Slashdot Mirror

Have you got a reference to a double blind study done on high risk people comparing placebo and a flu vaccine?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10498559 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7966893 are the best I can find, which do seem to contradict the claims in the article.

Note, I have nothing against vaccines. My kid got a flu vaccine this year and is up to date on all his other ones. I'm not an anti-vaccine nut who think that all our health issues are caused by vaccines :)

Here is another program called swarm to submit jobs in a cluster: http://biowulf.nih.gov/apps/swarm.html

But most disease requires immunization rates of about 85% to confer herd immunity.

There are well documented cases of small religious communities not vaccinating there kids then having perfectly predictable numbers of kids dying of measles and other preventable disease.
Measles in Wales
Outbreak of measles in Religious communties

Not vaccinating your kids is a terrible decision that puts them at risk of permanent crippling injury and death.

The antibody in question binds the EGF receptor. Off the top of my head I can think of..... oh about every stem cell in your body that expresses this receptor.

If I recall, it's also expressed at much, much, much higher levels in many cancers than it is in normal cells.

And the abstract to this paper suggests that as well: "Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is observed in many cancers, sometimes accompanied by gene amplification." That abstract also suggests that in at least one type of cancer, the more EGFR you have the worse the cancer is. I'm not a cancer biologist and I'm not reading any more than abstracts tonight, but this paper and this paper at first glance seemed to indicate the same thing.

While the good cells are wearing targets, the bad cells are wearing many more targets, so if your efficiency at hitting targets is lower than 100%, you're going to be killing more bad cells than good cells.

The author's system is great in a petri dish, but there's a reason it's published in a low tier journal.

And that reason is probably the following: the 80% of cells in a dish is probably not that impressive compared to developed drugs, however this was just a proof of concept. The wright brothers only flew a few hundred feet. There are undoubtedly refinements that could be made to this system that would increase the efficiency, but it's not to that stage yet. This technology might turn out to be a true cure for cancer once it's refined.

And don't criticize them for doing it in a dish just yet, this press release says "So far, tests have been done only on cells in a laboratory setting, but animal testing is planned for the next phase."

They can hardly be blamed for not delivering the magic bullet cure to cancer in one fell swoop, that's just not how these things work.

The antibody in question binds the EGF receptor. Off the top of my head I can think of..... oh about every stem cell in your body that expresses this receptor.

If I recall, it's also expressed at much, much, much higher levels in many cancers than it is in normal cells.

And the abstract to this paper suggests that as well: "Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is observed in many cancers, sometimes accompanied by gene amplification." That abstract also suggests that in at least one type of cancer, the more EGFR you have the worse the cancer is. I'm not a cancer biologist and I'm not reading any more than abstracts tonight, but this paper and this paper at first glance seemed to indicate the same thing.

While the good cells are wearing targets, the bad cells are wearing many more targets, so if your efficiency at hitting targets is lower than 100%, you're going to be killing more bad cells than good cells.

The author's system is great in a petri dish, but there's a reason it's published in a low tier journal.

And that reason is probably the following: the 80% of cells in a dish is probably not that impressive compared to developed drugs, however this was just a proof of concept. The wright brothers only flew a few hundred feet. There are undoubtedly refinements that could be made to this system that would increase the efficiency, but it's not to that stage yet. This technology might turn out to be a true cure for cancer once it's refined.

And don't criticize them for doing it in a dish just yet, this press release says "So far, tests have been done only on cells in a laboratory setting, but animal testing is planned for the next phase."

They can hardly be blamed for not delivering the magic bullet cure to cancer in one fell swoop, that's just not how these things work.

The antibody in question binds the EGF receptor. Off the top of my head I can think of..... oh about every stem cell in your body that expresses this receptor.

If I recall, it's also expressed at much, much, much higher levels in many cancers than it is in normal cells.

And the abstract to this paper suggests that as well: "Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is observed in many cancers, sometimes accompanied by gene amplification." That abstract also suggests that in at least one type of cancer, the more EGFR you have the worse the cancer is. I'm not a cancer biologist and I'm not reading any more than abstracts tonight, but this paper and this paper at first glance seemed to indicate the same thing.

