Slashdot Mirror

I did not grow up as a geek spending all my free time pouring over computer stuff. I have never found Java difficult and I have never understood complaints to that end.

Try writing a Java program that solves this problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_scheduling_problem

Then, compare that to the effort needed to solve that problem using Prolog:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3345653

And finally, consider what else you might be able to do quickly and with less effort if you could embed Prolog in the general purpose language you are using (not easy to do in Java, given the lack of a useful macro system):

http://pseudofish.com/blog/2011/08/05/prolog-in-clojure/

It's been available for years in other places; my partner wrote her dissertation on 17th century science, and used scans of Hooke from a couple of online sources. The National Library of Medicine has a beautiful flash version of it. There is a decent version at the University of Wisconsin. It's at archive.org in a nice scan. The PG edition is very good, an original spelling transcription with scans of the original plates. IIRC there's also a scanned edition in the (pay access) database Early English Books Online. So this is not news at all.

But it's always a good time to look at Hooke. His illustrations really are astonishingly beautiful, and weren't bested for a century or more, and the text conveys something of the wonder to be the first person to *ever* see these things. It's pretty astonishing to imagine what that might have felt like. Hooke not only first saw cells, he coined the word in its biological sense, because he thought the cells in cork bark looked like the cells that monks live in. Hooke was a polymath, a successful mathematician, an architect and inventor, and by all accounts a very good musician. He was also apparently a bit unpleasant and a little crazed, but genius is allowed these things (at least when it's no longer around to annoy you)

How Violent Movies and Video Games Cause Violent Behavior
and
To Believe Otherwise Means You Are Insane

First we will dispel the pithy, nonsense arguments that are so often repeated in these debates. "Well, I play video games and I'm not violent!" So long as someone tells me this without following with "and if you don't believe me, I'll kick your ass," I can take them at their word. Now, of course, your anecdotal story about how you played "Grand Theft Auto" since you were in diapers and are now a pacifist does not constitute solid, scientific evidence. Just because you enjoy violent movies or games and are not violent does not mean that violent media never causes violence in anyone else. The next response, while it should be obviously fallacious to everyone, is that "millions and millions of people watch violent movies and they aren't violent!" Yes, that is true. It is also true that millions of people drink liquor and do not get liver cirrhosis. Does this mean drinking does not cause liver cirrhosis? Deniers also say that "violent video game sales have gone up while violent crime has gone down!" Again, liquor sales have drifted upwards since 1990 while deaths by liver cirrhosis have plummeted (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141656/drinking-rate-edges-slightly-year-high.aspx -- http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm ). Obviously, other factors are at play in these data. No rational person could deny that alcohol does not cause liver cirrhosis based on this logic, nor does anyone claim that 100 percent of people who play violent video games will become violent. There are many factors contributing to violence, and violent films, games and other media are some of those factors. They may not have a huge effect on violent behavior compared to other causes, but there is an irrefutable effect and it has certainly cost lives. The evidence shows that drinking while playing violent video games will increase your risk of becoming a violent drunk with a bad liver.

Furthermore, consider this statement by communications professor Henry Jenkins:

"According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers — 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure."

Now consider the same rhetoric shifted to a different topic. All of these data are factual according to the provided sources:

"According to [CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians] statistics, the rate of [lung cancer diagnosis] in the United States is at a [14]-year low [(from 1990 to end of data)]. Researchers find that people [diagnosed] for [lung cancer] typically consume less [tobacco] before [being diagnosed] than the average [smoker] in the general population. It's true that [people] who have [been diagnosed with lung cancer] in America have also been [smokers]. ...[21.5] percent of [males] and [17.3] percent of [females smoke]. The overwhelming majority of [people] who [smoke] do NOT [get lung cancer]. According to a [2012 World Health Organization] report, [one of] the strongest risk factors for [cancer] centered on [diesel fumes] not [smoking]. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/CA.2007.0010/pdf --

How Violent Movies and Video Games Cause Violent Behavior
and
To Believe Otherwise Means You Are Insane

First we will dispel the pithy, nonsense arguments that are so often repeated in these debates. "Well, I play video games and I'm not violent!" So long as someone tells me this without following with "and if you don't believe me, I'll kick your ass," I can take them at their word. Now, of course, your anecdotal story about how you played "Grand Theft Auto" since you were in diapers and are now a pacifist does not constitute solid, scientific evidence. Just because you enjoy violent movies or games and are not violent does not mean that violent media never causes violence in anyone else. The next response, while it should be obviously fallacious to everyone, is that "millions and millions of people watch violent movies and they aren't violent!" Yes, that is true. It is also true that millions of people drink liquor and do not get liver cirrhosis. Does this mean drinking does not cause liver cirrhosis? Deniers also say that "violent video game sales have gone up while violent crime has gone down!" Again, liquor sales have drifted upwards since 1990 while deaths by liver cirrhosis have plummeted (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141656/drinking-rate-edges-slightly-year-high.aspx -- http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/209-219.htm ). Obviously, other factors are at play in these data. No rational person could deny that alcohol does not cause liver cirrhosis based on this logic, nor does anyone claim that 100 percent of people who play violent video games will become violent. There are many factors contributing to violence, and violent films, games and other media are some of those factors. They may not have a huge effect on violent behavior compared to other causes, but there is an irrefutable effect and it has certainly cost lives. The evidence shows that drinking while playing violent video games will increase your risk of becoming a violent drunk with a bad liver.

