectiveness at doing various things, with well understood results.

This does not mean they're effective. I skimmed numerous studies on milk thistle that all agreed it didn't have any of the reputed health benefits for the liver.

You can learn more about all the data the NIH tracks on alt med here: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/p...

Or read through a peer-reviewed journal here: http://www.alternative-therapi...

Ah, thank you. Non-exercise activity thermogenesis. Now I have a research paper to explain my hypothesis about people heating themselves up to lose weight:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

So show me a study on how effective the vaccine is? There are lots of other reasons for disease rates plummeting which are more to do with isolation practices and good hygenie.

http://www.amazon.com/Dissolvi...

This is a lift from an AC post

Where is the evidence for a working measles vaccine? There is no blinded RCT. It sure sounds like the observational evidence is confounded.

“A likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“This was not a blind study, since the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. It seems probable that the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

“As only approximately 7% of the clinically-diagnosed cases of measles reported locally turned out to be measles by laboratory testing, there is a need for laboratory confirmation of measles to avoid misidentification of cases and improve disease surveillance.(2)”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.”

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...

"“It is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

"Measles
Evidence from cohort studies
Effectiveness against measles was investigated in three cohort studies (Marin 2006; Marolla 1998; Ong 2007)...
There was a lack of adequate description of exposure (vaccine content and schedules) in all cohort studies. Another recurring problem was the failure of any study to provide descriptions of all outc

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

So show me a study on how effective the vaccine is? There are lots of other reasons for disease rates plummeting which are more to do with isolation practices and good hygenie.

http://www.amazon.com/Dissolvi...

This is a lift from an AC post

Where is the evidence for a working measles vaccine? There is no blinded RCT. It sure sounds like the observational evidence is confounded.

“A likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“This was not a blind study, since the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. It seems probable that the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

“As only approximately 7% of the clinically-diagnosed cases of measles reported locally turned out to be measles by laboratory testing, there is a need for laboratory confirmation of measles to avoid misidentification of cases and improve disease surveillance.(2)”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.”

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...

"“It is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

"Measles
Evidence from cohort studies
Effectiveness against measles was investigated in three cohort studies (Marin 2006; Marolla 1998; Ong 2007)...
There was a lack of adequate description of exposure (vaccine content and schedules) in all cohort studies. Another recurring problem was the failure of any study to provide descriptions of all outc

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

So show me a study on how effective the vaccine is? There are lots of other reasons for disease rates plummeting which are more to do with isolation practices and good hygenie.

http://www.amazon.com/Dissolvi...

This is a lift from an AC post

Where is the evidence for a working measles vaccine? There is no blinded RCT. It sure sounds like the observational evidence is confounded.

“A likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“This was not a blind study, since the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. It seems probable that the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

“As only approximately 7% of the clinically-diagnosed cases of measles reported locally turned out to be measles by laboratory testing, there is a need for laboratory confirmation of measles to avoid misidentification of cases and improve disease surveillance.(2)”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.”

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...

"“It is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

"Measles
Evidence from cohort studies
Effectiveness against measles was investigated in three cohort studies (Marin 2006; Marolla 1998; Ong 2007)...
There was a lack of adequate description of exposure (vaccine content and schedules) in all cohort studies. Another recurring problem was the failure of any study to provide descriptions of all outc

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?

No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.

So show me a study on how effective the vaccine is? There are lots of other reasons for disease rates plummeting which are more to do with isolation practices and good hygenie.

http://www.amazon.com/Dissolvi...

This is a lift from an AC post

Where is the evidence for a working measles vaccine? There is no blinded RCT. It sure sounds like the observational evidence is confounded.

“A likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“This was not a blind study, since the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. It seems probable that the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

“As only approximately 7% of the clinically-diagnosed cases of measles reported locally turned out to be measles by laboratory testing, there is a need for laboratory confirmation of measles to avoid misidentification of cases and improve disease surveillance.(2)”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

“Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.”

