Slashdot Mirror

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://thebulletin.org/threate...
http://armscontrolcenter.org/E...
http://thebulletin.org/unaccep...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.pathobiologics.org/...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1...
http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...
http://news.sciencemag.org/hea...

wow, i didn't know this.
some quick googling found:
Fast Facts: Degrees conferred by sex and race
Homeless men and women: commonalities and a service gender gap

I'd respond that nature selects against them. Males with downs syndrome are infertile for reasons which are not clear. And a quick google search suggested that with females, the extra chromosome doesn't get passed on, so the disease isn't necessarily inheritable at all. Downs syndrome always arises spontaneously, and will continue to do so.

Republicans, just a couple, force the NCAM down the tax payers throats.
After a decade of zero results, they still refuse to stop spending millions funding it.
It's a belief all the way up to the point politician are spending tax payer money on it. At that point it's political.

http://nccam.nih.gov/

Actual, it's republicans that forced the NCAM down everyone's throats. So yes, they are.

http://nccam.nih.gov/

The NIH invests nearly $30.1* billion annually in medical research for the American people.

* This amount reflects the sum of discretionary budget authority of $29,928 million received by NIH in FY 2014 under The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, Public Law (P.L.) 113-76 net of transfers as well as a mandatory $139 million for special type 1 diabetes research authorized per P.L. 111-309 and P.L. 112-40. Details regarding current appropriations are available at http://officeofbudget.od.nih.g....

(source)

The NIH invests nearly $30.1* billion annually in medical research for the American people.

* This amount reflects the sum of discretionary budget authority of $29,928 million received by NIH in FY 2014 under The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, Public Law (P.L.) 113-76 net of transfers as well as a mandatory $139 million for special type 1 diabetes research authorized per P.L. 111-309 and P.L. 112-40. Details regarding current appropriations are available at http://officeofbudget.od.nih.g....

(source)

This isn't the first time an organ has been regenerated inside an animal.
It's been documented for several years that after a partial liver removal, humans can regenerate livers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Back in 1986 they regrew the thymus in rats. And actually a guy named Greg Fahy already regrew his own thymus a few years ago .. I dont understand how people can't use Google.

1986 article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Regrowth of thymus in human: http://online.liebertpub.com/d...

They stopped regrowing the thymus in humans because they don't know if it may have a negative effect to have the thymus in an adult since the thymus normally is completely degraded (evolution may have programmed it to degrade for a reason).

The brain was not designed for reading and there are no genes for reading like there are for language or vision.

Reading is language. It's the visual component of it. In MRI studies of blind people reading Braille they find that the brain uses the visual cortex to read no matter what activity you choose to use to do it.

As for the "genes" comment -- if you know of a gene for language, please, tell the cognitive scientists of the world, who are still desperately trying to figure out why we are genetically predisposed to acquiring language before we even leave the womb.

plenty of hard clinical studies showing no link whatsoever between free radicals and cancer

Whoa, whoa, slow down there. Free radicals, usually reactive oxygen species, are some of the most reactive molecules known. They can and will destroy any organic material they come across. Especially DNA. Lengthy PDF and a paywall, but hey, its far more studies than you actually cited.

(opinion starts) That said, I'm not going to argue that antioxidants actually will have some significant effect against aging. You can't just flood your body with enough antioxidants to really slow down aging, without causing other harm, such as compromising your immune system.(opinion ends)

As far as colon cancer is concerned, there is a lot of common sense here. I doubt a tiny little factor like anti-oxidants on your beef is going to make much difference if you're an overweight smoker in your 50s. Having beer around might encourage you to drink heavily, which is listed there as increasing risk. So. If you already like beer marinade then great. If you don't, then there's virtually no reason to use a recipe you don't like. Concentrate on the elephant in the room before addressing the mouse.

Again, that depends on how you define awareness. If you use a personal definition then yes, it is in the realm of personal experience.

There are various approaches to measure awareness, here's just one example I could find quickly: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372627/. They do require you to define awareness in a way that can be measured, however, and we are still early in that part with various studies working on confirming suspected links between subjective awareness and objective measurements.