While the good cells are wearing targets, the bad cells are wearing many more targets, so if your efficiency at hitting targets is lower than 100%, you're going to be killing more bad cells than good cells.

The author's system is great in a petri dish, but there's a reason it's published in a low tier journal.

And that reason is probably the following: the 80% of cells in a dish is probably not that impressive compared to developed drugs, however this was just a proof of concept. The wright brothers only flew a few hundred feet. There are undoubtedly refinements that could be made to this system that would increase the efficiency, but it's not to that stage yet. This technology might turn out to be a true cure for cancer once it's refined.

And don't criticize them for doing it in a dish just yet, this press release says "So far, tests have been done only on cells in a laboratory setting, but animal testing is planned for the next phase."

They can hardly be blamed for not delivering the magic bullet cure to cancer in one fell swoop, that's just not how these things work.

Also, most large organisms including humans and cows, contain more bacteria cells than human (or cow) cells.

In the muscle tissue itself? On the surface and in the intestinal tract, yes. The meat the hamburger begins "life" as should be sterile. Of course, in the process of being ground up the meat will receive a small amount of bacteria from the surfaces of the equipment and the air, but those surfaces would be washed regularly.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=291225

ImageJ - free and Open Source, and consequently plugins to do pretty much everything you can think of (or if not, roll your own) (see here for a good bundle).

It's also interesting that (according to the story I linked above) there has not been a placebo-controlled trial of the flu vaccine.

Of course, if you bothered to check Pubmed, you would have found dozens and dozens of placebo controlled trials of flu vaccines. Which should tell you something about getting your scientific knowledge from some guy quoted in the New York Times (journalism tip: when a newspaper quotes somebody else as saying something, they are not responsible for the accuracy of that statement).

The seasonal updates of the flu vaccines can't be individually tested in placebo trials of course, because by the time the trial was over, it would be too late for the vaccine to save any lives--the flu would have come and gone. However, statistical evidence shows that seasonal flu vaccines (when vaccine developers correctly predict what flu strain will go world-wide) are highly safe and effective, just as expected from the results of placebo studies.

Are the Copenhagen and Everett interpretations of quantum mechanics supported by evidence? Do the underlying theories explain the evidence and make potentially falsifiable predictions that flow from the conceptual underpinnings of the individual theories? If yes, then either theory, even if one or both are overthrown are contributing positively to science. Now compare that to Intelligent Design (assuming that is likely your position). Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" was published in 1996. Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" was published in 1991. "Of Pandas and People" was first published in 1989 having morphed into "Intelligent Design" from earlier straight up creationist drafts dating to 1983. It is now 2009, almost 2010. Proponents of ID have, as of yet, to come up with any evidence. They have also not said what such evidence would even look like. Actual working scientists like me have done more: we explain what a human or human-like intelligence would do, then state the plain truth that no such evidence has been found. If you don't believe me then check out NCBI which has free public access to all genes sequenced using public moneys, and start searching for that designer(s). ID proponents have failed to come up with falsifiable predictions that are produced from the theoretical framework of ID. That's probably because they have yet, after 26 years to come up with a scientific theory of ID. Despite these four scientifically fatal flaws, ID flourishes. There are dozens of popular books on the subject. There are speaking tours. There are even movies like "Expelled" shown in movie theaters. There are court cases, media blitzes, and conservative politicians must kowtow to it. The Templeton Foundation begs, literally begs to give money to ID researchers...but can't find anyone to fund. In this granting environment, a "good" grant has six times as many applicants as it has successful awardees. For ID proponents, allegedly scientists, to let money go begging insults all of science and everyone working in it. Yet you complain of suppression when nothing could be further from the case.

My partner was an ICU nurse and used continuous flow VADs (Ventricular Assist Device) for years.

Here's an article from 2000: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/circulationaha;101/4/356

There is some controversy about continuous flow, but the notion is that most of the body experiences nearly continuous flow, anyway.

Implanted continuous flow notes from April: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19324130

And another from 2008 implying that pulseless does not matter:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18442710?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

My partner was an ICU nurse and used continuous flow VADs (Ventricular Assist Device) for years.

