Slashdot Mirror

Thing is, it doesn't take an enormous amount of intelligence to drive.

Well, that explains the abysmally low accident rate...

Oh, wait.

Driver distraction is the number one cause of accidents. In your experience, would you positively or negatively correlate intelligence and distractability?

Flippant, joking question aside, it turns out that IQ actually does correlate with lower accident rates at a national level. It seems that the social conditions that promote greater intelligence in the populace (higher standard of living, income equality, a more polite society, greater individual liberty) are good for better driving.

On an individual level, it's more of a wash. Individual income and academic education level do not correlate to accident rates, and both are good proxies for IQ. The study found that it's more "emotional intelligence" (aka conscientiousness) and level of driver training that mattered.

You're missing the point of the GP post. Yes, if you eat more calories, you're going to get fatter than if you didn't. But his point is this: why are some people constantly hungry when they eat the same amount of food that fills another person? What in the environment is changing that is causing various groups of research animals (across different species) to increase their weight over the years? According to this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/, the odds of this trend happening by chance is 1.2 × 10^7.

Scientific paper referenced is here.

Along with a table and chart of the increases.

Scientific paper referenced is here.

Along with a table and chart of the increases.

Scientific paper referenced is here.

Along with a table and chart of the increases.

I wasn't saying that the indication was anything.

Yes, I do believe they can tell the difference. They aren't determining the risk factor. They are passing on information based on scientific studies. The doctors who ran the studies make the determinations on risk. They provide the links to that research, and even specifically discuss other things you should do if you are concerned, including contacting a genetic counselor.

I didn't believe or not believe, I had gallstones based on the 23andMe report. I believed based on symptoms and a diagnostic ultrasound that showed two golf ball size stones where there should have been none.

Here's the study information they provide with this particular one. There's a lot of information on the page. I don't want to make this post huge by quoting the whole thing. It does include information on the lab that does the testing.

The FDA is pissed that 23andMe is making this information available, where you should normally spend a fortune with doctors, if you can get them to agree to doing genetic testing, to give you the same information.

ABCG8
Marker:rs11887534

This SNP is in a gene called ABCG8, which encodes a cholesterol transporter protein. The version of this SNP associated with increased risk for gallstones (C) causes a physical change in the protein that is thought to result in increased cholesterol transport into the biliary ducts and the gallbladder. This may precipitate the formation of gallstones; however, additional studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which this SNP affects gallstone formation. Having two copies of the C version of this SNP confers higher risk than having just one.

Research suggests that the C version of this SNP is also associated with slightly earlier onset of gallstones. There is also some evidence that this SNP may be associated with gallbladder cancer (gallstones are a risk factor for gallbladder cancer), but larger studies are required to verify this.

Multiple studies have confirmed this association in populations with European ancestry. A small Chinese study examined this SNP and found suggestive evidence for the association with gallstones and biliary tract cancer, but more studies are needed to confirm the association in Asian populations. This association has not been studied in populations with African ancestry.
Citations

Buch S et al. (2007). "A genome-wide association scan identifies the hepatic cholesterol transporter ABCG8 as a susceptibility factor for human gallstone disease." Nat. Genet. 39(8):995-9.

Stender S et al. (2011) . "Sterol transporter adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette transporter G8, gallstones, and biliary cancer in 62,000 individuals from the general population." Hepatology 53(2):640-8.

Xu HL et al. (2011). "Cholesterol metabolism gene polymorphisms and the risk of biliary tract cancers and stones: a population-based case-control study in Shanghai, China." Carcinogenesis 32(1):58-62.

The genotyping services of 23andMe are performed in LabCorp's CLIA-certified laboratory. The tests have not been cleared or approved by the FDA but have been analytically validated according to CLIA standards. The information on this page is intended for research and educational purposes only, and is not for diagnostic use.

I wasn't saying that the indication was anything.

Yes, I do believe they can tell the difference. They aren't determining the risk factor. They are passing on information based on scientific studies. The doctors who ran the studies make the determinations on risk. They provide the links to that research, and even specifically discuss other things you should do if you are concerned, including contacting a genetic counselor.

I didn't believe or not believe, I had gallstones based on the 23andMe report. I believed based on symptoms and a diagnostic ultrasound that showed two golf ball size stones where there should have been none.

Here's the study information they provide with this particular one. There's a lot of information on the page. I don't want to make this post huge by quoting the whole thing. It does include information on the lab that does the testing.

The FDA is pissed that 23andMe is making this information available, where you should normally spend a fortune with doctors, if you can get them to agree to doing genetic testing, to give you the same information.

ABCG8
Marker:rs11887534

This SNP is in a gene called ABCG8, which encodes a cholesterol transporter protein. The version of this SNP associated with increased risk for gallstones (C) causes a physical change in the protein that is thought to result in increased cholesterol transport into the biliary ducts and the gallbladder. This may precipitate the formation of gallstones; however, additional studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which this SNP affects gallstone formation. Having two copies of the C version of this SNP confers higher risk than having just one.

