Slashdot Mirror

Imagine someone trying to publish a paper on aneuploidy->tumorigenesis (or any other "alternative" process) with someone having your attitude as a reviewer!

I'm sure they would get a warm reception for an intriguing paper.

However, if the content of the paper made it clear that they were ignorant of even the basic, undergraduate-level concepts in the field that they were "overturning", I doubt I would take the time to try to tease out what they meant to say when they fail to properly execute their "refutation" of established knowledge. I mean, after all, it's not like I would be getting co-author credit or receiving tuition for providing their education.

Ask yourself how seriously I would be taken if I submitted a paper to a mathematics journal claiming I had a 256 step algebraic proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and I made it apparent in the opening paragraph that I didn't even have a competent undergraduate background in set theory and therefore mangled my claims by misapplying the Axiom of Choice.

I will give you credit, though for at least digging up something off PubMed. Far too many "skeptics" just want to play the move the goalposts game.

Okay, one ostensible show of good faith deserves another. Here's a discussion of how certain HPV strains cause cancer: Mechanisms of Human Papillomavirus-Induced Oncogenesis

(I warn you, though, if you try to demand citation after citation that HPV can cause cancer then we're done, because all you'll get is lmgtfy.com links)

Here's your basic education meta-background, again presuming you aren't just trying to troll. Only some HPV strains cause cancer. High risk strains of HPV produce proteins that act equivalently to mutations in the genome because they bind and inactivate tumor suppressor proteins like p53 and pRB. By removing the functional product, this is equivalent to two-hits of point mutation and therefore results in an inactive gene product (bound and neutralized product is equivalent to nonexistent product).

HPV E7 is equivalent to a mutation in a protooncogene. It interacts with cyclin dependent kinase inhibitors and therefore acts to initiate replication.

Also, you might find this 1994 paper interesting as well: Oncogenic activation of human R-ras by point mutations analogous to those of prototype H-ras oncogenes

Mutations were introduced into the R-ras gene at codons 38 or 87, analogous to positions 12 and 61, respectively, responsible for H-ras oncogene activation. [...] Transfectants expressing either R-ras mutant formed colonies in soft agar and were tumorigenic in vivo.

Imagine someone trying to publish a paper on aneuploidy->tumorigenesis (or any other "alternative" process) with someone having your attitude as a reviewer!

I'm sure they would get a warm reception for an intriguing paper.

However, if the content of the paper made it clear that they were ignorant of even the basic, undergraduate-level concepts in the field that they were "overturning", I doubt I would take the time to try to tease out what they meant to say when they fail to properly execute their "refutation" of established knowledge. I mean, after all, it's not like I would be getting co-author credit or receiving tuition for providing their education.

Ask yourself how seriously I would be taken if I submitted a paper to a mathematics journal claiming I had a 256 step algebraic proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and I made it apparent in the opening paragraph that I didn't even have a competent undergraduate background in set theory and therefore mangled my claims by misapplying the Axiom of Choice.

I will give you credit, though for at least digging up something off PubMed. Far too many "skeptics" just want to play the move the goalposts game.

Okay, one ostensible show of good faith deserves another. Here's a discussion of how certain HPV strains cause cancer: Mechanisms of Human Papillomavirus-Induced Oncogenesis

(I warn you, though, if you try to demand citation after citation that HPV can cause cancer then we're done, because all you'll get is lmgtfy.com links)

Here's your basic education meta-background, again presuming you aren't just trying to troll. Only some HPV strains cause cancer. High risk strains of HPV produce proteins that act equivalently to mutations in the genome because they bind and inactivate tumor suppressor proteins like p53 and pRB. By removing the functional product, this is equivalent to two-hits of point mutation and therefore results in an inactive gene product (bound and neutralized product is equivalent to nonexistent product).

HPV E7 is equivalent to a mutation in a protooncogene. It interacts with cyclin dependent kinase inhibitors and therefore acts to initiate replication.