Conscious is were magic begins and science ends.

It's simply an area where science is still in its beginning research. Much like early science about electro-magnetism, in a hundred years we'll see some was spot on and some was terribly off. But that's how science works, by investigation and adding to the body of knowledge.

Magick, on the other hand (to make clear we're not talking stage magic here), is in fact closely related to consciousness, but to the best of my knowledge and experience, the relation is much like that of meditation or herbal medicine - a set of rituals and practices with more or less repeatable results and an utterly fantastic and false chain of causality to explain them.

Because right now it seems that gay people are in greater mental risk than normal people. pubmed.

Given that homosexuality is related to prenatal stress (pbmed and see this for more links and information), it is not astonishing at all.

This is same discrimination as applied by insurance companies.

Because right now it seems that gay people are in greater mental risk than normal people. pubmed.

Given that homosexuality is related to prenatal stress (pbmed and see this for more links and information), it is not astonishing at all.

This is same discrimination as applied by insurance companies.

Please, stop with the hyperbole. It doesn't help the case for autism at all.

If one in 68 children were missing limbs at birth, there would be an international outcry

Autism is a spectrum disorder...ranging from barely noticeable to completely life-dominating.

The equivalent would be 1 in 68 children ranging from missing their left arm to having a slightly shorter fingernail on their pinky.

Why aren't we investigating more? Why?!

12% of people (1 in 8!!!!) DIE from cancer.

Why aren't we investigating more? Why?!

Funding rates for autism are similar to funding rates for epilepsy, which has a similar incidence rate. Lot's of investigation is being done, but unfortunately it is very difficult to research.

It's inaccurate to simply put it all under that one umbrella and treat things under a "common core" and ultimately unhealthy to do so.

Cancer also ranges from a mild irritation (skin cancer) to a life-altering extremely serious issue. Guess what? The cures for each are pretty much the same. Just because the intensity of the effects vary, this does not mean that it is inaccurate to treat them similarly.

but we do have some basic facts we can at least point to:
1. The rate is high and climbing still.
2. The problem isn't being studied properly.

1. High compared to what?
2. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the problem isn't being studied properly.

This problem definitely fits the definition of "epidemic" and yet somehow it doesn't warrant investigation and study? Is it because important business models will be threatened? I believe that will be of high likelihood.

If you are serious about this, you may want to consider seeking professional help. The level of paranoia required to believe it is "highly likely" that big business or the government is inducing autism in the population for their own nefarious reasons is quite disturbing.

There are some studies that were published in late 2013 that strongly correlate the use of acetaminophen in pregnancy or childhood with autism/ASD.

http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/home/eng/Acetaminophen.asp (full text)

It appears that the marked increase in the rate of autism, asthma, and attention deficit with hyperactivity throughout much of the world may be largely caused by the marked increase in the use of acetaminophen in genetically and/or metabolically susceptible children, and the use of acetaminophen by pregnant women.

Evidence is presented that Cuba's rate of autism is 298 times lower than that in the US. Cuba has compulsory vaccination of children, but acetaminophen is rarely prescribed and is not available OTC. In contrast,

In the United States, some physicians have started to advise parents to begin to take acetaminophen prophylactically daily 5 days prior to childhood vaccines; some children on such prophylactic treatment had an autistic regression that began prior to vaccination...

The study linked above also notes the following study that was also published in 2013:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673819/ (full text)

I think that's more of an attitude question than a placebo effect. Take for example, the 5 year surivival rate for untreated breast cancer, according to this NIH study it's under 20%, however, according to the American Cancer Society the 5 year survival rate for stage 0 and stage 1 intervention is 100%.

So. iIf a pacebo-based treatment were to delay a woman from seeking intervention from stage 1 to stage 2, her survival rate drops from 100% to 93%, if gets to stage 3, it drops to 72%, if she waits until stage 4, it drops to 22%, and if she never seeks any treatment it drops to less than 20% for 5 years (and around 4% after 10 years). That's the danger of treatments that rely on the placebo effect, they can delay the application of real timely medical treatment. In the worst case, the placebo treatment has effectively killed 96% of the people taking it by preventing them from seeking out real treatments.