Here's an article from 2000: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/circulationaha;101/4/356

There is some controversy about continuous flow, but the notion is that most of the body experiences nearly continuous flow, anyway.

Implanted continuous flow notes from April: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19324130

And another from 2008 implying that pulseless does not matter:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18442710?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

It depends what you mean by "how long" -- how long in a given day, or how long between vacation periods? Cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that the spacing of study occasions is highly important for learning and long-term retention. The education literature is full of studies on summer learning loss. So Obama isn't just making this up out of nowhere -- he's basing his proposal on a substantial body of empirical research.

I wrote a thesis on this. It is a major problem with no great solutions at this point. My conclusions for video were as follows:

1. Make an analog film copy if possible. Despite tape being popular and touted among IT types, it actually was reported as having the highest rate of failure among filmmakers. This included partial failure where some information was garbled. Film fared the best and hard-drives did well too. There is not enough data for flash devices yet, and optical isn't great even in optimal conditions.

2. Make a digital print to MJ2 (Motion JPEG-2000). It is the only well accepted loss-less video standard at this point. Follow the SMPTE guidelines and make sure you save a decoder or at least note which encoder you used - this is the current shortcoming of this format (see this publication for details).

3. Keep the video in its original format or MPEG-2 as a backup (follow ISO specs if you must convert the original; if keeping the originals note what hardware and software they were created with - THIS IS VITAL!).

4. Store the data on at least two mediums in at least two locations. If they will be actively using DVD, I recommend DVD and Flash in the museum and Hard Drive and Optical media in another offsite location. Be sure to label with permanent ink the software needed, the platform used, and the disk format. Follow official ISO formats whenever possible when mastering the media. It is essential that you mark what you used to encode so it can be decoded later! Don't assume it will be obvious. As mentioned earlier, if possible use film. It has the advantage of not needing to be decoded by any specific piece of hardware that might go obsolete or break. Light will be around for a while!

5. Copy, copy, copy. Nothing lasts forever. The museum should already have a policy of duplication and set storage conditions for warehoused items. Make sure they follow it for their digital collections too. Many museums and libraries are lax on this and if things don't change there will be significant cultural losses over the next few decades.

6.Suggest licensing the same piece to two museums with an ageement that one museum can duplicate the other museums copy should one or the other fail. This is a great fail-safe and reduces the cost of long-term storage.

Let me know if you have any other questions!

Evolution works only on traits produced by genetic mutation, NOT traits acquired through behaviour.

While this is true for genetic changes, it's not true for epigenetic changes.

Instead of creating a vaccine, Doctors could somehow manipulate the CCR-5 genetic mutation? The University of Pennsylvania is attempting to modify CCR-5 Genetic mutation. I don't know what the proper medical speak would sound like as I am NOT a medical professional. Rather,

I'm and individual trying to understand this from a researcher's perspective. It sounds promising, but who knows if or how it might work. Leave that to those more intelligent than us. The Wall Street
Journal had an article about a bone marrow transplant that functionally cured HIV/AIDS by seeking a donor that had a natural occurence of the CCR5 coreceptor mutation.
The WSJ called this a cure however, with only one known person to have this procedure. The first you instance/mention of this possibility I could find was here.

One has to wonder if this could be a real cure/treatment from HIV/AIDS, but we'll never know until a significant amount of testing/research has been done to prove this.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102240544.html there are several different figures given by different studies, but the highest Ive seen was .4 Most studies give a figure >.01

I said "some nutricionists" said so. E.g. Loren Cordain. Here is one publication supporting his claims. I quote:

1. The plasma disappearance of 3H-labelled 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3) was studied in healthy volunteers on normal and high-fibre diets, using 3H-labelled tracer doses given intravenously. 2. The mean (+/- SEM) plasma half-life in the high-fibre-diet group was 19.2 +/- 1.7 d, which was significantly shorter than in the group on normal diets (27.5 +/- 2.1 d, P less than 0.01). 3. This finding suggests that a high-fibre diet leads to enhanced elimination of 25(OH)D3 by an action within the intestinal lumen. This may involve interference with an enterohepatic circulation of the metabolite, perhaps by binding of 25(OH)D3 to dietary fibre. 4. The reduced plasma half-life of 3H-labelled 25(OH)D3 associated with a high-fibre diet may explain the development of vitamin D deficiency in Asian immigrants with normal exposure to u.v. light.