Furthermore, consider this statement by communications professor Henry Jenkins:

"According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers — 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure."

Now consider the same rhetoric shifted to a different topic. All of these data are factual according to the provided sources:

"According to [CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians] statistics, the rate of [lung cancer diagnosis] in the United States is at a [14]-year low [(from 1990 to end of data)]. Researchers find that people [diagnosed] for [lung cancer] typically consume less [tobacco] before [being diagnosed] than the average [smoker] in the general population. It's true that [people] who have [been diagnosed with lung cancer] in America have also been [smokers]. ...[21.5] percent of [males] and [17.3] percent of [females smoke]. The overwhelming majority of [people] who [smoke] do NOT [get lung cancer]. According to a [2012 World Health Organization] report, [one of] the strongest risk factors for [cancer] centered on [diesel fumes] not [smoking]. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/CA.2007.0010/pdf --

It seems to me that you are advocating the use of air bags without using seat belts. Here are some references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18365327
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12169939
Airbag helps to very much lessen the incidence of the neck-related injuries that are the biggest problem with seat belts. So I would rather say that air bags and seat belts are good in combination, which is a common belief as well.

It seems to me that you are advocating the use of air bags without using seat belts. Here are some references:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18365327
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12169939
Airbag helps to very much lessen the incidence of the neck-related injuries that are the biggest problem with seat belts. So I would rather say that air bags and seat belts are good in combination, which is a common belief as well.

I was unaware of the paper on Granulin-like growth factors secreted by O. viverrini, thank you.

The effect of liver flukes in CCA in the U.S. is still thought to be minimal however. Given our lifestyles, much greater roles are thought to be played by auto-immune diseases of the biliary system; viral hepatitis; and the concentration and secretion of foreign carcinogenic substances in bile (generally, substances with aromatic characteristics and somewhat higher molecular weight, and not otherwise excreted through urine).

Sounds like you need 12V applied directly to the forehead. Good to energize programmers young and old.

these two were long past due on earning the Nobel for this work

Kobilka was hardly "long past due" - he isn't getting the prize for his work with Lefkowitz, he's getting it for the first structure of the beta-adrenergic receptor (and more generally, for figuring out how to make GPCR crystallization feasible), which was only in 2007, and especially for the structure of the GPCR:G-protein complex which was just published last year. Quite a few people expected that to seal the deal, but this is a relatively quick prize.

Also, for fun, the original paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3010132?dopt=Abstract

"Cigarette smoke contains a number of toxic chemicals and irritants. People with allergies may be more sensitive to cigarette smoke than others and research studies indicate that smoking may aggravate allergies" - nih

There have already been viable mice produced from the genetic information of two male mice: Generation of Viable Male and Female Mice from Two Fathers (link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043133/)

Because http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23019611 is a medical science paper?

You know, there's something called "experience".

Also know as "anecdote", also known as "a poor substitute for evidence".

A statistical analysis of the evidence shows little if any benefit to head injury rates due to helmet laws. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/

Part of the problem is that it's possible that wearing helmets may provide impact protection in the event of an accident, and yet make someone more likely to get into an accident in the first place. There are several possible mechanisms whereby that could occur:

• putting a weight on your head affects your balance
• helmets affect vision and hearing
• people wearing helmets may unconsciously take greater risks
• helmets affect sweating and temperature regulation, and thus could affect fatigue and reaction time
• drivers and pedestrians may behave differently around helmeted vs. non-helmeted cyclists.

Also, helmet laws and/or the perception created by helmet campaigns that biking is dangerous leads to fewer people biking; and making cycling rarer changes driver behavior and road planning strategies in a way that can raise accident risk

I used to wear a helmet, but lost the habit after spending a few months in Japan -- over there, almost everyone bikes and no one wears a helmet. (Also, bike lanes there are on the sidewalk, not the road.)

Which is why I didn't say I wouldn't encourage wearing a seatbelt, I'm not sure what your point is there.

The article provides a bunch of benefits of not wearing a helmet, I feel no need to repeat them.

Of course fatalities decreased. Helmets protect you head, that isn't being argued against.