Interestingly, it seems that having a positive attitude doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on breast cancer survival rates, and even if it did, the detrimental effect of not seeking a real treatment would almost always be worse. Of course, this is all much simpler than I'm making it out to be. After all, what would be better? Getting real life-saving treatment and having a positive attitude or getting nothing and having a positive attitude?

It is not uniquely North American.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.or...

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

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.e...

Hibiscus tea has a growing body of evidence that it is effective at lowing blood pressure in persons with prehypertension levels here, here, and here for starters.

There is also Level B evidence for chamomile having anti-anxiety properties which may be effective in the treatment of stress and insomnia. Here is one example.

Hibiscus tea has a growing body of evidence that it is effective at lowing blood pressure in persons with prehypertension levels here, here, and here for starters.

There is also Level B evidence for chamomile having anti-anxiety properties which may be effective in the treatment of stress and insomnia. Here is one example.

Hibiscus tea has a growing body of evidence that it is effective at lowing blood pressure in persons with prehypertension levels here, here, and here for starters.

There is also Level B evidence for chamomile having anti-anxiety properties which may be effective in the treatment of stress and insomnia. Here is one example.

Hibiscus tea has a growing body of evidence that it is effective at lowing blood pressure in persons with prehypertension levels here, here, and here for starters.

There is also Level B evidence for chamomile having anti-anxiety properties which may be effective in the treatment of stress and insomnia. Here is one example.

I dont know that thats 100% accurate, there are a couple of "legit" "alternative" medicines that we just havent finished studying, but may be proven to be effective. Theyre just generally the minority.

For example, I believe its generally accepted that acupuncture does something, we're just not sure how and what.
If you're really interested in a discussion on it, the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine might be a good place to start:

I dont know that thats 100% accurate, there are a couple of "legit" "alternative" medicines that we just havent finished studying, but may be proven to be effective. Theyre just generally the minority.

For example, I believe its generally accepted that acupuncture does something, we're just not sure how and what.
If you're really interested in a discussion on it, the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine might be a good place to start:

On a related note, where is the evidence that thousands and thousands of children are dying in droves due to not being vaccinated? Did Jenny's kids die and I missed it or something?

Here's a breakdown of what preventable diseases killed 2.5 million children under 5 in 2002 PDF document
The vast majority of these are outside the US, but the fact remains - thousands and thousands of children are dying in droves due to not being vaccinated.

Regrettably many of these children never had the option to obtain vaccinations. Kids in the US have that option and denying it to them is irresponsible. Every negative aspect of routine vaccinations has been shown to be false. There is no valid reason not to get it done.

I have no right to force anyone to get vaccinations, but if they choose to not do so, their sobs of regret when their child is sick will fall on deaf ears.

According to the Indian journal of ophthalmology: IR radiation can lead to cataracts... "The protein of eye lens is very sensitive to IR radiation which is hazardous and may lead to cataract." Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

You are surprisingly ignorant...

Since, YES, Horizontal transfer does indeed happen, and is widely documented. In fact, it happens A WHOLE LOT.
Yes, porcine and human genes do mix, using viral vectors and other methods.
Yes, Viruses DO INDEED permanently integrate into human and animal genomes. (You DO know that the genes responsible for placental implantation in many placental mammals comes from precisely this source, right? You DO know about the porcine endemic retrovirus, and other such things?)

The argument shouldnt be that "Those things dont happen in nature", because that is straight up wrong. The argument should be that "Natural occurence of this is very narrow in scope, and only persists when there is a profound advantage boost, and then only takes root after a considerable incubation period, and that this behavior has no direct analog with the unnatural section processes used by humans in agricultural settings.

Maybe you should check again: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline...
"Exercise not only helps your immune system fight off simple bacterial and viral infections, it decreases your chances of developing heart disease, osteoporosis, and cancer."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH...
""Nutrition plays an important part in maintaining immune function," explains George L. Blackburn, M.D., Ph.D., associate director of the division of nutrition at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. "Insufficiency in one or more essential nutrients may prevent the immune system from functioning at its peak.""

