Slashdot Mirror

Theoretically a corporation serves the common good [alternet.org] or public good.

That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.

Ergo Thomas Jefferson's warning.

Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.

I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.

I don't have a citation, or the numbers, all I know is that some people don't want health insurance.

Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.

It's also bad for research. Though by no means all research is done in the US a lot is done here. And the US basically subsidizes the rest of the world. Whereas a drug may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the US, elsewhere the cost may be a lot lower. Bulk purchases can lower costs, like Walmart is doing. They're using their leverage to purchase drugs in hugh bulk volumes and selling them cheap, Walmart has pledged to sell a lot of drugs at or lower than $10. And many people complain about Walmart, including me.

Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs?

Yes, socialized medicine will increase my cost. I don't have medical insurance but if I'm forced to have some I will be forced to pay. Look at Massachusetts, the state passed a law requiring all residents to have medical insurance, and some can't afford it. The state helps some pay for it, however it doesn't help everyone who needs the help, and those who don't have coverage will be fined by the state. People will either have to pay for something they can't afford or they will pay a fine.

If you want everyone in the US, er those who want it, to be able to afford to have medical insurance then you have to change tax codes. During World War II the US passed Wage and Price Control Laws. Without the ability to pay employees more employers had trouble getting and keeping workers. After breaking free trade, to "correct" employers' problems, the government allowed them to offer employees fringe benefits such as health insurance, and neither employers nor employees had to then pay more in tax. However by allowing employers to pay employees more without raising tax for either, say letting an employer pay an employee $3600 a year more but not raising either one's taxes the employee could then take that $3600 and buy health insurance on their own. With so many more people able to get their own insurance insurance issuers will lower insurance premiums so more could afford it, it's called competition.

Hold on, I'm not finished. Change zoning laws to allow mixed use and let neighborhood clinics open up in them, without heavy and expensive regulations, as well as allowing people to start businesses in their homes. Allow alternative and complimentary medicine to be practiced. And encourage more home births. Most babies can be delivered safely at home, and such deliveries cost less. Delivery in a hospital can cost thousands of dollars whereas home births with a midwife may cost only a few hundred, if that. Also in hospitals many unnecessary Caesarean sections are done rai

Theoretically a corporation serves the common good [alternet.org] or public good.

That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.

Ergo Thomas Jefferson's warning.

Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.

I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.

I don't have a citation, or the numbers, all I know is that some people don't want health insurance.

Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.

It's also bad for research. Though by no means all research is done in the US a lot is done here. And the US basically subsidizes the rest of the world. Whereas a drug may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the US, elsewhere the cost may be a lot lower. Bulk purchases can lower costs, like Walmart is doing. They're using their leverage to purchase drugs in hugh bulk volumes and selling them cheap, Walmart has pledged to sell a lot of drugs at or lower than $10. And many people complain about Walmart, including me.

Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs?

Yes, socialized medicine will increase my cost. I don't have medical insurance but if I'm forced to have some I will be forced to pay. Look at Massachusetts, the state passed a law requiring all residents to have medical insurance, and some can't afford it. The state helps some pay for it, however it doesn't help everyone who needs the help, and those who don't have coverage will be fined by the state. People will either have to pay for something they can't afford or they will pay a fine.

If you want everyone in the US, er those who want it, to be able to afford to have medical insurance then you have to change tax codes. During World War II the US passed Wage and Price Control Laws. Without the ability to pay employees more employers had trouble getting and keeping workers. After breaking free trade, to "correct" employers' problems, the government allowed them to offer employees fringe benefits such as health insurance, and neither employers nor employees had to then pay more in tax. However by allowing employers to pay employees more without raising tax for either, say letting an employer pay an employee $3600 a year more but not raising either one's taxes the employee could then take that $3600 and buy health insurance on their own. With so many more people able to get their own insurance insurance issuers will lower insurance premiums so more could afford it, it's called competition.

Hold on, I'm not finished. Change zoning laws to allow mixed use and let neighborhood clinics open up in them, without heavy and expensive regulations, as well as allowing people to start businesses in their homes. Allow alternative and complimentary medicine to be practiced. And encourage more home births. Most babies can be delivered safely at home, and such deliveries cost less. Delivery in a hospital can cost thousands of dollars whereas home births with a midwife may cost only a few hundred, if that. Also in hospitals many unnecessary Caesarean sections are done rai

Have a look here and here.. For more, see Google

Now cite your sources please....