"""The surveys in Melbourne found 442 children wore helmets voluntarily before the law. Identical surveys conducted in 1991, after helmets became compulsory, counted 43 more helmet wearers but 649 fewer child cyclists. This supports the conclusion that the main effect of legislation was to discourage cycling rather than encourage helmet wearing. In the 1991 survey, 42% fewer child cyclists and 29% fewer adult cyclists were counted.""" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/

So fewer head injuries and fatalities amonst the cyclists (at the very least because there are fewer cyclists) but you can't just ignore the health damage due to 42% of children who once cycled now watching the TV (or whatever).

And I'm not against wearing helmets. I wear one myself, and the kid wears one when he rides somewhere other than between the houses in the street. There is no argument about whether wearing a helmet is good or bad on an individual basis.

Sorry to hear what happened.

I have to point out one thing, though : the same guys who started this "helmets save lives" craze with their New England Journal Of Medicine paper, failed to find a quantifiable protection by helmets for lacerations on the face, including the orbits : paper in pdf here

FYI, I fell once with a bike - the fork broke just above the crown. I passed out and lost half of two incisors. A helmet would not have changed anything and I have ridden 30000+ miles since, without a helmet. But I always make sure my bike is in excellent mechanical condition...

Just keep calling it "ECMA Script" until it sticks.

For some reason, "ECMA" always makes me think of "ACNE". Now it will for you, too ;-)

You're welcome.

No, because it already makes me think of eczema which is far more disturbing.

It's true that all the organizations you anme have OA mandates BUT, crucially, none mandate that you make the research publicly accessible from the minute the paper is published. I believe the NIH policy is actually 12 MONTHS after publication - that is of limited use to scientists.
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/
So these agencies are actually pandering to publishers even more (in some respects) than this consortium is - libraries will continue to have to buy subscriptions so that their scientists can access the literature from day one (vital in biomed and probably most other fields too).
With the deal described in the source, the costs are transparent - so it's very likely that, when the contracts come up for negotiation in 3 years or so, there will be pressure on publishers to reduce profits...

antibiotics (which remain in the meat, even after cooking

Citation needed.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf00047a035

http://mbioblog.asm.org/mbiosphere/2012/08/antibiotic-residues-in-fermented-sausage-meat-target-beneficial-bacteria-leave-pathogens-alone.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134130/

These and other references were brought to my attention at a time I had recently recovered from, yet another Streptococcus throat infection, where I could scarcely swallow for three days. I decided to give up beef, chicken, pork and rely only on fish caught in the lakes or ocean. Over a period of two years I did notice the severity of respiratory infections decline and when I did take antibiotics they actually worked. Though anecdotal, I did recall antibiotics had little to no effect before I changed my diet. Eventually a dairy allergy would remove all cheese, yoghurt, milk from my diet and I find the period from initial detection of a respiratory infection to recovery to be down to less than a week, where I once would suffer these occurances for up to two weeks. I believe there is merit to these studies, particularly regarding the constant presence of low levels of antibiotics in the body creating a breeding ground for resistant strains (which are on the rise) and leaving my immune system impared to some degree, as all antibiotics are toxins which target certain organisms, but also have a degree of collateral damage (killing non-bacterial cells.)

I'm a PhD student in biochemistry and microbiology and would like to point out that nothing in the parent post makes sense. Consuming low levels of antibiotics would not have an effect on the incidence and severity of respiratory infections. Also antibiotics are not generally toxic to humans at prescribed doses, particularly those fed to livestock, and especially not at the very low levels that could be encountered from food. Some antibiotics can cause organ damage with chronic exposure but would not have an effect on respiratory infections.

In summary, the issue of chronic low level exposure to antibiotics is a concern at the population level and their effects can not be teased out at the individual level from an anecdotal point of view.

antibiotics (which remain in the meat, even after cooking

Citation needed.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf00047a035

http://mbioblog.asm.org/mbiosphere/2012/08/antibiotic-residues-in-fermented-sausage-meat-target-beneficial-bacteria-leave-pathogens-alone.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134130/

These and other references were brought to my attention at a time I had recently recovered from, yet another Streptococcus throat infection, where I could scarcely swallow for three days. I decided to give up beef, chicken, pork and rely only on fish caught in the lakes or ocean. Over a period of two years I did notice the severity of respiratory infections decline and when I did take antibiotics they actually worked. Though anecdotal, I did recall antibiotics had little to no effect before I changed my diet. Eventually a dairy allergy would remove all cheese, yoghurt, milk from my diet and I find the period from initial detection of a respiratory infection to recovery to be down to less than a week, where I once would suffer these occurances for up to two weeks. I believe there is merit to these studies, particularly regarding the constant presence of low levels of antibiotics in the body creating a breeding ground for resistant strains (which are on the rise) and leaving my immune system impared to some degree, as all antibiotics are toxins which target certain organisms, but also have a degree of collateral damage (killing non-bacterial cells.)

antibiotics (which remain in the meat, even after cooking

Citation needed.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf00047a035

http://mbioblog.asm.org/mbiosphere/2012/08/antibiotic-residues-in-fermented-sausage-meat-target-beneficial-bacteria-leave-pathogens-alone.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134130/

Wherever did you get this idea that it was "possible for us to increase the green biomass", or the idea that we were even trying to do that?