People with weaker immune systems are more likely to contract diseases and have them for longer and so spread them around more.

So, again, now that you know this, why not lock up those who eat junk food and who don't exercise, or force them at gunpoint to eat vegetables and do push ups? Such people otherwise pose a health risk to everyone else. That is a fact based on what people at the NIH and Harvard have said.

The same for the other things I mentioned which all affect the immune system. See also:
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-...

Many things make contracting and spreading disease more likely (poor diet, lack of exercise, lack of sleep, lack of vitamin D, lack of iodine, lack of nursing, sending kids to public school, going into a shared workplace every day, etc.). Why do you call at least some of those "an individual choice that does not affect the well-being of others" when clearly they all increase the risk of disease transmission? All of these choices affect the well-being of those around us. What of the immuno-compromised child who is going to die because your kid spread around the flu contracted in part by vitamin D deficiency, too much sugar, and not enough exercise?

Also, the fact is, vaccinations at best only protect to some degree against catching specific disease. These other things protect against catching almost any disease whether there is a vaccine for it or not. If forcing people to get vaccinated against their will for the public good is a good idea, why not force people to do these other things too?

For example, since people who eat poorly have a greater risk of contracting almost any communicable illness and spreading it around, why allow people to pick what food they want to eat each day for example? Clearly a government appointed dietitian (backed by gun-wielding police) would do a better job of deciding what you should eat each day than you could and thus do a better job of protecting the public health against widespread illness, injury, and death, right? Likewise for those who do not exercise enough. Cops should force people to exercise at gunpoint if needed, right? No less than the NIH and Harvard provide the supporting evidence,

Not laughing enough also is bad for you immune system.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/heal...
"Negative thoughts manifest into chemical reactions that can affect your body by bringing more stress into your system and decreasing your immunity. In contrast, positive thoughts actually release neuropeptides that help fight stress and potentially more-serious illnesses."

So, people who do not laugh enough are a health risk to those around them. It would seem then that people thus have no constitutional right to be dour sour pusses, since that puts everyone around them at health risk. So, why not set up a police force who force people to laugh by watching funny websites? Or do laughter yoga? And otherwise incarcerate them if they don't comply?

Although, like anything, I guess that could go too far:

We knew all along that we were the final cause. The question was whether they had been declining before that.

That was the thesis of this paper, which concluded (based on diversity of mitochondrial DNA) that the species had declined considerably before humans arrived.

That was in 2004; ten years later, a different analysis concludes that the moa were not in fact as numerous as the 2004 paper thought, and the number had in fact been pretty stable. It was only when humans arrived that the number dropped.

Even the 2004 paper didn't let humans off the hook, but it suggested that moas were already vulnerable.

In a research done by Liebetanz on rats, it appeared that it would take tDCS current density of 142.9A/m2 for durations greater than 10 minutes to cause lesions in rats brains. So if we take a tDCS device that has relatively small electrodes, like 3x3cm, we would need at least 128.61mA current for more than 10 minutes to cause any brain damage. Given that even 2mA (most typical) sessions can cause skin burns when the electrodes have been poorly prepared, the currents above 127.8mA would probably feel torturous. I think the user would figure out that there is something really wrong fairly quickly. Typical DIY device uses a 9V convenient store battery as a power source, its capacity could be around 400-1200mAh, which means the subject would only get less than 10 seconds of 129mA "fun" if everything goes wrong, in case the internal resistance of the battery would allow that high current, but it won't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

the dramatic effects documented in the mice in the study are unlikely to occur in women with a BRCA1 mutation, who still have some functioning BRCA1, compared with the mice who had none at all.

From skimming google, it looks like women with a Brca1 mutation have one functional copy, that mutations in both would cause death in embryonic stages. Mice lacking both copies of Brca1 are dead before birth. The mice here had the gene only lost in neural tissue.

The current finding doesn't seem like a surprise. It seems to only be news because of marketing. Brca1 is probably the closest thing to a gene with a household name due to the breast cancer tie in and the patent insanity. Neural stem cells seem to have higher requirements for a lot of "housekeeping" genes. And Brca1 regulates DNA repair. As I said, we already knew that the gene was important for cell survival. This paper isn't even the first to knock it out in specific tissues.