Also, you might find this 1994 paper interesting as well: Oncogenic activation of human R-ras by point mutations analogous to those of prototype H-ras oncogenes

Mutations were introduced into the R-ras gene at codons 38 or 87, analogous to positions 12 and 61, respectively, responsible for H-ras oncogene activation. [...] Transfectants expressing either R-ras mutant formed colonies in soft agar and were tumorigenic in vivo.

Sure, anyone can get cancer no matter how healthily they live. But modern medicine is so absurdly and willfully blind to the role of nutrition that these conclusions can be largely dismissed by anyone who thinks for themselves.

Oh, hey, trace arsenic cuts breast cancer by FIFTY PERCENT.

What's that? Lithium in drinking water is also associated with a host of benefits? Say it ain't so..

Gee, getting some sunshine / vitamin D can lower risk of pancreatic cancer??

I could go on and on but what would be the point.. supplementation and the like is at best psuedo-science in the eyes of western medicine.. it's much more profitable to engage in "sick care" than to actually equip our bodies with the things it needs at some single percent of the cost.

No assumption. Check the links in my other replies to you. I'll even gather the most relevant ones again:
http://blogs.scientificamerica...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Do you have any actual evidence of this?

Ooh here's a good one: there is negligible difference in mathematical ability between genders, yet stereotypes about male superiority exist and have been quantitatively measured:

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

My younger brother was actually one of the test subjects in this study. One thing that isn't mentioned in the source article, but is mentioned in here http://www.nih.gov/researchmat... is that all the subjects got to sleep in at night was a thin bedsheet, and a hospital gown to sleep in. He said the cold month was pretty miserable, especially towards the beginning. Its not like turing your heat down to 62 and then sleeping under a down comforter, it is basically being miserably cold, forcing your body to produce fat to allow you to keep enough heat to actually sleep.

Seriously? Lights? That makes me think of the posers who put lights on their car's wheels.

I'm a fan of mechanical keyboards and intentionally sought one with adjustable backlighting. My Lenovo ThinkPad also features adjustable keyboard backlighting.

Both these keyboards are hugely helpful to me for the simple reason that I often use my computers in low light or darkness. This allows me to limit my exposure to light when working late, and thus avoid disrupting my circadian rhythm due to the effect of light on the suprachiasmatic nucleus.

So, yes, seriously. Lights.

Supplements are basically unregulated, so doing your own research is a must--stick the name of what is in the supplement into PubMed and check over MedlinePlus, as the first is meant to be used by researchers (jargon-heavy but the bleeding edge will be listed there) and the latter is meant to educate the general public. Make sure you go into the advanced search on PubMed and set it to only look at either keywords or the title and abstract, though; that'll keep the results close to what you want.

That said, an annoyingly significant percentage of people do believe that magic pills without side effects exist--many people may not even realize this, with it only showing through their behavior. ("Let's Mix Meds & Booze" is a classic.)

Either infrequent high doses or frequent low doses seem to be relatively safe, as far as I can tell; it's typically the best way to bet, at least. Somebody who is popping the high dose regularly, without having checked with a doctor, does need to see one--and if they're doing it for jet lag, consider one of the alternates such as timed light exposure/avoidance outlined in this article or elsewhere. (I have no idea if they can be used with other sleep disorders, though I would certainly hope somebody's at least checked!)

I went and poked around medical journal databases. MedlinePlus has little, though it confirms the dosage recommendations, while a bit of work via PubMed located this study which I think may be the correct citation. Its PubMed listing seems to indicate that it's not the sole possibility, though, as do its references.

I went and poked around medical journal databases. MedlinePlus has little, though it confirms the dosage recommendations, while a bit of work via PubMed located this study which I think may be the correct citation. Its PubMed listing seems to indicate that it's not the sole possibility, though, as do its references.

I went and poked around medical journal databases. MedlinePlus has little, though it confirms the dosage recommendations, while a bit of work via PubMed located this study which I think may be the correct citation. Its PubMed listing seems to indicate that it's not the sole possibility, though, as do its references.

It's disappointing that this is the only post in the thread that touches on a research-backed approach to life extension!

The most reproducible way of extending an organizations life span is through caloric restriction. You can test it at home if you want.. get couple mice, and the one you feed less will live longer.