If the limiting factor for plant growth is something other than incident sunlight, then it should be possible to increase the green biomass. One such factor could be fixed nitrogen. Biological sources fix about 200Tg of nitrogen per year, the Haber process fixes about 100Tg. It's certainly not unreasonable to hypothesize that this could have a measureable effect on the Earth's total green biomass.

HFCS is the culprit. See http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152650 Of course the corn lobby threatens researchers funding who pursue this research!

>So, herbicides plus extracts of seaweed make you oh so fat... sweet.

And fruits and vegetables give you cancer

I had bacon eggs and sausage for breakfast. Can you blame me?

From all I can tell, HFCS is almost identical to sucrose metabolically. Okay, there is a very, very small amount of extra energy used when metabolizing the sucrose: the bond between the fructose and glucose molecules has to be broken. With HFCS, you have molecules of fructose and molecules of glucose. Interestingly, the ratios of fructose:glucose are almost the same. Sucrose is 50:50 while HFCS is usally 55:45, about the same as honey.

It's also worth pointing out that fructose tastes sweeter than glucose, and is significantly lower on the glycemic index. It also has to be be metabolized into glucose, consume some of the energy provided by it. So really, fructose has advantages: you can use less, because it's sweeter, and therefore have fewer grams of sugars products, and fewer calories for the same level of sweetness. Second, the impact on you body is much less because fructose is metabolized more slowly, especially important for a diabetic. Third, some of the energy contained in the fructose is consumed by the body having to metabolize it into glucose. This is not a negligible difference, and if you think I'm bullshitting you, read the wikipedia article on the Thermic Effect of Food and read this paper specifically comparing fructose and glucose:

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213608

In short, we would all probably be a lot better off if all sweeteners were switch to 100% fructose, whether the source is corn or something else.

And this is just awesome : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10050267?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I'd like to know how many people die on the roads, or from accidents related to cannabis, though.

Do we also take into account the fact that cannabis (much like other drugs) can be a trigger for a number of mental and cardiac problems, or should we just suppress that information because it doesn't fit in nicely with our views?

I'm pretty sure oxycodone hits the kappa-opioid receptor.

source

Unless those results have been refuted since then...

Just for a bit of background.

Sonophoresis (or Phonophoresis) is a older technology that sort of works. Hasn't make much in the way of clinical inroads because of a number of problems. This work may overcome some of that although having to go to a physical therapist (typically) to get some drug stuffed in your body is typically more trouble that it's worth.

The most common use for this technique is to push steroids to a localized area (such as along a tendon) instead of giving the drug in a pill and having it diffuse through the entire body or using multiple, painful injections. Sort of works.

You mean like the cancer and waste disposal issues of coal? Imagine if the Japanese government came out and said, "Oops, turns out there's so much radiation in our lakes you shouldn't eat more than three fish a week." They'd be destroyed by the anti-nuclear movement. That's where the US is with coal. Coal destroys our bodies and environment on a more regular basis, but years of brainwashing and the fact that is isn't green and shiny somehow make us treat toxicity and radiation as totally different things. And if you can figure out a cost-effective way to use geothermal, go for it. You'll be rich.

The brain really isn't remarkably energy efficient - sure it compares favorably to current tech, but its lead is shrinking rapidly. After all it's responsible for roughly 20% of your body's total energy consumption, which assuming a BMR of 1300 kCalories/day that's an average energy consumption of almost 13W. And I've heard that championship-level chess players can burn as many as 5000kCal/day during a tournament, which would suggest an additional 180W of average energy consumption, with peak consumption probably being at least 2-3 times that.

That's wrong. Triathletes and cyclists doing long races can go through 5000kCal/day. Chess players don't come close. They're around 100-120kCal/hr at most.

Ok, your understanding of Organic Farming could use some reasearch.

As for your comment on Brusing; well gee mister, did you ever think that gas stuff just goes away cause you can't see it?

Yes. Next question.

Black surgeon general's warning: This web site is designed to specifically rebut questions like yours and may dangerously affect your racism.

Have YOU done anything for humankind, white boy?

The global honeybee population demise is linked to a single pesticide not to mention the links to human disease

What's more, when you buy Organic, you are (in most cases) supporting a local farmer in your area rather than Del Monte or Dole or some other mega-corp grower. Indirectly, buying Organic means you are also not supporting the pesticide companies such as Monsanto who are out to destroy family farming.