That's one thing that has always bugged me. There's always a big commotion about anorexic models, but they don't consider that they are only a small percentage of population, with only 3% of the population having a binge eating disorder, and roughly two thirds of the population is overweight or obese. Don't get me wrong, anorexia is a serious medical condition and people need to be informed about it, but I think its been way over publicized because of all the celebrity gossip that's going around today, so people think it's more prevalent than it actually is.

That's one thing that has always bugged me. There's always a big commotion about anorexic models, but they don't consider that they are only a small percentage of population, with only 3% of the population having a binge eating disorder, and roughly two thirds of the population is overweight or obese. Don't get me wrong, anorexia is a serious medical condition and people need to be informed about it, but I think its been way over publicized because of all the celebrity gossip that's going around today, so people think it's more prevalent than it actually is.

I do know that in some cases even severed spinal cords could grow back correctly enough for partial function if treated soon enough with a particular substance. That substance is a common food additive, so phase 1 clinical trials might be skipped.

You may have ethical reasons for being vague about what exactly this "substance" is, but given what you've said here, I'd wager you're talking about glutamate?

Glutamate is a transmitter precursor, not a growth promoter.

I didn't know whether the news was out about this stuff or not so I had to find out first. Turns out I'm way late in catching up on my son's work. The Wikipedia page on this stuff references a 2001 study done at Purdue; that was the lab he worked in as an undergrad.

Polyethylene glycol. Since 2006 it's been allowed as a direct additive http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2006/March/Day-13/i2354.htm

Go to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in "polyethylene glycol spinal cord" as search terms.

Science tells me you are full of shit.

Rural adults are more likely to be obese, and are less physically active than urban adults: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085629

Rural children are more obese than urban children, IN SPITE of being slightly more physically active:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007396?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Science tells me you are full of shit.

Rural adults are more likely to be obese, and are less physically active than urban adults: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085629

Rural children are more obese than urban children, IN SPITE of being slightly more physically active:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007396?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

and the article glosses over that MOST water supplies in the USA are so heavily chlorinated, that the chance of this happening are nearly ZERO.

Au contraire. Truth is not arrived at by listening to the voices in your head,* but by rigorous scientific study. For example, let's have a look at Chlorine Susceptibility of Mycobacterium avium and Effect of Growth in Biofilms on Chlorine Susceptibility of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare, two entirely independent studies.

It would appear that those published, peer-reviewed studies disagree with you. In particular, a quote from the former:

. . . M. avium has been isolated from a variety of sources, including municipal drinking water systems . . .

Whether M. avium is worth any worry is up for debate. Whether it exists in our water supplies is not. It probably isn't a great cause for concern, although it's nice to know that it's being looked into with more thoroughness than someone waving vaguely and going "naaaaah".

* Which I assume also whisper to you that the best way to denote emphasis is by capitalizing words in their entirety. They're wrong about that, too.

Ok Mr "Scientist" explain the Chrome result based on your premise of OS integration (which is a half-truth).

I'd put odds on Safari save every frigging page visited as an image for the pretty history as *Apples* fault, not Microsofts.

I'd be more than happy to.

The "Chrome Result" is no result at all. The theory of integration making a difference could explain the observations if the difference was real. I say it isn't. They tested things very few times ("at least twice", meaning twice or maybe more sometimes, doesn't cut it). To elucidate (that's "Scientist" for 'talk a lot to explain something').

All the differences except Safari's (your observation there is apt) are between 1 and 3 percent, the latter being Chrome's. To say that small amount represented a significant difference in browser function, rather than a mere accident caused by factors such as differences in the batteries charge and output at different times due to temperature, actual voltage rather than some "fully charged" signal, etc., the tests would have to be run many times. If it were just Chrome vs. IE8, the tests would have to be run enough times with consistent results in both precision (how often the difference was the same direction and same distance between the averages) and accuracy (how close the individual measurements for each came to being the same figure). If both precision and accuracy were very high, it might take 10 or 20 such tests to show that small difference was at least 95% likely to be correct (that's the accepted 'confidence level' in statistical testing). If either or both were more spread out, it'd take more tests to validate that the averages were likely enough to be different and so the difference acceptable as a "result". That's the "scientist" answer to your question.