You take away a gene critical for cell survival and neural stem cells die? Wow, what a shock. Hey, I have evidence that FIRE kills neural stem cells! I should write that up and send it to PNAS too!

(Joking aside, I haven't fully read the paper. It looks like good science, I don't object to it being published in PNAS, just saying this isn't all that surprising.)

the dramatic effects documented in the mice in the study are unlikely to occur in women with a BRCA1 mutation, who still have some functioning BRCA1, compared with the mice who had none at all.

From skimming google, it looks like women with a Brca1 mutation have one functional copy, that mutations in both would cause death in embryonic stages. Mice lacking both copies of Brca1 are dead before birth. The mice here had the gene only lost in neural tissue.

The current finding doesn't seem like a surprise. It seems to only be news because of marketing. Brca1 is probably the closest thing to a gene with a household name due to the breast cancer tie in and the patent insanity. Neural stem cells seem to have higher requirements for a lot of "housekeeping" genes. And Brca1 regulates DNA repair. As I said, we already knew that the gene was important for cell survival. This paper isn't even the first to knock it out in specific tissues.

You take away a gene critical for cell survival and neural stem cells die? Wow, what a shock. Hey, I have evidence that FIRE kills neural stem cells! I should write that up and send it to PNAS too!

(Joking aside, I haven't fully read the paper. It looks like good science, I don't object to it being published in PNAS, just saying this isn't all that surprising.)

the dramatic effects documented in the mice in the study are unlikely to occur in women with a BRCA1 mutation, who still have some functioning BRCA1, compared with the mice who had none at all.

From skimming google, it looks like women with a Brca1 mutation have one functional copy, that mutations in both would cause death in embryonic stages. Mice lacking both copies of Brca1 are dead before birth. The mice here had the gene only lost in neural tissue.

The current finding doesn't seem like a surprise. It seems to only be news because of marketing. Brca1 is probably the closest thing to a gene with a household name due to the breast cancer tie in and the patent insanity. Neural stem cells seem to have higher requirements for a lot of "housekeeping" genes. And Brca1 regulates DNA repair. As I said, we already knew that the gene was important for cell survival. This paper isn't even the first to knock it out in specific tissues.

You take away a gene critical for cell survival and neural stem cells die? Wow, what a shock. Hey, I have evidence that FIRE kills neural stem cells! I should write that up and send it to PNAS too!

(Joking aside, I haven't fully read the paper. It looks like good science, I don't object to it being published in PNAS, just saying this isn't all that surprising.)

My allergist isn't a big fan of zinc pyrithione.

Because? I'm genuinely interested.

Selenium sulfide shampoos [...] have worked far better for my seborrheic dermatitis of the scalp

Mm, I had not yet encountered that one. After a bit of googling, I found this good overview: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... (the substance specific appreciation is at the end).

We already knew why people/dogs do that: saliva contains blood clotting agents.

Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible.

No. Here is what it says.

"Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health at Duke University and a professor of psychiatry"... author of "The Healing Power of Faith", "Faith and Mental Health"... "Listening to sermons and reading religious works like the Bible may also invoke a cognitive benefit, Koenig said."

I.e. Faith guy says maybe faith good for brain.

Also, that Discovery article is crap.
That "One recent study, published in December of 2013 in JAMA Psychiatry" - no it wasn't.
And which study does this sentence refer to? The supposed December 2013 JAMA one (actually published in February 2014) or the 2011 one?

And while a 2011 study found a shrinking of the hippocampus among people of certain religions, Koenig, a co-author of the study, points out that no one has replicated that work yet.

Cause, it either says that Koenig is a co-author of the JAMA study (which he isn't, but which is no made clear anywhere in the article which doesn't even name the study it discusses) and he disagrees with the data from the 2011 study...
OR, he is a co-author of 2011 study (which he was) which says that certain religious people have a shrinking hippocampus.
With which he disagrees as well, pointing out "no one has replicated that work yet".

Koenig is essentially saying "Fuck my study which shows how religion may actually be bad for your brain. Don't look at it. Nothing to see there. Not replicated. Bad study. Bad!"