Research suggests that the C version of this SNP is also associated with slightly earlier onset of gallstones. There is also some evidence that this SNP may be associated with gallbladder cancer (gallstones are a risk factor for gallbladder cancer), but larger studies are required to verify this.

Multiple studies have confirmed this association in populations with European ancestry. A small Chinese study examined this SNP and found suggestive evidence for the association with gallstones and biliary tract cancer, but more studies are needed to confirm the association in Asian populations. This association has not been studied in populations with African ancestry.
Citations

Buch S et al. (2007). "A genome-wide association scan identifies the hepatic cholesterol transporter ABCG8 as a susceptibility factor for human gallstone disease." Nat. Genet. 39(8):995-9.

Stender S et al. (2011) . "Sterol transporter adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette transporter G8, gallstones, and biliary cancer in 62,000 individuals from the general population." Hepatology 53(2):640-8.

Xu HL et al. (2011). "Cholesterol metabolism gene polymorphisms and the risk of biliary tract cancers and stones: a population-based case-control study in Shanghai, China." Carcinogenesis 32(1):58-62.

The genotyping services of 23andMe are performed in LabCorp's CLIA-certified laboratory. The tests have not been cleared or approved by the FDA but have been analytically validated according to CLIA standards. The information on this page is intended for research and educational purposes only, and is not for diagnostic use.

I wasn't saying that the indication was anything.

Yes, I do believe they can tell the difference. They aren't determining the risk factor. They are passing on information based on scientific studies. The doctors who ran the studies make the determinations on risk. They provide the links to that research, and even specifically discuss other things you should do if you are concerned, including contacting a genetic counselor.

I didn't believe or not believe, I had gallstones based on the 23andMe report. I believed based on symptoms and a diagnostic ultrasound that showed two golf ball size stones where there should have been none.

Here's the study information they provide with this particular one. There's a lot of information on the page. I don't want to make this post huge by quoting the whole thing. It does include information on the lab that does the testing.

The FDA is pissed that 23andMe is making this information available, where you should normally spend a fortune with doctors, if you can get them to agree to doing genetic testing, to give you the same information.

ABCG8
Marker:rs11887534

This SNP is in a gene called ABCG8, which encodes a cholesterol transporter protein. The version of this SNP associated with increased risk for gallstones (C) causes a physical change in the protein that is thought to result in increased cholesterol transport into the biliary ducts and the gallbladder. This may precipitate the formation of gallstones; however, additional studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which this SNP affects gallstone formation. Having two copies of the C version of this SNP confers higher risk than having just one.

Research suggests that the C version of this SNP is also associated with slightly earlier onset of gallstones. There is also some evidence that this SNP may be associated with gallbladder cancer (gallstones are a risk factor for gallbladder cancer), but larger studies are required to verify this.

Multiple studies have confirmed this association in populations with European ancestry. A small Chinese study examined this SNP and found suggestive evidence for the association with gallstones and biliary tract cancer, but more studies are needed to confirm the association in Asian populations. This association has not been studied in populations with African ancestry.
Citations

Buch S et al. (2007). "A genome-wide association scan identifies the hepatic cholesterol transporter ABCG8 as a susceptibility factor for human gallstone disease." Nat. Genet. 39(8):995-9.

Stender S et al. (2011) . "Sterol transporter adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette transporter G8, gallstones, and biliary cancer in 62,000 individuals from the general population." Hepatology 53(2):640-8.

Xu HL et al. (2011). "Cholesterol metabolism gene polymorphisms and the risk of biliary tract cancers and stones: a population-based case-control study in Shanghai, China." Carcinogenesis 32(1):58-62.

The genotyping services of 23andMe are performed in LabCorp's CLIA-certified laboratory. The tests have not been cleared or approved by the FDA but have been analytically validated according to CLIA standards. The information on this page is intended for research and educational purposes only, and is not for diagnostic use.

You are beating up a staw man. I never said there is no acceptable risk or even that low doses of radiation are not acceptable in some situations.

Truly sorry about that. I do skitter about and fly off with my agenda hanging out sometimes.

I do appreciate the quandary faced by diagnosticians and those trying to establish occupational exposure guidelines, these measurements do matter. There was a time when even shoe stores had fluoroscope X-ray machines children would play with after school, emitters were much stronger and few doctors used lead aprons. Some hypothesis -- preferably a provable one -- is necessary. The "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" is a good effective dose of common sense intended to become a policy and legal framework, but what numbers and equations will we plug into it?

It may be that for every hundred workers exposed to some small level of radiation -- aside from the horde that is happy with playing it really safe, there may be some dozen who are actively hoping that allowable 'safe' limits can be raised, with sound supporting reasons, so they do not have to live with the regulatory Sword of Damocles hanging so close above their heads. I would be one of those. Nuclear energy sounds a lot safer than some of the potentially lethal hazards I face daily.