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...

"“It is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

"Measles
Evidence from cohort studies
Effectiveness against measles was investigated in three cohort studies (Marin 2006; Marolla 1998; Ong 2007)...
There was a lack of adequate description of exposure (vaccine content and schedules) in all cohort studies. Another recurring problem was the failure of any study to provide descriptions of all outc

Transhumanism is currently a hodgepodge of religious nonsense, visionary science fiction, and practical self-improvement. I confess I am a bit swept up in the romantic ideal of it. I love the idea of human improveability in the form of intellectual and technological advancement, extended lifespans, higher quality of life, and even post-scarcity economies.

The religious nonsense part of it is best embodied in Ray Kurzweil's singularity (also known as the nerd rapture), the idea that humanity will soon upload our minds to computers and live forever. I can't imagine us not having this technology before the end of the century--especially with efforts like the UK's Human Brain Project and America's BRAIN Initiative AND a proof of concept with researchers mapping a worm's brain into a legobot and having it "come alive". HOWEVER: I also don't pin any personal hopes for immortality on this research because we are making copies of our minds, so even if my mind joins the singularity, I will still die--probably bitterly jealous of my immortal self having all that virtual sex in technoheaven.

For me, the science fiction of transhumanism is all about vision and inspiration, and not about dreams of salvation and immortality like Kurzweil promotes. The science fiction part of it is most accessible through Star Trek, but in reality our transhumanist future will probably be more like the wild visions of Charles Stross' Accelerando, or my personal favorite the Quantum Thief Trilogy by Hannu Rajaniemi. These books drop you into settings filled with Matrioshka brains (Dyson Spheres made of computronium), and force the reader to confront all the uncomfortable otherness that comes with virtual life.

Another great science fiction resource is the Creative Commons Eclipse Phase RPG, which takes place in a future where humanity has colonized solar system and extended out into the Oort Cloud. Each planet and environment requiring different engineering and culture adaptations to survive. You can download all the books in PDF format. These books are a fantastic jumping-point for the imagining what a post-human future might look like.

This all said, I am not a fan of Sirius' encyclopedia. I was looking for practical, real-world things I can do right now to enhance my life through science and technology. Instead, I got very thin treatments of many subjects, overstatements of medical advances, important subjects left out (like the 19th Century Russian Cosmism movement (precursor to transhumanism)), and a general lack of leads to new areas to research. I get way more information from Wikipedia-surfing than I got from this book. I do appreciate his efforts though. If he gets more people into the idea of transhumanism, then more people will collaborate on it, we'll have more hacks for better living, and more people thinking about the future and human progress.

Having bubbles in ones bloodstream is extremely dangerous, and potentially fatal. Just ask any informed scuba diver about the biggest risk they face.

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

Even worse, there is evidence that bubbles in the bloodstream get covered by platelets, resulting in cumulative neurological damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
https://www.uhms.org/images/DC...

The damaged caused by bubbles in the bloodstream will typically outweigh any medical benefit from this type of drug/vaccine delivery.

Genetic diversity concern research (NIH) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Unintended consequences (PBS) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harves...

They are quite rare, but unlike the debunked autism claim, there is not a long delay from the vaccine to the reaction.

For example, anaphylaxis is goiing to happen fairly quickly if it is going to happen.

Disseminated encephalomyelitis (acute or recurring) can be set off by either a viral infection or a vaccine. Since a vaccine shouldn't be given is a current viral infection is suspected, if it happens shortly after a vaccination, it's fairly clear that either the vaccine caused it or that it should not have been given at that time.

The exceptionally rare immune system failures that can happen after a vaccine don't just spontaneously happen.

If a whole lot of a vaccine is bad, statistics do a decent job of determining that the vaccine was to blame. For example, this article where a lot polio vaccine gave the kids polio. Here is a study of DTP reactions.