Buy organic. TFA is a shill.

Preposterous conclusions. This is the exact kind of "junk science" meant to incur bias that has become the hallmark of those "just asking questions" about organic farming, emerging medicine, sustainable energy, and anything that cannot be patented, owned exclusively, or controlled by a handful of corporate entities.

The study has a horrid, arbitrary definition of "healthier", attempting to say "conventional products can have the same amount of antioxidants, vitamins etc.. as an organic one, there's more too it than that" , is the sole arbiter of "healthful" is ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Its not much different than say It discounts data where it wishes and glosses over all of the many benefits, even where they do appear - "Oh, yes organic meat doesn't have nearly as many samples of antibiotic resistant bacteria...but oh well, you know its all killed in cooking any way so why does that matter? (Not like people are capable of imperfect kitchen hygiene, cook improperly or just prefer rarer meats, or any of the other circumstances where this could be important) It has demonstratively better phosphorous levels, omega-3 levels and tons of other stuff, but yeah... sorry, that doesn't matter. ". It also fails to take into consideration a huge amount of other aspects of health, from the beneficial effects from organic farming in terms of over all soil quality and thus future health benefits across a wide range of metrics from the produce there, the absence of current GMOs which have been shown to cause health problems such as destruction of gut flora, proper recognition of lower pesticide exposure, the absence of a huge amount of deleterious additives that are not permitted in certified organic foodstuffs, and many, many other traits that have been investigated and verified over the years that show the benefits of organic farming and ranching.

Showing "these randomly selected nutrients can be equal in both conventional and organic foods" and then asserting this is a debunking of organic benefits is intellectually dishonest. It is akin to how certain elements have attempted to frame the dialog for such issues as cellular phone and artificial sweetener safety. For instance, many studies were shown on how GSM non-ionizing radiation was safe because it could not be correlated with brain tumors (many of these, funded by telecom industries through both overt and back channels). Guidelines were made on these findings and those that disagreed that this proved safety were accused of being "anti-science kooks". However, there are many other possible threats not related to cancer, such as blood-brain barrier permeability (proven to be heightened with non-ionizing radio wave exposure in studies like - http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6039 ), but those studying have been met with adversity and lack of funding because of the social engineering effects of the previous studies cause many to think "the book is closed on mobile phone safety - they're safe" because of the dishonest framing of the "safety" studies of the past. The very same thing has happened with modern artificial sweeteners like aspartame, AceK, and sucralose - those who wanted them declared safe, picked proving that "They don't cause cancer" was, as intended, enough to quell public fears and frame the discourse, while ignoring their effects on everything from excitotoxic nerve damage, to endocrine disruption and more. There is a huge financial impetus for certain entities to ensure that such nuisances as "health risks" and "having all the information, with the fewest bias possible" don't get in the way of profit, and this methodology is how these entities control information and perception within the medical and scientific community; its very similar to the ways they manipulate political discourse within its venues.

I am pleased to note there have already been an assortment of criticisms and outright refutations for the Stanford

Here is what Fuhrman stated in the part I quoted: "I have been utilizing a high antioxidant, acrlyamide-free diet for many years with marked success. ... Studies in the medical literature support this method of treatment.[ii] "

Here is that footnoted section with *three* studies cited (I added carriage returns to make it clearer there are three studies):
[ii] Kaartinen K, Lammi K, Hypen M, et al. Vegan diet alleviates fibromyalgia symptoms. Scand J Rheumatol 2000;29(5):308-13.
Donaldson MS; Speight N; Loomis Fibromyalgia syndrome improved using a mostly raw vegetarian diet: an observational study. BMC Complement Altern Med 2001;1(1):7.
Hanninen, Kaartinen K, Rauma AL, et al. Antioxidants in vegan diet and rheumatic disorders. Toxicology 2000 Nov 30;155(1-3):45-53."

The one you refere to is actually from "Scand J Rheumatol. 2000;29(5):308-13."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11093597

not "BMC Complement Altern Med 2001":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC57816/

The third BTW:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11156742

So, whatever you think of all three studies (including conflicts of interests in the second), and Fibromyalgia falls into the class of "rheumatic disorders" related to the third, your statement that he cites only one study is inaccurate. Yet you got modded +5 informative for making a strongly worded assertion that is easily disprovable by looking at the original source. Not sure how to interpret that as far as slashdotters and cargo cult science. :-)

For what is is worth, vitamin D and eating more veggies also greatly improved my own joint pain, so there is another anecdote you can dismiss. But that helps explains why I'm more willing to believe such studies -- I tried them and they worked for me. However, such advice also makes evolutionary sense, assuming humans are adapted to a life in the sun eating mostly a variety of vegetables (and maybe a bit of "free range organic" animal products like termites and fish of the purer sort available 100,000 years ago but rare now, as even Gorillas eat termites). In general, eating that way reduces the risk of being "suddenly dead" from strokes and heart attacks. Hopefully after reviewing the three references, and then looking at the many more he cites elsewhere, you might revise your opinion eventually? But even if not, good luck in finding what works for you to bring you abundant good health.