Except it hasn't been proven to extend the life of humans, and it doesn't seem to work in rhesus monkeys. You'll get some health benefits, but probably not live much longer.

When you wrote "Most advances in medicine for the elderly don't let them live longer so much as they improve quality of life in their remaining years" you stated something that is easily disproved.

The old are living longer than ever before.

It wasn’t until the 20th century that mortality rates began to decline within the older ages. Research for more recent periods shows a surprising and continuing improvement in life expectancy among those aged 80 or above.

The progressive increase in survival in these oldest age groups was not anticipated by demographers, and it raises questions about how high the average life expectancy can realistically rise and about the potential length of the human lifespan. While some experts assume that life expectancy must be approaching an upper limit, data on life expectancies between 1840 and 2007 show a steady increase averaging about three months of life per year. The country with the highest average life expectancy has varied over time. In 1840 it was Sweden and today it is Japan—but the pattern is strikingly similar. So far there is little evidence that life expectancy has stopped rising even in Japan.

Older people are living longer. It's a trend that has been going on for a century. This has nothing to do with reduced infant mortality, since we're talking specifically about aging within the population that is 80 years old and more.

Idle speculation here, but in cases of severe intractable pain is it possible to ablate the spinothalamic tract? This is the pathway in the spinal cord that carries pain signals.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

It seems conceptually feasible and would theoretically result in permanent loss of pain and temperature sensation in the affected regions, while leaving discriminatory touch sensation intact.

Looks like someone else already had this idea...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/...

It seems like focal destruction of the anterior white commissure would be fairly specific in terms of eliminating pain and temperature sensation without loss of other function.

Oh, yeah. Can't make a claim without citing evidence and anecdotes (like some of the arguments in this thread) don't justify conclusions. One example of many studies of the benefits and risks of vaccine programmes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Logically, if the vaccine really does cure the virus, then the only people affected by an outbreak would be the unvaccinated.

You really need a better understanding of how vaccines work. They do not cure shit. That is called a "cure." A vaccine increases resistance to a virus. This results in either not catching it, or having it pass more quickly. The amount of increase can vary with different people, and in very rare cases it does not increase resistance at all.

But that's clearly not the case.

Well, this statement is correct in it's assessment of your original statement.

So we can't really know that it works as intended.

Yes, we can and we do. On an individual level you can have a titer test to see if you have increased immunity. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline... On a global level, we can compare places with high rates of vaccination to low rates and see whooping cough explode in Michigan.

We may have evidence that it sometimes works, but it certainly isn't a slam dunk of a technological advancement (as so many here imply every time it comes up) -- and yet we hear calls to force it on others as if it IS a slam dunk.

It is not digital. It is not "Once in and never again." It causes an increase in immunity in the majority of the population. This results in either immunity or shorter and less sick times. That is known and proven. Also, herd immunity is known and proven, and is a "slam dunk."

What we also don't have is long-term data on the side effects -- only an arrogant display of superiority.

Yes we do. A couple hundred years, actually. The smallpox vaccine was created in 1796. Pertussis in 1927.

You people aren't using logic to support your position.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

You're using intimidation.

Well, the facts are intimidating, but it is not us making them facts.

What I see here is hardly a noble call for the betterment of society.

This is probably totally true. Perhaps you should look a little more.

What I see is an arrogant, selfish display of superiority, and an utter disrespect for the basic human right of free choice.

You really do find what you look for. If you try hard enough you can even believe that fury porn is normal.

Instead of demonizing the innocent, why not make an honest donation to the multi-billion dollar businesses that produce and promote these vaccines?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Or should I just stand on a chair and shout "Strawman! Strawman!"

Put your money where your arrogant mouth is.

I do. I pay for vaccines that are not covered by insurance.

Or do you consider everyone with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as insane?

Yes, they have a mental disorder and thus are classified insane.
Just because you take offence of the word doesn't mean it has changed or should change its meaning.

All people who are insane have a mental disorder, but not everyone who has a mental disorder is insane.

Look at any trial where they're trying to decide if the accused was insane, as opposed to just having a mental disorder.