You are right to pose there might be a non-linear risk curve hidden in the noise (of low dose risks). There are proposals to reconcile low-dose adjustments to LNT in such a way that it does not present such a hard 'barrier' when conflating dose with mortality, and (perhaps, me guessing) from a consensus that in a field of exponential or even quadratic relationships, drawing a straight line through anything more complicated than cow-counting is uncomfortable.

A Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor (DREF) attempts to half risk per unit dose at low doses or low dose rates (or both) from its point on the linear scale. Arbitrary but probably closer to reality. NASA takes it down to the organ level and calculates a career limit. Add to that cancers that may lie dormant, held in check by the body's own immune responses and you have a lot of 'noise' and extra screening to sift through.

Maurice Tubiana, MD has compiled an excellent 'fact check' on LNT The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data which summarizes many sources (167 ref citations!) to conclude that there is no (small) elephant in the living room. He even covers nine studies that suggest that low does may exhibit Hormesis (a beneficial effect).

As you might guess, finding evidence of hormesis was astounding and is a hot research potato. But an ecological study done by an outspoken Bernard_Cohen is mentioned on the DREF page, emphasis mine:

"Efforts to confirm directly the effects of indoor radon have led to mixed and highly controversial conclusions. One class of studies, termed ecological studies, looks for correlations between the average radon level in a region and the lung cancer fatality rate. In the largest and best known of these studies, covering 1,729 counties in the United States, Bernard Cohen finds the county-by-county lung cancer rates to be inversely correlated with average radon levels. Although many readers have interpreted this study as suggesting hormesis, Cohen limits his conclusions to saying that the results refute the linearity hypothesis. This study covered most of the US population, and therefore the statistical uncertainties are small

One company, for example, offers 166 tests in one of its testing packages where approximately 60% of the tests (99) are categorized as âpreliminary researchâ(TM) because the genetic-association data have not yet been replicated (www.23andme.com/health/all/). These tests are given 1, 2, or 3 stars based on the size of the study that supports the genetic association for which they test. Information for each of these tests cites references for the original ïnding of the genetic association, including the journal where it was published and the study size. It also provides the number of attempted replications and the number of contrary studies that have been published. Although transparent, examination of the scientiïc evidence provided for many of the genetic associations in this category raises the question of whether these tests should even be included in a genetic-testing package. Two of the ïve genetic tests with 1-star status (those for âavoidance of errorâ(TM) and âobsessive compulsive disorderâ(TM)) are based on single studies with fewer than 100 participants (https://www.23andme.com/you/health/). In both cases the variants map to the D2 dopamine receptor, a gene that has repeatedly been associated with human behavioral traits and attracted newspaper headlines, only to have the associations refuted in later studies [8]. Eight of the 37 (22%) available 2-star-rated genetic associations (originating from a single study with less than 750 participants) have a âcontrary studyâ(TM) indicated. Two different 3-star tests, one for Lou Gehrigâ(TM)s Disease (ALS) and another for obesity, utilize variants that have been positively associated with disease in one or two studies, respectively. However, both these variants have failed replication in four additional studies (https://www.23andme.com/you/health/). Although, the company boasts of its 'systematic vetting processâ(TM) used to determine which research ïndings to include in its genetic-testing package, a number of highly questionable tests continue to be offered to consumers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20828856

That's actually kind of what's happened. The US Government now requires all journals to make any paper funded by US tax dollars freely accessible to everyone within 12 months of publication. There's similar agreements in the EU, Britain, and Australia. When you do the copyright paperwork after a maunscript is accepted one of the things you incldue is the grant numbers that funded it so the journal knows whether they have to open-access it or not. The US agreement went into force in about 2007 from memory.

Close. That's just the NIH and it was 2008.

It goes without saying that the moronic get what they deserve, though sadly, when herd immunity is compromised, sometimes the innocent (those who cannot be inoculated) pay the price too.

Lets be clear here, the current hysteria is about some 175 cases, vs 60 last year.
Hardly a herd immunity issue.

Also, only 90% of those 175 cases were NON vaccinated, which means that there is a significant vaccine failure rate of around 17.5 percent.

There are increasing reports of vaccine failures including here and here and here

So yeah, there are too many doubters out there who endanger their children. But the numbers we are talking about are already extremely low. More people are killed by bee stings each year.

It goes without saying that the moronic get what they deserve, though sadly, when herd immunity is compromised, sometimes the innocent (those who cannot be inoculated) pay the price too.

Lets be clear here, the current hysteria is about some 175 cases, vs 60 last year.
Hardly a herd immunity issue.

Also, only 90% of those 175 cases were NON vaccinated, which means that there is a significant vaccine failure rate of around 17.5 percent.

There are increasing reports of vaccine failures including here and here and here

So yeah, there are too many doubters out there who endanger their children. But the numbers we are talking about are already extremely low. More people are killed by bee stings each year.