And that's just for the two of them. The multiple comparisons from testing so many at the same time requires much more precision and accuracy, most often obtained by more measurements. And since all those others save Safari are within 1%, it's going to take a shitload (a technical term) of tests to find if they're really different. Even so, the few tests run on just the two can't result in significance, so it can't prove they're different (or fail to show no difference, as we say in statistics). One or two or a very few tests is not an experimental design, it's a "demonstration" and doesn't prove anything except that the people doing the test were able to get a result of some sort, which they cannot say anything definitive about other than "we did this and got this". The astute TV watcher can continue to appreciate Mythbusters for their many destructive testing sequences despite now knowing their "proofs" are not.

Still, considering just the simple case of IE vs. Chrome, the difference they report and that we'll use for a final explanation, is 7 hours and 34 minutes for Chrome, 7 hours and 21 minutes for IE. The way statistics works, we could probably keep running the tests up to thousands of times and force the result to become statistically significant. But such significance should be compared to the more real world measure, practical significance. The battery runs out after 7.5 hours +4/-9 minutes. Under what conditions is that 13 minute range going to matter, no matter which is at what end of it? That's the unasked "I'd plug it in when the indicator showed it was getting low rather than take the chance it's going to run out a few minutes sooner this time for some reason" answer.

And that's Doctor "Scientist" to you. I'm the second author, although I'm first author for my dissertation, from which this was pulled.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11755262?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

No. All things being equal, a primary study is much more reliable than a meta-analysis. There are far fewer things that can go wrong, and the veracity of the primary study requires only that ONE study be conducted properly. A meta-analysis requires not only that the meta-analysis is done properly but also that at least the majority of the sub-studies are also done (and interpreted) properly. The reason meta-analyses are often used as a gold standard is that they can (usually) command a sample size that is far beyond that of the usual primary study.

I'm not disagreeing that, in practice, in many fields, meta-analyses are excellent evidence. However, in many circumstances they can be very misleading, difficult to assess, difficult to do properly, and subject to a lot of other pitfalls.

As a relevant example, note that the clinical trial registry was set up in no small part to address the problem of publication bias in drug trials. Trials with negative results tended not to get reported, producing an extreme bias in any literature reviews or meta-analyses. Also note that the meta-analyses mentioned in the article would appear to be comparing results that are likely mostly post-trial registry with those that are pre-trial registry ("the 1980s").

As a thought experiment, what effect might we expect to find in these meta-analyses if there was a publication bias in favour of positive results in the 1980s which has been reduced in the 2000s? Hm.

There is annecdotal evidence from brain surgeons that nearfield UHF (from cell phones) is causing an alarming increase in brain cancer.

How about a less anecdotal statement:

From 1990 to 2002, the overall age-adjusted incidence rates for brain cancer decreased slightly ; from 7.0 cases to 6.4 cases for every 100,000 persons in the United States. The mortality rate from 1990 to 2002 also decreased slightly; from 4.9 deaths to 4.5 for every 100,000 persons in the United States

(emphasis mine) . Link here

Here are two studies I found with 2 minutes of Google. One is South Korean and the other is Italian.

Considering how easily I found these, I think your arrogant tone is unwarranted.

Here are two studies I found with 2 minutes of Google. One is South Korean and the other is Italian.

Considering how easily I found these, I think your arrogant tone is unwarranted.

There is some evidence pointing toward an increased risk of Leukemia for children living near A.M. radio transmitters, but because of the commercial implications, the research is controversial.

Here's the abstract from a South Korean study on the issue from PubMed. Wired did a piece on it in 2004, also.