Considering that 18.6% of adults have a mental illness in any particular year, you may want to reconsider your position. Even if we limit ourselves to serious mental illness, that's still more than 1 in 25 people. Serious mental illness does not equate to insanity. People with PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, etc. do not suffer from a "serious break with reality". They are not insane.

Or do you consider everyone with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as insane?

Yes, they have a mental disorder and thus are classified insane.
Just because you take offence of the word doesn't mean it has changed or should change its meaning.

All people who are insane have a mental disorder, but not everyone who has a mental disorder is insane.

Look at any trial where they're trying to decide if the accused was insane, as opposed to just having a mental disorder.

Considering that 18.6% of adults have a mental illness in any particular year, you may want to reconsider your position. Even if we limit ourselves to serious mental illness, that's still more than 1 in 25 people. Serious mental illness does not equate to insanity. People with PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, etc. do not suffer from a "serious break with reality". They are not insane.

So you prefer to use baseless arguments rather than point to references? In fact I can find a paper that suggests we may not have lost a significant amount of water during the impact forming the moon:

"Genda and Abe (2003, 2005) showed that Earth is unlikely to lose much of its water as a result of the Moon-forming impact, although loss of a significant amount of atmosphere is possible. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

What exactly are you trying to say? That there is a scientific controversy around the idea that humans are the major cause of climate change? Well, no, there's not. Now you can dig up random people saying random things and you can change the goalposts, but you can never prove there's a controversy when there isn't. Have a read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

FTA: "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

97% of scientists rarely agree on anything.

Yes, the National Institutes of Health already has an anonymized database of the health records from patients in their clinical trials and a company called Explorys (no, I don't work for them, either), is doing something similar on a larger scale across multiple hospital systems. Having CMS and HHS involved to add more data is definitely a good thing, if done correctly. Links below.

http://btris.nih.gov/
https://www.explorys.com/
https://www.explorys.com/about...

good one. OK, how about this then? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

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

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

Most human genetic variation is found within populations, not among them.

Individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.

Thus, I share little with you, though you are presumably of my race. I feel more kinship to blacks than to whites like you.

Consider the abstract of Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations:

Our analysis focuses on the frequency, w, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare w to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than w because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but w remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.

A black from sub-Saharan Africa can donate organs to a white from Northern Europe, but not necessarily to another black from sub-Saharan Africa.

Differences among individuals classified as being of the same race are greater than the differences between races.

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

Seriously. Just 10 minutes a day will help you improve your ability to focus over longer periods. If you don't know how it works, I recommend getting some professional instruction before you start.

"Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve"

It would be harmless if the virus did not encode for a homologue of the human lipid peroxidase inhibitor glutathione peroxidase. See Keshen's disease (China).

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

What they say might be happening but what *also* would explain that (and they did not check, a simple serum selenium test would differentiate) is:

Bloomberg news 2013:
"... selenium for two years were able to delay their need for antiretroviral therapies by about half compared with those given a placebo, according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study followed 878 HIV-infected adults from Botswana, a nation with one of the highest rates of infection of the AIDS virus."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

(they need to read Fosters papers, B, C and E boost the immune system but it's Tryptophan, Glutamine and Cysteine that the virus encodes for and strips from the body)

Summary:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Aidsan...

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

Watch these -
Theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Case study:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Then read his (free) book:
http://www.soilandhealth.org/0...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...

See also:
http://www.doctoryourself.com/...
http://aras.ab.ca/articles/rfw...
http://www.fosterhealth.ca/nut...

Also:
1. Foster HD. How HIV-1 causes AIDS: Implications for prevention and treatment," Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 62(4), p 549-553, 2004.

2. Foster HD. What really causes AIDS. Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2002. Free download at www.hdfoster.com .

For further reading:

"HIV/AIDS: a nutrient deficiency disease," Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2005, Vol. 20(2), p 67-69.
Environmental factors and the pathogenesis of selenium-CD-4 cell tailspin in AIDS. Chinese Journal of AIDS and STD, Vol. 10(5), p 390-392,402 2004.