First link: "Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection." In other words, whooping cough vaccine against whooping virus (for which it was designed) may actually promote infection of a related but not identical virus. This does not say the vaccine promotes sickness.

Second link: "Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. During a large outbreak, we examined the incidence of pertussis and effectiveness of vaccination in a well-vaccinated, well-defined community." In other words, the whooping cough vaccine may not last as long as thought. More boosters may be needed or a different vaccine may need to be developed. It says nothing about spreading sickness.

Third link: "Safety and shedding data from four clinical studies were included in the BLA supplement. Additionally, a publication with associated electronic datasets was submitted in support of a label claim regarding shedding in HIV positive subjects." In other words, it is shows the shedding rates of HIV infected subjects whose immune system is somewhat compromised, not the general population.

Fourth link: "RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine and vaccine-derived strains were detected actively in stool samples from 13 out of 61 (21.3%) infants having diarrhea within 2 weeks of rotavirus vaccination, and among three out of 460 (0.7%) cases with acute gastroenteritis captured via the Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program. Six (37.5%) of these 16 vaccine-derived viral specimens were associated with a G1P[8] strain thought to be the result of genetic reassortment between two component RotaTeq strains. Although nearly half of these reassortant-associated cases had underlying medical conditions, such as severe combined immunodeficiency disorder, further study is needed to understand the relationship between shedding, viral reassortants and underlying medical conditions." So a sample size of 61 in which half the infants had other medical issues had samples of rotavirus. Again, the vaccine does not spread sickness.

Those were just the first four links. All of them say the same thing: vaccines are not 100% effective. But no scientists have ever claimed them to be. Each of the first three showed that in certain circumstances, the vaccine is not effective. In fact, the first link says that the Pertussis vaccine is not effective against another disease. Excuse for not being panicked about that.

First link: "Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection." In other words, whooping cough vaccine against whooping virus (for which it was designed) may actually promote infection of a related but not identical virus. This does not say the vaccine promotes sickness.

Second link: "Despite widespread childhood vaccination against Bordetella pertussis, disease remains prevalent. It has been suggested that acellular vaccine may be less effective than previously believed. During a large outbreak, we examined the incidence of pertussis and effectiveness of vaccination in a well-vaccinated, well-defined community." In other words, the whooping cough vaccine may not last as long as thought. More boosters may be needed or a different vaccine may need to be developed. It says nothing about spreading sickness.

Third link: "Safety and shedding data from four clinical studies were included in the BLA supplement. Additionally, a publication with associated electronic datasets was submitted in support of a label claim regarding shedding in HIV positive subjects." In other words, it is shows the shedding rates of HIV infected subjects whose immune system is somewhat compromised, not the general population.

Fourth link: "RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine and vaccine-derived strains were detected actively in stool samples from 13 out of 61 (21.3%) infants having diarrhea within 2 weeks of rotavirus vaccination, and among three out of 460 (0.7%) cases with acute gastroenteritis captured via the Australian Rotavirus Surveillance Program. Six (37.5%) of these 16 vaccine-derived viral specimens were associated with a G1P[8] strain thought to be the result of genetic reassortment between two component RotaTeq strains. Although nearly half of these reassortant-associated cases had underlying medical conditions, such as severe combined immunodeficiency disorder, further study is needed to understand the relationship between shedding, viral reassortants and underlying medical conditions." So a sample size of 61 in which half the infants had other medical issues had samples of rotavirus. Again, the vaccine does not spread sickness.

Those were just the first four links. All of them say the same thing: vaccines are not 100% effective. But no scientists have ever claimed them to be. Each of the first three showed that in certain circumstances, the vaccine is not effective. In fact, the first link says that the Pertussis vaccine is not effective against another disease. Excuse for not being panicked about that.

I was also interested and did a quick Google search and found a few different results:

Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus

White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study.

It seems as though there are some differences in the brain for transgendered individuals in that areas of their brain are more similar to the gender that they think they are rather than the brain of the gender that typically corresponds with their biological sex. It also appears (at least from these studies) that hormone therapy is not responsible for those changes. There isn't anything to suggest what causes this to occur, so it could be biological or social, but I doubt it would be largely due to social causes as that would seem to imply that people could become far more intelligent simply by acting like a genius. At the same time, I don't think it's genetic (or entirely so) either as it intuitively seems as though being transgendered probably produces a less fit individual as I can't imagine having to cope with your brain telling you that you're in the wrong body for your whole life making life easier, especially if everyone else treats you as though you're insane.

Simon LeVay also published some similar research about 20 years ago that examined differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, so some of that research might also provide some insight into what might cause the observed differences.

Chimps can and do understand, they just have never been observed to understand it in the wild. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151757/

Elephants in the wild can understand human pointing. http://www.decodedscience.com/elephants-understand-pointing-better-chimps/38097

So, sure, chimps may not natively understand human pointing, but dogs only got that way because of thousands of years of selection of offspring that cohabit better with humans. Take a wolf and point, it won't understand.