By the way, I forgot to mention this, but lysogeny is a much bigger deal than it would appear. Not only do AIDS and herpesviruses rely on it, the bacteria that cause diphtheria and cholera are both harmless (to people) unless they've been infected by lysogenic viruses that have integrated into their DNA, converting them into wildly pathogenic and very deadly diseases. There are also reputable people pushing the viral eukaryogenesis theory, that says that the reason that eukaryotic cells, containing mitochondria (which allows for organisms rather than just single cells, by providing localized chemical/energy conversion) came to exist was because of lysogenic viruses messing about in cells and allowing them to integrate small symbiotic bacteria that later became mitochondria. And chloroplasts if you're a plant, but plants don't read slashdot, so that's a whole different tangent. But it is why plants have three different genomes, and animals have two: nuclear DNA, mitochondria DNA, and for plants, chloroplastic DNA. So, a current respected theory is that all animal and plant life is a result of lysogeny.

The Y chromosome spans about 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and represents almost 2 percent of the total DNA in cells.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome=Y

Chromosome 1 is the largest human chromosome, spanning about 247 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and representing approximately 8 percent of the total DNA in cells.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome=1

The Y chromosome spans about 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and represents almost 2 percent of the total DNA in cells.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome=Y

Chromosome 1 is the largest human chromosome, spanning about 247 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and representing approximately 8 percent of the total DNA in cells.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome=1

The protein that gets misfolded in Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (or mad cow) seems to be called just Prion protein and is only 253 amino acids. If bunnie is correct and one amino acid = 6 bits, then thats 1,518 bits.

So you're saying that it would take just 11 posts on Twitter to kill someone?

It would actually take less than that, though it wouldn't spread the same way. Remember that prions are proteins that can kill you rather than whole viruses. The protein that gets misfolded in Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (or mad cow) seems to be called just Prion protein and is only 253 amino acids. If bunnie is correct and one amino acid = 6 bits, then thats 1,518 bits. "Bit calculator" tells me that would be 0.185 kbytes.

Granted, this wouldn't be airborne death, would be extremely slow, and wouldn't cause a pandemic, but still, far less data.

Even if you were to go the viral route, at least one virus is tricky in that it produces multiple proteins from overlapping reading frames. That is, the same sections of RNA genome (sendai uses RNA instead of DNA) is read in multiple ways to make different functional proteins, one protein might be formed from reading AUG GAU GGG CAG, which would make the amino acid sequence MDGQ, but that could aso be read as A UGG *AUG* GGC AG where the starred AUG is the start, making a protein of MG. I find that pretty cool, because as Carl Sagan pointed out, try doing that with english. "Romancement to get her" can be spaced differently to produce "roman cement together" is the longest he could come up with and it doesn't even make sense. Viruses make whole proteins that work. Anyway, the point of all that was that viruses can in some cases double up, so it would take even fewer nucleotides to produce the same amount of protiens.

It would actually take less than that, though it wouldn't spread the same way. Remember that prions are proteins that can kill you rather than whole viruses. The protein that gets misfolded in Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (or mad cow) seems to be called just Prion protein and is only 253 amino acids. If bunnie is correct and one amino acid = 6 bits, then thats 1,518 bits. "Bit calculator" tells me that would be 0.185 kbytes.

Granted, this wouldn't be airborne death, would be extremely slow, and wouldn't cause a pandemic, but still, far less data.

Even if you were to go the viral route, at least one virus is tricky in that it produces multiple proteins from overlapping reading frames. That is, the same sections of RNA genome (sendai uses RNA instead of DNA) is read in multiple ways to make different functional proteins, one protein might be formed from reading AUG GAU GGG CAG, which would make the amino acid sequence MDGQ, but that could aso be read as A UGG *AUG* GGC AG where the starred AUG is the start, making a protein of MG. I find that pretty cool, because as Carl Sagan pointed out, try doing that with english. "Romancement to get her" can be spaced differently to produce "roman cement together" is the longest he could come up with and it doesn't even make sense. Viruses make whole proteins that work. Anyway, the point of all that was that viruses can in some cases double up, so it would take even fewer nucleotides to produce the same amount of protiens.

This article is misleading in supposing that the nucleic acid sequence represents the only information in encoded in a virus. A naked nucleic acid strand wouldn't make it very far in the wild. Here are some extra sources of information applicable to influenza:

1) RNA modifications

2) protein modifications

3) 8 different strands (the cut points are information)

4 - n) The tiny matter of the structure and organization of the virus, its proteins counts and arrangements, and the way that its RNA strands are packaged (see the wikipedia article for more on this).