Also, everything Koenig and that other guy who had nothing to do with the study (he apparently has not even read it) but they asked him to comment on it anyway, Dr. Majid Fotuhi, said about the social effect... pure bullshit.
From the actual study:

Importance of religion or spirituality, but not frequency of attendance, was associated with thicker cortices in the left and right parietal and occipital regions, the mesial frontal lobe of the right hemisphere, and the cuneus and precuneus in the left hemisphere, independent of familial risk.

Going to church does not matter. How much you THINK that religion or spirituality matter to you matters.

Correlation does not mean causation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Indeed meditation is a good way to reduce stress, and have the brain generate serotonin. Opposing religion and stress to argue about brain capacity is ludicrous. To put it simply, strong believers in a religion accept things as they're told and, thus, have less to think and wonder about life, death, present, future and the universe... and that reduces stress. But a regular practice of some sports, a well balanced diet, friends... are some of many ways to reduce stress - while keeping one feet in true and sometimes harsh reality.

Is there data available on how many people got measles in the bay area outbreak? How many were vaccinated, etc?

3 cases requiring hospitalization, 14 cases total, not all of them traceable to the same patient zero U.C. Berkeley student; 5 more cases traceable to recent travelers returning from the Philippines.

Generally stats are not published until after the quarter is over, and then it requires some time for the reporting window to close.

U.S. Immunization rates for measles by age 1 is 92%, according to WHO: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho...

I typically would not expect them to publish stats on vaccination failures to non-medical professionals, so no idea if any of the 14 cases so far were persons who were vaccinated. According to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... published in 1996, the apparent failure rate is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... published in 2004.

It also appears that about 70% of the people actually contracting measles are accounted for as vaccine failures, if this NIH report from 1987 is to be believed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

The numbers are within an order of magnitude of what you'd expect for a 92% vaccination rate, with a 10% failure rate (leaving the unvaccinated 8% to account for the other 30% of cases, since one would expect them to be predominantly rurally and regionally isolated at about that a 2.8x rate compared to "vaccinated, but failed").

Of course, failure rates vary by vaccine, as this 1988 Lancet article points out comparing the Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine to the Schwartz vaccine in 4-6 month year olds: http://www.thelancet.com/journ...

So we can guess that out of the 14 total cases, we can guess ~10 are vaccine failures, and ~4 are non-vaccinated, with about a 4% margin of error allowing a 9/5 split instead.

Like I said, they really do not like to publish numbers like this, and in a small sample like this, there are HIPPA considerations to publishing such data, since it would violate medical privacy for those who were vaccinated, but in whom the disease occurred anyway.

Is there data available on how many people got measles in the bay area outbreak? How many were vaccinated, etc?

3 cases requiring hospitalization, 14 cases total, not all of them traceable to the same patient zero U.C. Berkeley student; 5 more cases traceable to recent travelers returning from the Philippines.

Generally stats are not published until after the quarter is over, and then it requires some time for the reporting window to close.

U.S. Immunization rates for measles by age 1 is 92%, according to WHO: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho...

I typically would not expect them to publish stats on vaccination failures to non-medical professionals, so no idea if any of the 14 cases so far were persons who were vaccinated. According to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... published in 1996, the apparent failure rate is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... published in 2004.

It also appears that about 70% of the people actually contracting measles are accounted for as vaccine failures, if this NIH report from 1987 is to be believed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

The numbers are within an order of magnitude of what you'd expect for a 92% vaccination rate, with a 10% failure rate (leaving the unvaccinated 8% to account for the other 30% of cases, since one would expect them to be predominantly rurally and regionally isolated at about that a 2.8x rate compared to "vaccinated, but failed").

Of course, failure rates vary by vaccine, as this 1988 Lancet article points out comparing the Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine to the Schwartz vaccine in 4-6 month year olds: http://www.thelancet.com/journ...

So we can guess that out of the 14 total cases, we can guess ~10 are vaccine failures, and ~4 are non-vaccinated, with about a 4% margin of error allowing a 9/5 split instead.