Yet everyone is affected. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2026922/

Alcoholic impairment of judgement is something that is much riskier than being able to stay in your lane, and is something most people (including you, apparently) either don't think about or don't know about. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-005-0057-9 Even small amounts of alcohol impair your ability to make risk/reward decisions. When driving, this means you damage your ability to decide to go ahead and hit the dog in the road when swerving would hit a pedestrian.

That is the problem with low amounts of alcohol. Not reaction time, but rather your ability to make the *correct* snap decision under pressure.

Any citation for that?

Nope; as noted, "I haven't run across anyone in my personal life...", so this would fall under the "anecdote" category. :)

I want to see a proper double blind study done of this.

I look at an LCD all day, then sometimes some more at home. I do not suffer from any eyestrain I can detect.

Similar to the anecdote/data duality is the fact that not everyone is affected by things the same way. You may be one of the lucky few or lucky many who aren't negatively impacted by looking at an LCD all day. I know that my nearsightedness is markedly worse at the end of any workweek where I've been staring at the monitor all the time, and that my eyesight is noticeably improved after spending several days not staring at something only a couple feet away. YMMV, and all that.

The impact of backlit screens on circadian rhythms has been studied, if memory serves. Some quick googling pulls up a goodly number of hits, including a couple actual studies just in the first page of hits. Changing from regular web-wide Google to Google Scholar produces more hits for studies.

And more specific to eye strain are these hits. I haven't waded through, but the number of hits (524) and the titles of the first page of hits suggests that this is an area of study. This one in particular sounds like what you might be looking for: Comparison of eye fatigue among readings on conventional book and two typical electronic books equipped with electrophoretic display and LC display . This link to the paper is paywalled, unfortunately, but you might be able to ferret out an open copy of it somewhere.

Cheers,

1) High insulin causes fat storage. Do thin carb-eating Janapanese makes this wrong? No they do not, as their insulin levels is not above other populations.

Well, in fact I neglected a way to eat a lot of carbs, get a high insulin and not make fat : this is the diabetes where adipocytes get resistant to insulin. It seems to be a problem in Asia.

Really? Then how do I know several that make well over 60k? How did I know postdocs 10 years ago that made 60k?

With the right skills in the right area, yes, you can make that at a good research university. One in the midwest with decent cost of living even.

Heck, NIH funded postdocs start at over $39K, with 0 years of experience. Work in a competitive area and your boss will throw in money above that.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/nrsa.htm

That would be true if RoundUp was free. It isn't. Spraying with RoundUp is expensive both in terms of labor and cost of materials, so there definitely is an incentive to minimize its use.

Whether roundup is free is not at issue. The issue is the cost difference in relation to additional time needed to do a suitable job missing spraying crops with roundup had crop not been "roundup ready"?

What after all is the market incentive for roundup ready crops if not reduction of labor cost?

There is also the issue of relative toxicity. RoundUp is the least toxic herbicide to mammals known. Other large scale farming practices require use of much more toxic practices.

The issue I raised is limited to the real world implication of crops that can now tolerate more roundup than they could in the past thanks to genetic manipulation. I do not wish to compare other solutions unless it is somehow relevant to the original question.

NIH Tox comments re: Glyphosate:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122

So why the danger Will Robinson warning label on bottles of roundup from home depot if it is so safe? Assume I'm a complete moron... I am unable to parse or imagine a way by which both statements can concurrently be true.

Also please note - RoundUp is a trade name for an off-patent herbicide. The generic name is glyphosate, and most of the production of glyphosate is done by Chinese generic manufacturers.

Alright I feel smarter now.

Nobody says all GMOs are safe.

Unfortunately this is a claim I have seen made many times. I would hope all would agree it not to be defensible.

> However if you do this there is no longer any incentive to keep crops from not being sprayed arbitrarily to save time/money.

That would be true if RoundUp was free. It isn't. Spraying with RoundUp is expensive both in terms of labor and cost of materials, so there definitely is an incentive to minimize its use.

There is also the issue of relative toxicity. RoundUp is the least toxic herbicide to mammals known. Other large scale farming practices require use of much more toxic practices.

NIH Tox comments re: Glyphosate:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10854122

Also please note - RoundUp is a trade name for an off-patent herbicide. The generic name is glyphosate, and most of the production of glyphosate is done by Chinese generic manufacturers.

> How the hell can you just blanket assume all GMOs are safe all strains regardless of the details of each strain and regardless of studies produced before the introduction of subsequent strains?

Nobody says all GMOs are safe. Heck, all sorts of natural plants are dangerous under various circumstances. Look up Castor beans. Also please note pretty much any artifact of technology is unsafe under some circumstance or another. If we insisted on complete safety for everything before adopting it we'd have banned fire due to its obvious dangers and still be living in unheated caves eating our food raw.

Life is a matter of balancing risks. Do the well-established science on the GMO plant you plan to introduce and you will get a good idea of whether or not you can tolerate the risk.