The fact that the existence of severe reactions is known shows that it is statistically verifiable. Individual cases can never be proven to perfect certainty, but in the U.S. the standard for liability is preponderance of the evidence.

Looked at from another direction, justice requires that if government shields the manufacturer from liability, it must stand in and accept the liability itself.

Nice comment, thank you. I had no idea there's an MAOI in cigarette smoke.

Then it turns out that nicotine use was self-medication and now you can't use any of a new class of drugs being developed that are all based on nicotine. OOPS

This is particularly interesting... I hadn't though of that. It does seem likely some good drugs will be coming out based on nicotine. I see research published regularly (on my favorite science news site: sciencedaily.com) about nicotine, leaving me with the impression that it is a bit of a wonder drug. That is in stark contrast to it's reputation outside of science as evil life-destroying poison.

It should be said that the benefits of quitting smoking outweigh the future possible benefits of nicotine drugs. The drugs may work anyway, depending on how specific the vaccine is to nicotine. And Wikipedia says "Nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes tumor growth and atherosclerosis," siting this research, so nicotine might not be so safe after all.

I find this offensive?

We're spending science mind power, money and time researching a way to make a drug that replaces a persons weakness of character and lack of willpower.

That is an excellent statement of the moral issues involved. Here are some more issues to consider:

Measles: We are spending science effort, money, and time producing a vaccine that replaces a person's physical weakness.

(Is character and lack of willpower a learned trait, or conditioned by physical attributes? Should we force people into weight-watchers and exercise programs?)

Guns: Guns have a protection effect similar to vaccines. Even though the probability of being self-injured by a gun goes up if you own one(*), the aggregate total chance of death from all causes goes down for the neighborhood. It's a sort of "herd immunity" for crime.

(Is restricting guns better or worse for society in general, as measured by the mortality rate?)

Flu: We are spending science effort, money, and time producing a vaccine who's purpose is largely to increase manufacturing productivity; ie - to keep you at work for an extra 5 days during the winter (**).

(Is it worth millions of people each spending $35 for a vaccine that's only partially effective?)

And note that everything mentioned is a probability, and that there is a probability of having a bad reaction to any individual shot. The probability is very low, but it's not zero.

(If the probability that the child will get the disease is lower than the probability that they will get a bad reaction, should we still force them to get vaccinated?)

What we have is a spectrum of efficacy weighed against the morality of forcing someone to do (or not do) something. The measles (and smallpox and polio) vaccine is on one end, while the Lyme vaccination is probably on the other.

Where do we draw the line with forcing people to do things? Is "living in society" a strong enough reason to go against someone's religious beliefs? Do the beliefs have to be religious to qualify for an exception?

Are we ready to ditch the doctrine of individual dissent, or must everyone bow to the wishes of society?

Where do we draw that line?

(*) Mostly due to suicide, and as has been pointed out, suicides will happen whether guns are available or not.

(**) Yes, the flu can kill and it's miserable to have, but the marketing is all about not losing work due to sick days. Go online and try to determine whether getting the flu shot is *effective* - you won't find studies, all you'll find is people saying "of course it is!". Science by authority, and all that.

Here's a study saying it doesn't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

This study looked at actual humans, using actual tobacco products ("smokeless tobacco"), and found no correlation.

Meanwhile, the study YOU are talking about involved a guy (Chi Ming Hai) who claims that "atherosclerosis" is "...a kind of cancer of the blood vessel..." in order to get press. What he did was take heart cells out of the body, dose them in nicotine and PKC, and show that in encourages the formation of "podosome rosettes", which would imply that hardening of the arteries could result.

But, no arteries were actually hardened in this study. It's interesting then, that you've heard all the fuck about it, but you didn't hear about how none of the studies in actual people show any heart problems at all.

Interesting indeed.

Is nicotine harmful to the heart? Probably? Not detectable, however. And it could have cardioprotective effects as well as harmful ones, and that could be why they can't be detected in actual humans.