AIDS and the selenium-CD4T cell tailspin," World Journal of Infection, Vol. 3(6), p 456-459, 2003.
Micronutrients in pathogenesis and treatment of AIDS," Foreign Medical Sciences: Section of Medgeography, Vol. 24(2), p 49-53, 2003.

Why HIV-1 has diffused so much more rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa than in North America. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 60(4), p 611-614, 2003.

"How HIV-1 kills: Implications for the treatment and prevention of AIDS. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, No. 255, p 76-78, 2002.

"Aids and the 'selenium - CD4T cell tailspin': the geography of a pandemic," Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, No. 209, p 94-99, 2000.

When forest litter doesn't decay, it does provide carbon sequestration -- up until that thing happens that always happens when you get too much forest litter: a forest fire. Then the carbon goes airborne, along with all the radioactive cesium and whatever else is in the forest. Then you have a nuclear forest fire that spreads radionuclides all over wherever the wind happens to blow.

See Resuspension and redistribution of radionuclides during grassland and forest fires in the Chernobyl exclusion zone: part I. Fire experiments.

How about: "We took a sample of 100 people who had lived in the Chernobyl area for 10-12 years and studied cancer rates and health problems against the general population."

OK, how about this?

This study examined cancer incidence (1986-2008) and mortality (1986-2011) among the Estonian Chernobyl cleanup workers in comparison with the Estonian male population.

These people generally worked at the site 1986-1991.

No clear evidence of an increased risk of thyroid cancer, leukaemia, or radiation-related cancer sites combined was apparent.

Twenty-six years of follow-up of this cohort indicates no definite health effects attributable to radiation, but the elevated suicide risk has persisted.

The WHO summary more or less states that cancer and reproductive effects have been seen in people who were resident at the time of the meltdown and in first-responding clean up teams ("liquidators"), but not in any other groups.

Some of this is surely regionalized: there are areas within the fall out zone where radiation remains quite high (hence the non-decaying trees), but this seems not to be a general feature of the whole downwind area. Therefore, it is not surprising that the nuclear alarmists can find anecdotes to support their fears, or that the nuclear apologists can find anecdotes to support their story. Anecdotes are a terrible basis for risk evaluation and policy making, but they're great for yellow journalism.

There are plenty of smokers who don't die of cancer, so that must also be safe, right?

See, this is why we try not to use anecdotes to test hypotheses. There are smokers who die of cirrhosis without ever getting cancer. There are even people who jump of buildings and survive (please do not try that at home). You can't determine whether smoking causes cancer, or whether drunk driving causes accidents by watching one individual.

If you survey the people who lived near Chernobyl, and who actually worked on the clean-up project, you find that they get 'radiation' cancers at the same rate as everyone else. That is, there is no additional cancer risk for having been a Chernobyl clean-up worker. (now, those folks do have a somewhat higher incidence of 'alcohol-related' cancers, but I don't think you can attribute them to high background radiation or Cs ingestion.

The only people who have documented cancer associated with the accident are people who were resident at the time of the meltdown and the immediate "liquidators." Among them, WHO estimates

the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes.

I read that we have lot of old retro-virus material in our DNA. Maybe this is how it went before, we get into a kind of symbiosis with the virus until it somehow merges into our DNA permanently? I'm not a microbiologist though, just guessing.

In fact, the (my) first google hit for symbiosis retrovirus was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm..., which superficially seems to think in the same direction w.r.t. past.

But if researchers correct for these factors, and compare whites and blacks in similar socioeconomic circumstances, and look at black children adopted and raised by white families, there is still a variance correlated with race.

Some studies claim that. Other adoption studies have shown that black kids basically do the same as white kids when both are raised by white families. You can argue about which studies are better, but there's not a clear answer, unlike your (pardon the pun) "black-and-white" argument.

Blacks are more exposed to environmental pollutants, are more likely to have deficiencies in micro-nutrients, and are less likely to breastfeed, than whites in similar socioeconomic conditions.

Okay, let's talk about these in turn.

Why do black kids have higher levels of lead in their blood compared to white kids living in the same neighborhood?