Here is what Fuhrman stated in the part I quoted: "I have been utilizing a high antioxidant, acrlyamide-free diet for many years with marked success. ... Studies in the medical literature support this method of treatment.[ii] "

Here is that footnoted section with *three* studies cited (I added carriage returns to make it clearer there are three studies):
[ii] Kaartinen K, Lammi K, Hypen M, et al. Vegan diet alleviates fibromyalgia symptoms. Scand J Rheumatol 2000;29(5):308-13.
Donaldson MS; Speight N; Loomis Fibromyalgia syndrome improved using a mostly raw vegetarian diet: an observational study. BMC Complement Altern Med 2001;1(1):7.
Hanninen, Kaartinen K, Rauma AL, et al. Antioxidants in vegan diet and rheumatic disorders. Toxicology 2000 Nov 30;155(1-3):45-53."

The one you refere to is actually from "Scand J Rheumatol. 2000;29(5):308-13."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11093597

not "BMC Complement Altern Med 2001":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC57816/

The third BTW:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11156742

So, whatever you think of all three studies (including conflicts of interests in the second), and Fibromyalgia falls into the class of "rheumatic disorders" related to the third, your statement that he cites only one study is inaccurate. Yet you got modded +5 informative for making a strongly worded assertion that is easily disprovable by looking at the original source. Not sure how to interpret that as far as slashdotters and cargo cult science. :-)

For what is is worth, vitamin D and eating more veggies also greatly improved my own joint pain, so there is another anecdote you can dismiss. But that helps explains why I'm more willing to believe such studies -- I tried them and they worked for me. However, such advice also makes evolutionary sense, assuming humans are adapted to a life in the sun eating mostly a variety of vegetables (and maybe a bit of "free range organic" animal products like termites and fish of the purer sort available 100,000 years ago but rare now, as even Gorillas eat termites). In general, eating that way reduces the risk of being "suddenly dead" from strokes and heart attacks. Hopefully after reviewing the three references, and then looking at the many more he cites elsewhere, you might revise your opinion eventually? But even if not, good luck in finding what works for you to bring you abundant good health.

Here is what Fuhrman stated in the part I quoted: "I have been utilizing a high antioxidant, acrlyamide-free diet for many years with marked success. ... Studies in the medical literature support this method of treatment.[ii] "

Here is that footnoted section with *three* studies cited (I added carriage returns to make it clearer there are three studies):
[ii] Kaartinen K, Lammi K, Hypen M, et al. Vegan diet alleviates fibromyalgia symptoms. Scand J Rheumatol 2000;29(5):308-13.
Donaldson MS; Speight N; Loomis Fibromyalgia syndrome improved using a mostly raw vegetarian diet: an observational study. BMC Complement Altern Med 2001;1(1):7.
Hanninen, Kaartinen K, Rauma AL, et al. Antioxidants in vegan diet and rheumatic disorders. Toxicology 2000 Nov 30;155(1-3):45-53."

The one you refere to is actually from "Scand J Rheumatol. 2000;29(5):308-13."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11093597

not "BMC Complement Altern Med 2001":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC57816/

The third BTW:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11156742

So, whatever you think of all three studies (including conflicts of interests in the second), and Fibromyalgia falls into the class of "rheumatic disorders" related to the third, your statement that he cites only one study is inaccurate. Yet you got modded +5 informative for making a strongly worded assertion that is easily disprovable by looking at the original source. Not sure how to interpret that as far as slashdotters and cargo cult science. :-)

For what is is worth, vitamin D and eating more veggies also greatly improved my own joint pain, so there is another anecdote you can dismiss. But that helps explains why I'm more willing to believe such studies -- I tried them and they worked for me. However, such advice also makes evolutionary sense, assuming humans are adapted to a life in the sun eating mostly a variety of vegetables (and maybe a bit of "free range organic" animal products like termites and fish of the purer sort available 100,000 years ago but rare now, as even Gorillas eat termites). In general, eating that way reduces the risk of being "suddenly dead" from strokes and heart attacks. Hopefully after reviewing the three references, and then looking at the many more he cites elsewhere, you might revise your opinion eventually? But even if not, good luck in finding what works for you to bring you abundant good health.