So again, cram it with your fear mongering. And don't just pick the one goddamned study that correlates with your preexisting view that smokers or drug users or whomever should suffer and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Don't just say shit like "nicotine still hardens your arteries" and not even bother to look up if that fact is true at all. I mean, Zeus's beard bro, you are on the internet. Just type this crap into google!

"But yeah, by all means, keep telling people to switch to e-cigs because "they're better for you." Just like filter and low-tar cigarettes were once touted as the healthier choice."

Shut the fuck up, you ignorant fool. Scientists continue to be shocked at how many adults think that nicotine causes cancer:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

It's smoking that causes cancer. Not vaping.

Why are so many fucking idiots like you spouting this bullshit? And why am I willing to call you a fucking reprobate idiot on my actual slashdot account?

BECAUSE MISUNDERSTANDINGS LIKE THIS ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE

It's worth some karma. It's worth some anger. It's worth my ego versus yours. If you are opposed to tobacco replacement for smokers, if you spread lies about how e-cigs are like "lite cigs", then you are literally causing cancer. YOU BECOME A CARCINOGEN. And unlike tobacco and the other carcinogens, you have agency, and can fix your goddamned shit. And you best do it fast before a statistically signifigant portion of your smoker friends are injured or killed, when your attitude could instead have lead them to STOP smoking, START vaping, and not have had that happen.

Here's a good study on this topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

And one last thing: Yes, this means that smokers get to have (most of) their cake and eat it too. They still get to sit together and socialize and be cool. They just no longer have to slowly kill themselves. No one had a problem with the nicotine gum, because it obviously sucked and wasn't cool. Vaping IS cool, AND it is saving lives- more than the gum ever did. Vaping is not a "lite" cigarrete. Vaping is an alternate nicotine delivery system that preserves most of the positive effects of smoking while eliminating most of or all of the negative one, most importantly, the cancer risk.

So they'll still be cool and having a good time, but they won't be killing themselves just to live their lives normally. That's a great triumph of technology, not some tragedy.

You may well be right in this case. Probably you are. I don't know much about this specific issue. But I have heard or read from history similar reassurances saying about other things (cocaine in Coca Cola, lead in gasoline, trans fats, smoking, PCBs, MTBE, mercury, etc.) which we have now reconsidered as human health risks. Fracking was supposedly harmless; now it turns out it can cause earthquakes and pollute the groundwater...

At the end of the excellent 1980s video series "The World of Chemisty" (in the last or second to last episode) Nobel-prize winner Roald Hoffman talks in passing about the wonders and great value of a new plastic called BPA (bisphenol A).
http://www.learner.org/resourc...

We now know that BPA can affect developing human brains:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/heal...
"Some research has shown that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA. Exposure to BPA is a concern because of possible health effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. "

See also:
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
"The number of chemicals known to be toxic to children's developing brains has doubled over the last seven years, researchers said. Dr. Philip Landrigan at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and Dr. Philippe Grandjean from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, authors of the review published Friday in The Lancet Neurology journal say the news is so troubling they are calling for a worldwide overhaul of the regulatory process in order to protect children's brains. 'We know from clinical information on poisoned adult patients that these chemicals can enter the brain through the blood brain barrier and cause neurological symptoms,' said Grandjean. 'When this happens in children or during pregnancy, those chemicals are extremely toxic, because we now know that the developing brain is a uniquely vulnerable organ. Also, the effects are permanent.'"

Unless people actually look for these materials in human brains directly, it is hard to be 100% sure there is no way they could get into the brain somehow. Although even if they get there, to be fair, then "the dose makes the poison" and what is the effect relative to the benefits? While Roald Hoffman was not more cautious about BPA, nonetheless, modern chemistry has produced all sorts of modern wonders, and it is hard to imagine modern life without it (including safe food storage against insects and bacteria).