Because even if they live in the same neighborhoods, blacks disproportionately end up in worse housing conditions. From that link, which compares randomly sampled groups of Whites and Blacks living in an urban environment in the same city: "Racial disparity in urban children's blood lead levels appears to be due to differences in housing conditions and environmental exposures. While [various factors] contribute to blood lead for both Black and White children, Black children, who in this study were largely impoverished and lived in pooly maintained rental housing, are also exposed to higher levels of lead-contaminated house dust and to painted surfaces and floor that are in poorer condition. Thus, housing condition and exposure to lead-contaminated house dust appear to be major contributors to the racial disparity in children's blood levels.

Next?

Why are poor black kids deficient in folic acid,

Well, we know that black moms are more likely to be deficient in folic acid. Part of it is dietary; from the link: "certain groups, including women of childbearing age and non-Hispanic black women, are at risk of insufficient folate intakes. Even when intake of folic acid from dietary supplements is included, 19% of female adolescents aged 14 to 18 years and 17% of women aged 19 to 30 years do not meet the EAR. Similarly, 23% of non-Hispanic black women have inadequate total intakes, compared with 13% of non-Hispanic white women."

So, diet is a big reason, and if black moms are deficient and feed a similar diet to their kids, well, you might guess that the kids could end up deficient. Other studies have noted that black women are less likely to have access to supplements or pre-natal vitamins that might provide adequate folic acid content.

iodine, and other critical micro-nutrients, when poor white kids are not?

Probably because blacks tend to consume a lot less dairy, which is often known to correlate with iodine deficiencies. From this study, "The NHANES and NCS UI [iodine level] data suggest that non-Hispanic black women have lower UI concentration than other women. Additionally, non-Hispanic black women had lower dairy consumption.... Non-Hispanic black women reporting rates of dairy consumption is consistent with recent data on U.S. population reports of lactose intolerance... among females, 50% were non-Hispanic black, 30% non-Hispanic white, and 20% Hispanic. Self-diagnosed lactose intolerance and consequent avoidance of dairy products may be on the contributing factors in the racial/ethnic differences we have shown in UI concentration."

Tha

Biological sex is not binary, so it is difficult to arbitrarily say that an individual is biologically one sex or another.

It's in the chromosomes. It's all about the X's and Y's.

Er, yes, for many/most people, but for a significant minority, it is not, which is the point (and actually even if it is all about the chromosomes, you still have the trisomy etc. conditions).

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... (see definitions section)

Your link is misleading. Yes, marijuana does not do good things to developing brains — there are much better studies which demonstrate this. There is no similar evidence which suggests that either moderate use or use beginning in adulthood has the same effect.

Here is the actual study in question. Do note that their average test subject started at age 16 and smokes five joints per day. From the article,

The association presents compelling evidence for white matter reacting differently to cannabis exposure commencing during adolescence compared with adulthood...

One joint does not a pothead make. You've pretty much already missed the boat for pot-related brain damage, but your knee-jerk antagonism against cannabis users is equally as dumb. Even if everything you imagine to be true about cannabis use was in fact the truth,

I think that THC use and Texting while driving should have the exact same penalties as someone who has .08 BAC.

This does not follow. There is no objective evidence suggesting that marijuana is equally impairing, and suggesting that any amount of use or exposure to THC is equivalent to being dangerously impaired is simple prejudice.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-co...

TL;DR

For example, Rushton et al. (Rushton et al. 2012) recently estimated that occupational DEE (Diesel engine exhaust) exposure in the United Kingdom was the third most important occupational contributor to the lung cancer burden after asbestos and silica exposure.

They estimate 6% of people dying of lung cancer do die because of diesel particles...

More likely he's been hospitalized again. Or God told him that he shouldn't post to slashdot any more because they didn't accept his submission about TempleOS.

Everyone should be thankful they're not in his shoes. Judging from the comments, there are still many who have wrong ideas about mental illness.

The NIMH has some interesting information about prevalence, etc. For example:

In 2012, there were an estimated 9.6 million adults aged 18 or older in the U.S. with SMI (Serious Mental Illness) in the past year. This represented 4.1 percent of all U.S. adults.