Like I said, they really do not like to publish numbers like this, and in a small sample like this, there are HIPPA considerations to publishing such data, since it would violate medical privacy for those who were vaccinated, but in whom the disease occurred anyway.

Eplerenone is not a statin. It's effects aren't even similar to a statin. Why even cite it?

Doh - The Google failed me...

Ok, another random outcomes trial that actually does contain a statin:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

It did not show a mortality benefit, but did demonstrate a reduction in stroke and cardiovascular events. Sure, spending another $100M to demonstrate a mortality outcome would be nice, but I doubt it would really change many minds (unless a number of much longer trials failed to show a benefit - probably at an even higher cost). Mortality is a harder endpoint to hit, since presumably you're likely to run into a heart attack before you run into a lethal heart attack.

Again, you can set the bar as high as you want, but is that the best way to spend your R&D dollars? I do believe that we should focus more on outcomes than markers like cholesterol levels and such, but I think that nitpicking the outcomes probably isn't cost-effective - at least not until we have most of the world's diseases somewhat solved and we just want to refine the solutions.

You seem to have shot yourself in the foot. From a 2004 paper in World Psychology on teen suicide:

rates per 100,000 young persons aged 15-19

country year Total

USA 2000 8

Japan 2000 4

China 1999 4

To be quite blunt, your entire argument seems to be that high standards and expectations are a bad thing. That, of course, flies in the face of the recently validated idea that high expectations lead to high performance

When I was in third grade, we didn't write out the times tables, we wrote out every single number between one and a thousand in numbers and in letters by ones, one and ten thousand by fives, tens, and fifties, and one and one million by hundreds as homework. It took about a week. That is a form of rote memorization and it works.

You talk about Common Core producing "confused, bitter adults.. or the worker drones they really want", yet the current curriculum is based more on memorization and parroting back the "correct" answers and gives partial credit for utilizing the correct method even if the answer is wrong (that, by the way, boils down to "it doesn't matter what you get as long as you do things my way") rather than critical thinking which many say is a hallmark of Common Core

It really sounds like your "bright" kid liked science and school when it was easier and as he has gotten older he has, like so many kids, started to dislike school and you are blaming Common Core instead of actually finding out why your kid doesn't like it. Maybe you should start spending more time with your kid and helping him with his studies, something called "being a parent", instead of making excuses.

half of my schooling was in europe , i totally agree with your opinion , there was one other thing we had to do in regards to arithmatic , that was starting in grade 3 , the teacher would ask the class for example " what is 7 times 9 , the first person to get it correct would go to the front of the class , then another question would be asked , this served 2 purpases , it felt great to be the first one to work out the answer , and it let the teacher know which students needed the most help !

rates per 100,000 young persons aged 15-19
country year Total

USA 2000 8
Japan 2000 4
China 1999 4

To be quite blunt, your entire argument seems to be that high standards and expectations are a bad thing. That, of course, flies in the face of the recently validated idea that high expectations lead to high performance

When I was in third grade, we didn't write out the times tables, we wrote out every single number between one and a thousand in numbers and in letters by ones, one and ten thousand by fives, tens, and fifties, and one and one million by hundreds as homework. It took about a week. That is a form of rote memorization and it works.

You talk about Common Core producing "confused, bitter adults.. or the worker drones they really want", yet the current curriculum is based more on memorization and parroting back the "correct" answers and gives partial credit for utilizing the correct method even if the answer is wrong (that, by the way, boils down to "it doesn't matter what you get as long as you do things my way") rather than critical thinking which many say is a hallmark of Common Core

It really sounds like your "bright" kid liked science and school when it was easier and as he has gotten older he has, like so many kids, started to dislike school and you are blaming Common Core instead of actually finding out why your kid doesn't like it. Maybe you should start spending more time with your kid and helping him with his studies, something called "being a parent", instead of making excuses.

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

This result would fully explain why men are thought to be better at math. They are overrepresented among high achievers (and low achievers). I went to MIT where you can clearly see this in science and math classes there. I went there when the admit rate was 50/50, the final matriculating class was 60/40 male, but in any hard science or math class you would see something closer to 80/20 male.