Even (life saving) antibiotics are now seen as having a down side that suggests they be used more precisely and also in the context of pro-biotics and/or fermented bacteria-rich foods etc. For example:
"How Your Gut Flora Influences Your Health"
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

A link from a comment there:
"The microbiome-gut-brain axis during early life regulates the hippocampal serotonergic system in a sex-dependent manner."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"Bacterial colonisation of the intestine has a major role in the post-natal development and maturation of the immune and endocrine systems. These processes are key factors underpinning central nervous system (CNS) signalling. Regulation of the microbiome-gut-brain axis is essential for maintaining homeostasis, including that of the CNS. However, there is a paucity of data pertaining to the influence of microbiome on the serotonergic system. Germ-free (GF) animals represent an effective preclinical tool to investigate such phenomena. Here we show that male GF animals have a significant elevation

Maybe unrelated, but acrylamide monomer is known to be highly toxic to the nervous system.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

I've posted this in another post, and yet again.

A certain irreducible background incidence of cancer is to be expected regardless of circumstances: mutations can never be absolutely avoided, because they are an inescapable consequence of fundamental limitations on the accuracy of DNA replication, as discussed in Chapter 5. If a human could live long enough, it is inevitable that at least one of his or her cells would eventually accumulate a set of mutations sufficient for cancer to develop. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...

Do genes turn off and on normally due to environmental conditions?

Transient high glucose causes persistent epigenetic changes and altered gene expression during subsequent normoglycemia , so the answer is "yes". So, now we have glucose inducing the same conceptual effect as diesel fumes. Glucose, as I'm sure you know, is the primary fuel for animal cells and is a form of sugar.

None of this shit is surprising, because even bacteria exhibit this altered gene expression effect based on the presence of heat, lactose, tryptophan, etc.

AC because I'm sick of science denier trolls and people who want to float their own crackpot theories.

That's a great point. The evolution of life has worked the same way. There are some proteins which are interacted with and depended on by so many other proteins that changing them would be catastrophic; I happened to be reading about tubulin and actin today:

The likely explanation is that the structure of the entire surface of an actin filament or microtubule is constrained because so many other proteins must be able to interact with these two ubiquitous and abundant cell components. A mutation in actin that could result in a desirable change in its interaction with one other protein might cause undesirable changes in its interactions with a number of other proteins that bind at or near the same site. Genetic and biochemical studies in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have demonstrated that actin interacts directly with dozens of other proteins, and indirectly with even more (Figure 16-15). Over time, evolving organisms have found it more profitable to leave actin and tubulin alone, and alter their binding partners instead.

The more complex a system becomes, the more it gets life-like constraints like this.

Is it Pomegranate? If not they should look at that took. Pomegranate may be literally perfect. It inhibits bad gut bacteria and promotes beneficial ones like Bifidobacterium

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Look at this chart, it is quite possibly the greatest modulator of gut bacteria ever http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Is it Pomegranate? If not they should look at that took. Pomegranate may be literally perfect. It inhibits bad gut bacteria and promotes beneficial ones like Bifidobacterium

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Look at this chart, it is quite possibly the greatest modulator of gut bacteria ever http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

From a link on microbial lifeforms found on Earth http://www.astrobio.net/news-e... "What’s more, MISS have remained unchanged over the last 3 billion years" MISS: microbially-induced sedimentary structure.

Says a lot really, it's considered a fact you will get cancer (a mutation of the a cell) if you live long enough.

"A certain irreducible background incidence of cancer is to be expected regardless of circumstances: mutations can never be absolutely avoided, because they are an inescapable consequence of fundamental limitations on the accuracy of DNA replication" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...

3 billion years and little if any mutations in a microbe life or it's off spring.
“But it also raised the question: why are they so identical?” she adds. “And what does that mean about the organisms that created them?”

It'll radiate IR though. Thus the title of the original paper about them: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Because people who are shot die most of the time

Less than one in five that are shot in the heart. Other studies vary, going as high as 33%, which is still far, far away from "most of the time".