Any mental Illness:

In 2012, there were an estimated 43.7 million adults aged 18 or older in the U.S. with AMI (any mental illness) in the past year. This represented 18.6 percent of all U.S. adults.

The site gives breakdowns on the different types of disorders and the rates per year and over the average lifetime.

More likely he's been hospitalized again. Or God told him that he shouldn't post to slashdot any more because they didn't accept his submission about TempleOS.

Everyone should be thankful they're not in his shoes. Judging from the comments, there are still many who have wrong ideas about mental illness.

The NIMH has some interesting information about prevalence, etc. For example:

In 2012, there were an estimated 9.6 million adults aged 18 or older in the U.S. with SMI (Serious Mental Illness) in the past year. This represented 4.1 percent of all U.S. adults.

Any mental Illness:

In 2012, there were an estimated 43.7 million adults aged 18 or older in the U.S. with AMI (any mental illness) in the past year. This represented 18.6 percent of all U.S. adults.

The site gives breakdowns on the different types of disorders and the rates per year and over the average lifetime.

The difference is sometimes called 'ALS' vs 'Doc-ALS' : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

There are a lot of tradeoffs in the system, based on things like how many ER physicians you have, population density, and a bunch of resource allocation issues; the differences in outcomes vs expenses is pretty murky.

As this article notes, there are a lot of 'selection biases' that get in the way of studying the topic - basically, apples-to-apples comparisons are tough to come by.

Different models:

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

The delivery of emergency medical services in pre-hospital settings can be categorized broadly into Franco-German or Anglo-American models according to the philosophy of pre-hospital care delivery. ...

The Franco-German model of EMS delivery is based on the "stay and stabilize" philosophy. ... Countries such as Germany, France, Greece, Malta and Austria have well-developed Franco-German EMS systems. ...

In contrast to the Franco-German model, the Anglo-American model is based around "scoop and run" philosophy....

Te choice of model seems to be based on how recently the systems were developed, how costs are allocated, and population density.

Trying to find an article I read a while ago that was critical of the cost/benefit ratio of the French model ... will post if I do.

"... consuming so many phytoestrogens than men are growing boobs."

From the National Institutes of Health, a free PDF: The pros and cons of phytoestrogens. The author considered 308 scientific sources and came to the conclusion that not enough is known to indicate that phytoestrogens are good or bad for humans.

I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease

Sadly, medical science has, for decades, had a better understanding than you seem to think. The problems arise from advisory organs (from the individual dietitian to the WHO) having to justify their existence by coming up with some kind of advice.

"In general, we're not really sure about a lot of things, but it is pretty obvious that nutrition raises your blood sugar levels, with the speed of the increase related to the glycemic index of the food and that both very high and very low blood sugar levels have negative effects on your body, so you should manage your nutritional intake based on your blood sugar levels. Oh yes, and don't forget the buffering effects of glycogen storage in your muscles and liver" makes for great but very unmarketable advice.

"Fat is bad, mmkay" and "High cholesterol will kill you" are a lot more palatable.
Who cares about scientific accuracy nowadays? Most 'journalists' don't. Most politicians don't. The average Joe certainly doesn't (at this point he doesn't even trust those scientist fuckers, always 'saying' different things in the papers).

Take it from me: the science is out there and has been for a while. Believe nothing you read about the subject of dietary advice, unless it is actual research or the stating of hard facts:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
(note the years of publication)

The second result on google for "microgravity reactions" is this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
The first is this one which is far less useful:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...

There's a current experiment on the ISS along those lines that was mentioned in the mainstream press a couple of months back but I can't seem to track down a link. The biochemist interviewed was of the opinion that we have no idea how many reactions are influenced by gravity and was surprised to find so many so quickly.

"it was absent from the literature". A simple Google search shows many articles discussing the "vertical occipital fasciculus" - 265,000 for me:

The article referenced here: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

Some other references:
2012: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.nan.upol.cz/neuro/c...
1943 reference: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.c...

There were a lot more. Something seems fishy here.