So, the information contained in a single virus is far higher than its nucleic acid sequence. I'm not dead yet.

From an unlikely source: PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Search terms "plasmodium Physarum polycephalum"

I went looking for negative stuff, knowing plasmodiums were behind malaria. Couldn't find any for this stuff, but I did find some juicy bits from biomedical science regarding its computational ability, or rather its internal processes that can be used as such. Not many will be able to get the referenced material, but just the abstracts are tasty.

Yes, there are islet cell therapies on the horizon: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter7.asp

Female-phenotype XXY seems to be very rare but has been reported.

Cases of individuals who had an XXY karyotype and a female phenotype have been reported [37].
[37] Schmid M, Guttenbach M, Endres H, Terruhn V. A 47,XXY female with unusual genitalia. Hum Genet 1992;90:346â"9.
source

47,XXY female with testicular feminization and positive SRY: a case report.

and even An SRY-negative 47,XXY mother and daughter

Further discussion, rather inconclusive: bodieslikeours forum - anecdotal references to an XXY female in New Zealand, and of Klinefelter himself saying that 1 of his original 9 patients was female

A predictable response, but consider that if a person is clinically addicted to certain drugs, then not having those drugs regularly is highly likely to cause death. In that sense, there is some truth to the reasoning that "the drugs made me do it" - the drugs are necessary to avoid death, and if the person were not addicted, then the drugs would not be necessary.

Happily, even among highly chemically-addictive drugs, there are very few that can kill you if you discontinue them abruptly. Sadly, the worst of the lot (alcohol) is the most widely abused. Because alcohol is a powerful GABA agonist (i.e. amplifies the effects of GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter), the body responds to long-term alcohol use by decreasing sensitivity to GABA. During alcohol withdrawal, the reduced sensitivity means the body's natural GABA signals are no longer effective, causing glutamate and other excitatory transmitters to operate unchecked. Untreated withdrawal in a heavy alcoholic causes elevated heart rate, tremors, convulsions, permanent brain damage, then death.

Other highly addictive drugs with absolutely dreadful withdrawals (e.g. heroin) are rarely even remotely life threatening (however miserable the person feels while it's happening).

You can certainly make those statements without being racist, but you do need to back it up. Example of such statements that arn't racist:

Beliefs as well as cultural factors may affect utilization of drug abuse treatment. Significant differences in rates of treatment entry have been documented among African Americans and Latinos compared to Whites in the United States (Lundgren et al., 2001; Shah et al., 2000). In a study of ethnic minorities in Los Angeles, Latino drug users were less likely than Anglo or African Americans to have sought drug treatment and were more likely than these groups to report a low perceived need for drug abuse treatment (Longshore et al., 1992).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2196212

I don't know why you would think that Europe won't intervene.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4420446/Premature-births-cost-the-NHS-almost-1-billion-a-year.html

80000 premature births in the UK

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/prematurebabies.html

480000 premature births in the US.

Adjusted for population they look very similar to me.

The fact is that the NHS will treat every and all premature birth. It will also treat every and all pregnant mothers (unless you elect to pay to go privately) If there is skewing of the statistics due to infant mortality I'd think it was the other way with babies not being taken to hospital in the US until it is too late.

Tim.

*sigh* Learn to read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9356547?dopt=Abstract " whereas fat (r = -0.27, NS, n = 36) and protein (r = -0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related [to the mean insulin scores]" Thats a link to an astract from your page..

Bodybuilders eat slow carbs + protein to have an energy for workout and spare muscle.

Yes, and they purposefully are LEAN carbs & protein to ensure the protein is absorbed quickly pre-workout. Its also avoided POST workout because you WANT to spike your insulin levels... and fat blunts that spike.

I get my "strange" ideas from my trainer, b/c I AM a body builder. Dumbass.

I foresee a bunch of very angry and utterly confused "life starts at DNA" people.

If "life" means being able to reproduce then because RNA can self replicate the quote needs to be "life starts at DNA or RNA".