Maybe that is not the best study in the world, but you seem to me to be ignoring the context here. I was originally responding to a comment that included stuff on asthma, allergies, and fibromyalgia. The page I am citing and the references covers many allergies, and fibromyalgia in that context (fibromyalgia in practice perhaps often being a catch-all phrase for joint pain which can have multiple causes). Also, you are just out of hand dismissing an MD's report on his own decades of clinical experience. And that experience is also reflected by reports by others, if you look around. It is just not extremely profitable or easy advice to give in this society, compared to pill pushing and surgery selling.

By the way:
"The relation between vitamin D deficiency and fibromyalgia syndrome in women"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21894355

And:
"5 Ways To Control Fibromyalgia With Diet: New research shows that picking these foods may ease pain"
http://www.prevention.com/node/27278
http://www.prevention.com/health/health-concerns/5-ways-control-fibromyalgia-diet/5-veg-out
"Some researchers speculate that oxidative stress may be a cause of fibro symptoms. Oxidative stress occurs when the body doesnâ(TM)t produce enough antioxidants to battle cell-damaging free radicals in the body. Most fruits and veggies are packed with important antioxidants, like vitamins A, C, and E, which fight free radicals to keep your body normalized. Certain studies also show a raw, vegan diet can improve symptoms, but thatâ(TM)s difficult for most people to follow. If you do choose to eat meat, though, opt for a small portion of grass-fed beef. "It is an excellent source of iron and vitamin B12, both nutrients which are extremely important in keeping your pain-processing nervous system healthy," says Holton."

Of course, they don't cite their studies; some other studies are mentioned here:
http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/links-out/raw-research.shtml

So, be skeptical of new information. But how about being skeptical about old information, too? And maybe going a bit further and looking around for yourself at a new idea (or an old one that was forgotten or driven out socially)? It's not very scientific to just dismiss all new ideas for lack of enough evidence (for example, what kept us from LENR (Cold Fusion) for two decades because some hot fusion scientists at MIT could not replicate an experiment in a week or two where success would have jeopardized their own livelihood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Pathological_skepticism
http://pesn.com/2011/12/27/9601994_History_of_MITs_Blatant_Suppression_of_Cold_Fusion/

The scientific enterprise in our society is so messed up in so many ways, as reflected in the quotes I collected here; one example:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. To an untrained outsider, Latour and Woolgar argued the entire process resembles not an unbiased searc

Effectiveness of dried Carica papaya seeds against human intestinal parasitosis: a pilot study.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17472487

I have come to call this "academic Top Trumps". Appeal to authority would have harmed you for the majority of history, so I wouldn't start appealing to it now. Link to evidence produced by respected authorities, sure, but make sure the argument rests in the evidence.

Perhaps you misunderstand the appeal to authority? It's also not invalid in all circumstances. In any case, if I were to claim that because the APA said it was bad it must be bad, but I didn't make such an assertion, although now I see how it could be interpreted that way. My fault for not making myself more clear, but the intent was that research and science had the authority.

One simply cannot perform a diagnosis based on reading the (edited) writings of some individual and third party accounts of his behaviour. Don't do it. It's not scientific and it makes a mockery of proper autism diagnoses.

Well, it's not my diagnosis. I wouldn't presume to do as much. But some very skilled and qualified researchers who, if anyone, would be entitled to make a diagnosis came to a conclusion on the matter.

There are a lot more people who "always feel uncomfortable around people" and who aren't autistic.

I was hesitant to use the word uncomfortable, but I can't think of another word to describe, since that seemed too benign. It is a definite range. Stressful, perhaps. And there are people who aren't autistic who know what that's like, but I doubt the OP is one of them. Probably bad judgment on my end to insert this bit.

Thoughts cannot be misinterpreted - only the expressions of those thoughts. It is more accurate to say that the autistic person has difficulty communicating effectively. Those who are not autistic can of course try to accommodate for this difficulty, but the problem is not necessarily "misinterpretation".

Or emm yes. That. My mistake. Anyway, what I mean is that it feels like you're being misinterpreted because to you, you're speaking in a way that makes sense to you, and other people just don't think what you're thinking. And even when you become aware of it, it's still a struggle because you don't know exactly what to say. I usually just copy mannerisms I've seen from TV and real life into a sort of script of how to act.

I also recommend you a sattvic diet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattvic_diet

But be careful with gluten, which is present in all forms of wheat, and used in vegan recipes.
I believe that our body can only absorb a given amount of gluten in our lifetime.
I'm gluten intolerant, and removing gluten from my food tremendously improved my life, by curing my IBS.
There is a correlation between IBS and Emotional Intelligence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19575489

No, he's right: You can't double-blind test a placebo. The placebo effect can be single-blind (researcher side) tested, and has been shown to work. The whole point of the placebo effect is psychological, so the test subject has to KNOW they are taking a pill of some sort.

For a test of the placebo effect all you need is to give some portion of a population a sugar pill, and the rest no pill, and see if there is a significant difference between the outcomes between groups. This has been done, see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11406341&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

and millions of others.