Incorrect. Washington is not for dementia patients, it's for people with incurable narcissistic sociopathy.

Nope, that's NYC. Washington is for people with http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

Research suggests that blind people are superior to sighted in echolocation, but systematic psychoacoustic studies on environmental conditions such as distance to objects, signal duration, and reverberation are lacking. Therefore, two experiments were conducted. Noise bursts of 5, 50, or 500 ms were reproduced by a loudspeaker on an artificial manikin in an ordinary room and in an anechoic chamber. The manikin recorded the sounds binaurally in the presence and absence of a reflecting 1.5-mm thick aluminium disk, 0.5 m in diameter, placed in front, at distances of 0.5 to 5 m. These recordings were later presented to ten visually handicapped and ten sighted people, 30-62 years old, using a 2AFC paradigm with feedback. The task was to detect which of two sounds that contained the reflecting object. The blind performed better than the sighted participants. All performed well with the object at 2 m was not by chance. Detection thresholds showed that blind participants could detect the object at longer distances in the conference room than in the anechoic chamber, when using the longer-duration sounds and also as compared to the sighted people. Audiometric tests suggest that equal hearing in both ears is important for echolocation. Possible echolocation mechanisms are discussed. Human echolocation: Blind and sighted persons' ability to detect sounds recorded in the presence of a reflecting object.

I would certainly suspect that a non-sighted person who echo-locates would be far better than a sighted person, if for no other reason than getting much more practice, I would be interested in comparing a non-sighted and sighted echo-locator in a similar investigation. Could be that that part of the visual cortex could be used in both eyesighted and earsighted vision to varying degrees.

Silly, everyone knows that the dietary fancy of C. elegans is E. coli strain OP50, so that should probably be "Do Caendroids Dream of Electric Germs?" (further reading at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...)

And no one can tell who is correct:

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

Here's a different hypothesis: People with mental disorders are more likely to commit violent crimes [treatmenta...center.org].

Except one hole in your hypothesis: SSRIs are supposedly intended to treat DEPRESSION. and it is also understood that people suffering from Depression are rarely, if ever, violent.

And it is FAR from settled that there is a causal relationship between mental illness of any sort and violent behavior. In fact, the linked study states:

"Several general conclusions are supported by this brief overview. First, mental disorders are neither necessary, nor sufficient causes of violence. The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status.

Second, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. It is far more likely that people with a serious mental illness will be the victim of violence."

So there.

Also, consider the facts that:

1. Mental illness has existed for milennia

2. Ready access to firearms has existed for centuries

3. SSRIs have existed for about 20 years.

4. Studies abound that link SSRIs (and esp. SSRI withdrawal) with homicidal and suicidal behavior. (And about that Black Box Warning...)

And yet you want to hang your hat on something as demonstrably non-causal (and vague!) as "Mental Illness"?

every mass killer in the past 30 years has been prescribed some sort of psychotropic SSRI.

That story keeps growing every time it's repeated. By next week, it will be up to "everyone who has ever killed anybody was on two different types of SSRI".

Here's a different hypothesis: People with mental disorders are more likely to commit violent crimes. They are also more likely to have been treated with drugs such as fluoxetine, particularly in the USA.

For your hypothesis to be supported, you will need to show a correlation between between violent crime and people who are taking SSRIs but have not been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder, and also show that people who suffer from mental disorders but have not been treated are less likely to commit violent crimes than people who have been treated but do not suffer from a disorder.

It's the "other connection" anti-gun folks never seem to want to talk about.

Well, don't let me stop you. Talk about it. Share with us the wealth of peer-reviewed medical studies which support your hypothesis and disprove mine. And talking heads from CNN don't count.

I'll wait.

You're logic is bad, and you should feel bad for using it.

a recent comparison of aggression and hostility occurring during treatment with fluoxetine to placebo in children and adolescents found that no significant difference between the fluoxetine group and a placebo group.[62] There is also evidence that higher rates of SSRI prescriptions are associated with lower rates of suicide in children, though since the evidence is correlational, the true nature of the relationship is unclear.[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://online.liebertpub.com/d...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...