Falcon

This contradicts the results published by Dr. Daniele Piomelli at UC Irvine, who found that eating fatty foods can improve long-term memory. Perhaps there is a difference between short-term and long-term memory formation, or a difference in methodology. In any case, the results of medical studies are rarely as simple as they initially appear. (First they said that cholesterol was bad for you, then they said that some cholesterol is good. First they said that being overweight is bad, but now they realize that losing weight isn't necessarily better for your overall health.)

there have been clear-cut studies showing DNA damage on acount of EM fields, even at low frequencies: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241963

Except that the study that you link to is not about low frequency EM radiation, i.e. it has nothing to do with cell phones.

Even if the study were about low frequency EM radiation, which it is not, it would still be irrelevant, because it is not about cell phone frequency EM radiation. (For example, there is a helluvalot of difference between how humans are affected by visible light and by x-rays.)

Even if the study were about cell phone frequency EM radiation, which it is not, it is not about the sort of low level, point source of cell phone frequency EM radiation that cell phones are.

If the study were all of the above, then the question would arise whether its results could be generalized from rats to humans. The answer to which is maybe.

Powerwatch is a good overview site dealing with health issues surrounding microwave and lower frequency electro-magnetic radiation. It may surprise many of you, but there have been clear-cut studies showing DNA damage on acount of EM fields, even at low frequencies: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241963

AFAIK carbohydrates in any form are not required nutrients. At least, there are plenty of documented cases of people living long, happy, healthy, productive lives without ever tasting them. The Inuit, for instance, used to regard plants as unfit for human consumption, and would never touch them unless they were starving. OTOH there is evidence that excessive carbohydrates (or possibly the wrong kind) can gradually bring about insulin resistance, obesity, and eventually diabetes.

The best comment I've ever read on so-called "paleo" diets came from Alan Aragon:

"Paleo nuts will insist that ancestral eating patterns were optimal. This is just as speculative as insisting that their hygiene habits were optimal, too."

You might be interested in some actual historical review on this topic as well: http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~gowlett/GowlettCJNE_13_03_02.pdf

Again, there is ample evidence to show that some people (as in many thousands) have consumed well under 2000 calories a month for decades, in the form of carbohydrates, while doing hard physical work - and wound up grossly obese. Just as others (usually much wealthier) have eaten far more than 2000 calories a day for years, while doing little or no physical work, and remained lean and fit.

Body weight is determined by energy balance (calories in vs. calories burned). Are there some people so small that 2000 calorie diets are way over budget, even with exercise? You bet. That doesn't change the equation. Here's the state of research on the topic:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/wecan/learn-it/balance.htm

Some things in nutrition science are unknown or controversial. This isn't -- except among quacks and people with books to sell.

As far as carb restriction and weight loss, you should know the recent research on the topic shows no difference between carb restriction and non-carb-restriction, once energy balance is controlled.

Consider, if it's not too challenging, the possibility that human bodies treat different nutrients in different ways. Ask yourself why - if constant weight can be maintained only by making sure that "energy in equals energy out" - most human beings (and other animals) keep their weight within a pound or two for decades on end.

It seems to me you're confusing "simple" with "easy". Body weight and energy balance are indeed simple things. Keeping energy balance where you want it isn't. In fact, even among people who count calories, studies say there's a tendency to grossly underestimate calories consumed (20% or more).

Yes, that's right - join the bulk of the scientific, medical, and political establishments - and the big food manufacturers who fund them - and blame the victims.

And yet you swallow the junk nutrition myths from people with books to sell you hook, line and sinker.

You seem to have little understanding of scientific research, disclosure of bias and how to deal with it, etc.

References?
I read articles about nutrition and cognition some time ago. In general high energy expenditure and low energy intake have about the same effect (however rather long-term as far as I recall). "Exercise and the brain: something to chew on" listed this food as potentially beneficial (though effects are not well-studied yet):
- omega-3 fatty acid (e.g. fish oil),
- some teas,
- fruits,
- folate (vitamin B9),
- spices, and
- other vitamins.

In another article, "Impact of Energy Intake and Expenditure on Neuronal Plasticity", I found that saturated fats and cholesterol increase the risk of cognitive decline.