Isn't MRI practically NMR? NMR is used for chemical analysis. Then how come MRI machines can't be programmed to do the same?

I think they have/are been: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9339439 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23494381 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12891651 http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/brain-imaging-0301.html

Isn't MRI practically NMR? NMR is used for chemical analysis. Then how come MRI machines can't be programmed to do the same?

I think they have/are been: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9339439 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23494381 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12891651 http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/brain-imaging-0301.html

Isn't MRI practically NMR? NMR is used for chemical analysis. Then how come MRI machines can't be programmed to do the same?

I think they have/are been: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9339439 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23494381 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12891651 http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/brain-imaging-0301.html

Original AC here. There's been some research indicating that short courses of antibiotics can be better in some cases: http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Short-Antibiotic-Courses-Safer-for-Breathing-Tube-Infections.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17765048
(but I didn't have pneumonia, it was something else).

One could argue that if the patient recovers stops taking the antibiotics and goes home, the surviving bacteria that are resistant, may not stay resistant months and numerous bacteria generations later in an environment that's free of modern antibiotics, competing against other bacteria. In contrast it is very likely that bacteria in the hospitals and farms where antibiotics are ever present would have to retain resistance to survive.

Whether research bears this out is another matter. ;)

Perhaps the researchers are too young to have read this 1979 paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17820742

Hey, let's try to keep some sense of perspective about all this.

Some of us have been running a largely successful antibiotic R&D program for much of our ~1.5 billion year history, while occasionally taking time out of our busy schedules to help keep those lazy 'plants' alive and produce the bread that gives you the energy to sustain life and the ethanol that allows you to endure it.

Others, who I am too tactful to name, spent almost a decade trying to copy our homework, between 1928 and 1938, and after a whole 75 years are on the verge of totally fucking up at antibiotic R&D and regressing to 19th century bacterial morbidity and mortality levels.

But no, I get it, I'm the ineffective one. Sorry about that, all my fault.

You're right, there can be a large amount of difference even between co-infecting strains. However, there's quite a lot of potential variant sites - you can sort of think of it as a large multi-dimensional problem, which thousands of axes in which you can see variation. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.

You can use some pretty simple formulas to estimate what the "infecting" strain looked like for any given person, as well (even if there are multiple separate infecting strains, possibly occurring at distinct times).*

While this approach won't be perfect (there _will_ be both false negatives and false positives), it's a fairly straight-forward application of available information. I am very worried about some law enforcement agency maintaining a database of HIV users, and running a blind search for any new infected patients. If they restrain themselves to only testing reasonable suspects (as additional evidence), this may be okay.

The AIDS-panic never really went away for a lot of people - I'm afraid that improper application of these modeling tools could easily bring it back.

*Full disclosure, I co-authored a paper on some preliminary work for this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716075

While regolith ain't soil, it can be used as a basic substrate which hearty weeds wouldn't complain about.

Uh, they have a licensed pharmacist right there to analyze the results, in the rest of the world a pharmacist can basically do everything an NP can do because they have to know medicine and pharmacology to do their job.

If you look at the Theranos website it make it cleat that the test are still ordered and interpreted by physicians. you are also misinformed about the scope of practice of pharmacists in most of the world. In may places pharmacists have been given limited prescribing power. But prescribing is only part of the role of medical practitioners, and pharmacists are not broadly trained in methodology of diagnosis and laboratory evaluation. This is not hating on pharmacists, pharmacists are fantastic and their knowledge of pharmacology and medication management is key to good patient care, but no self respecting pharmacist would claim that their role in healthcare is similar to that of an NP.

Now here's the crazy part: Apparently, when child pornography is legalized... child abuse goes down.

There's this study that says this in its abstract: "Of particular note is that [the Czech Republic], like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse."

The rice eaten in Japan is overwhelmingly white rice, which has a high insulin score

How do they cook it? IIRC, Vinegared rice is rinsed, which may remove some starsh. And vinegar is known to lower glycemic index.

Even assuming ALL the rice they ate was with vinegar according to this paper that would lower the Glycemic Index by 20-40% (assuming you and the paper both mean the same thing with vinegar).

That would bring the rice roughly in line with Mars bars.

It doesn't matter what the politicians call it. It IS an abortifacient.

Maybe you will believe wikicrap?

Or, perhaps Web MD?

I know! The God Damned Manufacturer of the drug

But I don't expect you to follow any of the links, even the ones to the government site and the manufacturer's site. You are too invested in your open erroneous opinion.

>beneficial not just in lowering LDLs, but also rates of myocardial infarctions(heart attacks), coronary heart disease, and overall mortality.
While raising the rates of other diseases like cancer to a greater extent and in significant populations (like women) offering no benefit at all.

So if you limit your view to heart disease and related diseases statins sometimes appear to work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677075

But if you measure all cause mortality, they're a disaster.
If you do a quite big study and report it honestly, you might find the statins don't help much with anything
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/11/cholesterol-heart-attacks-and-jupiter.html
But sometimes you have to stop the study before the evidence becomes too clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUPITER_trial

No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.