The point is no psychological treatment can ever be double-blind studied. To suggest that this is the only valid test is ridiculous and shows a complete misunderstanding of the very effect investigated.

There's plenty of research on herbal medicine. Searching pubmed for arnica alone gives me 15 pages of results. Among which I find this one which shows arnica to be less effective than placebo on muscle strains: it makes muscle strain worse.

With all the hundreds of billions a year that are spent on drugs there should be government testing on herbal remedies if for no other reason than saving money. The problem comes in the form of resistance from drug companies.

Companies which produce herbal remedies also have huge piles of money, why don't they spend some of that proving their remedies work? Hint: it's because they largely don't work.

Many effective pharmacological do compounds come from plants. These are isolated, tested for safety and effectiveness, and -- if shown to be both safe and effective -- become 'medicine': Not herbal medicine, but actual medicine. Think of taxominofen, isolated from yew plants.

'Herbal medicine' is the practice of prescribing unknown quantities of a substance of unknown purity without understanding the mechanism by which its' supposed to work. You can have that if you want, but I don't want the NHS paying for it.

If the illness is not too severe, it's not terribly unethical to test ineffective treatments.* And some such studies have been done. Here's one on warts, and another on migraines. Needless to say, there was no statistically significant effect.

If the illness is not too severe, it's not terribly unethical to test ineffective treatments.* And some such studies have been done. Here's one on warts, and another on migraines. Needless to say, there was no statistically significant effect.

Sounds like Accutane, which was used to treat acne. It is not correct to say that it had no side effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accutane http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000532/

It's still around but it's harder to get than Oxycontin -- and for good reason.

Accutane was a godsend to editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal, who made a good living arguing that personal responsibility and the free market should prevail over an incompetent, bureaucratic government agency.

They earned their living because (1) acne is a cosmetic problem (although the social consequences of severe acne can significantly affect peoples' lives) and (2) the people who suffered the worst side effects were not the irresponsible bimbos who got pregnant, but their children who had to go through life with flippers (and worse).

The issue here is personal responsibility. Should an individual bimbo be able to make any decision about medical treatment she wants, or are there some decisions that are just so dangerous that the government should step in and decide for people?

Should the drug company be able to say, "Don't sue me. I warned her of the dangers. If she ignores me and makes a foolish decision, that's her personal responsibility"?

The answer is no. Even for libertarians, you shouldn't be free to harm somebody else. A woman has an unconditional right to abortion, but doing things that will result in severe birth defects of a child that she decides to have is something else again. In our society, you can't punish a woman for doing things that harm her fetus (except in some Republicans states).

Then come the lawyers. If a drug company sells a drug that causes birth defects, and a woman takes it and becomes pregnant, it's going to cost another $3 million to bring that child up with the accommodations it needs to live a reasonably normal life. Where does that $3 million come from? Does the child go on welfare, and have the government pay for it?

When somebody gets injured in an accident, like a car accident, you usually have a combination of circumstances. The first driver was tired. The second driver had a beer. It was raining. The tires were bald. The seat belt had a manufacturing defect. The brake in this car had a record of failures. It's called an "accident chain." So who's responsible?

The answer is, a lot of people are responsible.

Same with Accutane. The bimbo who got pregnant was responsible. Her doctor was responsible. The manufacturer of Accutane was responsible.

The FDA and a lot of doctors said that Accutane was too dangerous, and acne was too frivolous. Roche swore on their mothers' graves that they could set up a system in which women who were of childbearing age wouldn't get Accutane and get pregnant. They would have counseling, personal responsibility contracts, toll-free numbers, 2 kinds of contraception, belts and suspenders.

It didn't work. So who pays?

When you ask the juries, they decided that Roche pays.

One of the problems with these drugs is that they start out being used for the most severe cases of acne or whatever. Maybe there are 1,000 cases in the U.S. like that. But if the drug company can convince doctors to use it for less severe cases, they can make 10 times as much money. So maybe that's what happened with Accutane.

This goes back to the idea of central planning, which is what we started out talking about. If you have individual patients and doctors making their own decisions about taking Accutane, then Roche can market the hell out of it, to patients and doctors, and make 10 times as much money. But if you have a central authority, like the FDA, or the big insurance companies, or the national health service in other countries, they can restrict the sales just to people who really need it. They save money, which is part of their motivation, but they also avoid flipper babies.

Some things are so dangerous that you just need central authority.

ImageJ is a wildly popular image processing toolkit written in Java. Users are able to write their own plugins as .jar files, and thanks to that, there are loads of plugins for doing every image transform imaginable.

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

How memory works is still an open question, but it has a lot to do with varying the strength of synaptic connections between neurons in the brain. If you're interested, this is a good place to start reading. Not sure what the relevance is to this conversation though.