Increase my coffee intake from 1-3 cups per day to 10+ cups per day: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

> theÃNational Institutes of Health is an arm of big pharma, get a clue kids

You're flying kidding me right? Do you know what NIH is? What kind of dealing they have with big pharmas? They have strict rules on big pharmas involvement. If you don't have proof, don't spout nonsense, you asshole!

The actual benefits from pharmacogenetic testing for Warfarin metabolism are swamped by all the other factors which affect Warfarin metabolism (eg diet and other meds).

The FDA disagrees, and so does the evidence. And there are a whole lot of areas where pharmacogenetics is starting to have an impact on treatment. In any case, pharmacogenetics is a subset of pharmacogenomics; for example, as I mentioned in another comment, the lab where I work is working on expression-based tests for prediction of altitude sickness and setting up drug trials.

http://www.starlite.nih.gov/
"Work with your colleagues (some humanoid, some not) to complete quests in a lab. The STAR-LITE laboratory can be chaotic and safety violations will occur. You will make critical safety decisions to ensure that you and your colleagues work safely in a lab. STAR-LITE (Safe Techniques Advance Research â" Laboratory Interactive Training Environment) is an innovative and groundbreaking method to learn about laboratory safety techniques. STAR-LITE was inspired by and is dedicated to the memory of Elizabeth R. Griffin."

And:
http://www.ergriffinresearch.o...
"The Elizabeth R. Griffin Research Foundation, Inc. (the Foundation) is a non-profit organization which is involved worldwide in promoting safe and responsible practices for handling biological materials in institutions such as hospitals, public health agencies, and research laboratories. The Foundation works to support the expansion of safe, secure, responsible laboratory capacity in under-resourced countries where diseases emerge/re-emerge. The Elizabeth R. Griffin Research Foundation, Inc. was formed in loving memory of Beth Griffin, whose vibrant, young life as a researcher was prematurely ended after contracting the rare macaque-born B virus (previously known as Herpes B Virus) from an ocular exposure to Macaque monkey secretions while doing research."

There is quite a bit about proper eye protection in the simulation.

I'd agree from what I've seen first-hand that academic labs tend to cut corners and take risks that would not be acceptable in industry. Cover ups might be easier too with less people involved and with the grad students living more on the edge and in more fear due to David Goodstein's "Big Crunch" in academia.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg...

But part of it also may be poor training coupled with a youthful sense of invulnerability of students.

Anyway, my kid and I played through that STAR-LITE simulation. It's a bit slow paced, but we both learned a lot. If it was open source (which I don't think it is despite being charitable funded), perhaps someone could improve the game dynamics of it? It's OK as is, and well worth anyone's time, but I feel it could just be better. That website also had troubles a while back including the download link not working, and we asked someone we knew at a government lab to ask them to get it back up. An open source safety simulation could have greater availability, although it would be good for any modules for it to be vetted by safety experts.

See also my essay from a dozen years ago on open source and charitable dollars:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/open...
"Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to m

It has been upheld in US courts that even the minor fame from open-source authorship counts as economic gain (thus reinforcing the GPL's validity as being consequential).

I'd like to know the court citation. I did a quick Google search for "Arms Export Control Act open source software" and it looked like open source and anything else that was public domain was not subject to export restrictions.

http://oti.newamerica.net/blog...

http://www.mtu.edu/research/ad...

As to imports of scientific information, I read about that (I think) in Science, about how some American journals were refusing to accept papers from restricted countries. At least some lawyers argued that the regulations allowed the exchange of scientific information, the journals were wrong, and should start accepting papers.

I've seen submissions in the New England Journal of Medicine from Iran, usually short pieces in their "Images in Clinical Medicine" feature. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1... Iran has a pretty good health care system, with doctors trained in the UK.

Iraq used to have one of the best health care systems in the world. Some of the most bitter critics of Saddam Hussein were Iraqi doctors, and I used to read their articles in The Lancet and BMJ. After the war, some of them were treated worse by George W. Bush than they were by Saddam (as in blowing up hospitals).

If they couldn't publish their stuff in American medical journals, the British journals are happy to publish high-quality work.