Really. Let's see a few more recent studies, then.

No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.

Well then, let's see what major medical and health associations say, then:

• The American Heart Association: (1)
• The Center for Disease Control: (1)
• The European Food Safety Authority: (1)
• The World Health Organization: (1) (2)

It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.

Okay, cool beans. Feel free to explain the pathways and why more ketones is a good thing.

No it isn't. You may have noticed how people have become less healthy as they removed saturated fats from their diet. You may however missed the vast body of evidence that has replaced the crappy epidemiological evidence that wrongly implicated saturated fats in the 70s.

Really. Let's see a few more recent studies, then.

No. This is the thoroughly debunked consensus. It is not longer consensus.

Well then, let's see what major medical and health associations say, then:

• The American Heart Association: (1)
• The Center for Disease Control: (1)
• The European Food Safety Authority: (1)
• The World Health Organization: (1) (2)

It's ketogenic. The metabolic pathways that make this true are fully understood.

Okay, cool beans. Feel free to explain the pathways and why more ketones is a good thing.

Interesting study on gender differences regarding spatial relations. forbid that there might be actual differences between the sexes...sorry, I just despise political correctness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909401/

What makes "health care" exist outside of the framework of goods and services in general?

Two things, really. First, individual demand for healthcare is not normally distributed. For other products, like iPhones and cabbage, most people have some desire or utility for the product, and their purchasing decisions can be imagined to have (at least a small) rational component. Lower the price, raise the demand. The producer has a built-in motivation to find production efficiencies, expand the market, and improve the world by making iPhones available to everyone. In contrast, the demand for (say) insulin is restricted to a specific and small population. Regardless of how cheaply you can produce and distribute insulin, there will be very few buyers.

Second, price negotiation for healthcare is an inefficient market. For one side, the negotiation is services-for-goods. For the other side, it is life-for-goods, and very few people are willing to put a finite value on their continued existence. In that perspective, a "rational" healthcare provider should behave exactly as a mugger and demand all of his customer's assets. There is no motivation for providers to compete on price.

Most health care spending is dedicated to gradually improving quality of life, not saving people from axe wounds.

No, most health care spending occurs in the last year, even the last month, of one's life. see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1464043/ Most health care spending is dedicated to desperate and futile measures to prolong a loved one's time on earth or at least to ease the pain and burden of their passing.

So you're saying nobody anywhere ever, other than the government, would fund climate research?

Let's rephrase to remove that objection.

Publicly funded research is essential because there are many fields where private funding would be somewhere between insufficient to non-existent, especially those with low potential for obvious commercial application (ironically, like climate change). Additionally there are many fields where monetary interest raises questions about the reliability of industry based research (eg. the efficacy of glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis), which reliability can be assessed only by comparison with publicly funded (as close as we can practically get to independent) research.

To blame the nature of government funded research itself, for the gross attempt at state intervention described in the present article, is not only to misunderstand the nature and ignore the importance of public research, it is to underestimate the transgression contemplated by this intervention. Instead of attacking science funding we ought attack the administrator who fails in their duty to respect independence in publicly funded research. With pitchforks if necessary.

PubMed doesn't index all journals. They don't index Topics in Language Disorders. (You can get the index list of PubMed titles in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/advanced ).

Here's a list of free articles in Topics in Language Disorders.
http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/viewallmostpopulararticles.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

It is annoying. Some of the interesting ones are free, but some of the interesting ones are not.

I agree with you, of course. Knowledge should be free. Of course, there's the question of who's going to pay for it. It looks like the easy days for the commercial academic publishers are over.

The PMC Open Access Subset some or all openaccess content is a part of the total collection of articles in PMC. Articles in the PMC Open Access Subset are still protected by copyright, but are made available under a Creative Commons or similar license that generally allows more liberal redistribution and reuse than a traditional copyrighted work. Note, however, that the license terms are not identical for all of the articles in this subset. Please refer to the license statement in each article for specific terms of use. We also provide a search-by-license feature, described below, which enables finding articles with specific reuse rights.

Preprint federally funded research should be available online for little or not cost.

No cost; the cost has already been borne by the tax paying public who paid for the research; what's happening with these journals is that the researcher is double-dipping: once at the public trough, and a second time at the journal trough.

NIH funded publications are all available at no cost, no more than 1 year after initial publication at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

Healthcare is a conservative field that does not change the standards of care rapidly (for good reason). For a provider to flit from new idea to newest idea every four weeks is irresponsible.

But an alleged professional whining that they get charged for a valuable product when they charge large amounts for their services, that is just silly.

As is calling publicly funded research a "product" which can be sold for money beyond the public funding which has already funded the science and the creation of the article describing it. Again: double dipping. This is in effect defrauding of the public paying for the research.

What is really silly is an alleged professional being unaware of the existence of PubMed Central or disingenuously pretending that the fastest way to get affordable access to current research is to wait 8 years for it to show up in a $200 textbook. Don't get me wrong: the current publishing infrastructure is a hold-over from bygone days of paper, and the academic world would do well for the journals to separate from their historical publishers, but NIH has done a great job of opening access to federally funded biomedical research. Many of the journals have even taken the further step of opening their whole archives (although a depressing number of them still paywall anything older than 1997).

It's probably incredibly sad, but I think I probably have more pirated research papers than I do music, movies, or other content.

"Back in the day," piracy was the single most common way to distribute scientific research. In fact, I still have three filing cabinets full of articles I xeroxed either from a library or from a fellow researcher. We call it fair use. The modern system is much better - higher quality type and images, fewer dead trees, and no more $0.10/page xerox fees. All NIH funded research is available for free no more than 1 year after publication. see http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4382101&cid=45249551

Honestly, every time I see one of these "paywalled research is hurting patients" bits on /. I wonder how the submitter, supposedly a health-care expert, has managed to stay ignorant of the 10-year-old requirement for archiving in PubMed Central and the resulting massive trove of free books and journals at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

You know about PubMed, right? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

No, no, no: Swartz was able to download JSTOR articles at all because, as a research fellow at MIT, he had the exact same kind of access agreement. All he did was scrape stuff from the JSTOR site using that access. The submitter was wrong to write that portion of the summary.

...and at any rate, (most) NIH-funded research must become publicly accessible via PubMed Central within 12 months of publication, so this, too, is something of a non-story. Paywalls aren't quite as thorough (or elite) as we sometimes think.

For anyone who is wondering what is taking so long with curing paralysis, one complication is that mouse and rat models aren't super great. Their spinal cords recover to some degree on their own. Biologists are limited to measuring increased recovery rates. Obviously, a spinal cord that is healing itself is quite different from a spinal cord which is not. Young children seem to have some capacity to regenerate neurons of the spinal cord (though my main source there is a friend who worked on spinal cord regeneration, and this was over beers.) Obviously, no one has extensively tested that. I'm guessing that kids getting out of wheelchairs will happen before adults getting out of wheelchairs.

There's also promising work in preventing a lot of damage within hours of the initial injury. If you can prevent glial scarring, it seems you'll have a much better shot of recovering. However, that again isn't useful to people who are already paralyzed.

Anyway, research is moving fast enough to be excited about, but still slower than one would prefer.

Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage). I guess they can prevent lacerations, but that's about it. Helmet advocates always quote a study from the 1980s (funded by helmet manufacturers) that showed an 84% reduction in brain injuries, but other work has not borne this out. (example)

You need to do some real research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Effectiveness Its referenced. There have been many studies since the 1980's that have demonstrated the same results. Helmets are quite effective at reducing or stopping brain injury completely. The big problem is that a helmet is good for one impact only, this is true for motorcycle helmets as well. As with most car problems, bike problems come from people not taking care of their equipment.

As an additional point, helmet laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight..

Head injuries decreased by over 50% and have stayed down despite cycling becoming more popular over the years.

Australia is a case study about how effective mandatory helmet laws are at reducing cyclist injuries. I was a kid when this law was introduced, it didn't really affect anyone who really wanted to ride a bike.

A no helmet trial was conducted in Canberra in 2009, cyclist injuries shot up 150% in a single month.

Motorcycle helmets actually offer good protection, while bicycle helmets don't. For any impact over about 10 mph, they are not going to signifcantly reduce the peak accelerations your brain experiences (it's your brain sloshing that does the damage). I guess they can prevent lacerations, but that's about it. Helmet advocates always quote a study from the 1980s (funded by helmet manufacturers) that showed an 84% reduction in brain injuries, but other work has not borne this out. (example)

Wearing a helmet is applying a different standard to risk than we do in many other situations. Cycling is actually slightly safer per mile than walking, yet we don't make peds wear helmets. Just the same, we could make drivers wear helmets just like race car drivers do. That would actually prevent a huge number of deaths. But we don't. So why are cyclists singled out to wear the safety yarmulkes?

As an additional point, helment laws are actually terrible for cycling safety. After Australia made helmets mandatory, cycling went down 1/3 overnight. Fewer cyclists means drivers are less likely to expect them. In addition, there is evidence that cyclists wearing helments engage in riskier behavior as a form of risk-compensation.

Bike helmets are not for surviving getting hit by a car. If you get hit by a car over 25mph, you'll probably die. There is no getting around that. Fact of biking.

Bike helmets are when a dog runs and crashes into your bike. Or, when you hit a pot-hole and fall. That is when bike helmets save lives.

I was biking in Ann Arbor where the stupid bike lane goes into the sidewalk and road and back to the sidewalk. When the bike lane goes into the sidewalk, it makes a sharp turn and that is mostly obscured by parked cars. Somebody had dropped a huge box right where the bike lane came from the road to the sidewalk. I hit the box and was flying superman into concrete. The helmet saved me from a skull fracture.