Well, I'd really like to completely shoot this down, but it would seem I can't. Using Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) I searched for, and found, several research papers on the subject. The couple I checked (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785684944~db=all and http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1807747&blobtype=pdf {WARNING: PDF}) indicate that there might be something to this, but also indicate the need for much more research. The studies currently published, when taken together, only show confusion since many, but far from all, show some impact while none show the operational mechanisms (the why and how) at work.

All that being said, I still think most of these claims are probably BS. My reasoning is this: we've been inundated with various EM fields of all kinds of frequencies for as life has existed. We've added a lot to this mix with our artificial sources like TV, AM/FM/CB/HAM radio and many other sources. We also have power transmission lines (which do produce their own magnetic fields and many communities now do not allow residential space to be located beneath). Certainly, over the last several years, we have added a lot to this with cell phones and WiFi. However, take a broad-spectrum measure of the RF energy around you. Except for certain circumstances (like living under a power line or radar dome), the total will be fairly low. So the question becomes one that is similar to the question of lead in paint: how much is too much? If there is a reaction that is generalized to the average person, at what level does this average person begin to react? And, since some might prove to be 'allergic' and thus have a stronger reaction to a smaller stimulus and since this is more like smoking than lead paint in that it is pervasive, how would we regulate its use (if this proves to be true at all)? I can see the sign in front of the courthouse now: No smoking, WiFi, or cell phone use within 20ft.

Not exactly. A carcinogen like benzene works differently than a nanofiber like asbestos or carbon tubes. Benzene's affect is purely chemical. Asbestos (and nanotubes) cause damage through physical damage. One mechanism is when the fibers are longer than about 17 microns and are too long for white blood cells to envelop (frustrated phagocytosis). Because the fibers can work their way into lung tissue these fibers form a constant source of inflammation and scarring. Another is the fibers can spear individual cells and cause them to leak and physically interfere with chromosome function. It is worth being careful.

Never mind. For anyone interested, look here and here . Both seem to be pretty reputable sources.

The only real danger involved in heroin use (aside from strawmen involving legality and impurities) is respiratory depression, and that's solvable by controlled usage. I mean, hell, they give it to infants, and Postoperative morphine dose and duration may prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation but there are no significant dose-dependent effects on other parameters including apnoea or hypotension following extubation in term neonates.
In addition, heroin probably produces less nausea than morphine, by analogy with aspirin and salicylic acid, and given that junkies tend to eat less, probably increases lifespan through caloric restriction.

New studies show there is more genetic diversity between humans in Africa:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288178
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050310103042.htm
http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Tishkoff1-1999.htm

It might be easier to find a genius among very different subjects, than finding one in a group where everybody is similar.

Hawking is a genius

I appreciate your honesty, and understand where you are coming from. It's good to have a drive for personal excellence. However, I hope you outgrow your attitude somewhat, because acting like an elitist asshole is ultimately counter-productive. It alienates people, and will give you a blind spot caused by caring more about yourself and unable to accept legitimate criticism.

When I read your comments I'm reminded a lot of Dr. Moon.

Well...in this case how about a wolf? Ok...dingo, actually.

We should start with banning crap like naturopaths. yes insurance companies actually pay these quacks.

Why ban naturopathy? Because you want only allopathic doctors? Everything else is quackery?

Triple my bodymass in grams of protein is 726.75 grams of protein.

Sorry. 2.5x the "high protein" diet.

Back to your enumerated points (I'm focusing on your ridiculously-off-the-charts-high-protein/low carb/low fat diet)

Do you have Inuit genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat large amounts of seal blubber and other fats like the Inuit? Whoops.
Do you eat the mere ~100 grams of protein and ~200 grams of carbohydrate that the Inuit eat per day? Whoops.
Do you have Maasai genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat the very high-fat diet of the Maasai -- so high fat that a common treat for kids is fat boiled in water? Whoops.
Do you have Bantu genetics? Whoops.
"Northern" and "Southern" indians are not technical terms. Whoops. Did you mean to refer to a particular study or were you pulling that out of a hat?
Do you have any native american genetics from any group? Whoops.
Are you of the mistaken notion that people of different genetic makeups process foods the same? Big whoops. (ever heard of "lactose intolerance"? "Lactose tolerance" is an evolutionary adaptation developed in cultures whose diet included dairy. Cultures adapt to their native diets)
Have there been a ridiculously large number of studies on the negative effects of saturated fats? Whoops.

My average training week includes 30mins of weight lifting upon waking, 1hour of training for lunch, and 1 hour of weights/football/throwing everyday for 4 weeks.

That's it? You eat 600 grams of protein per day and that's all you do? For God's sake!

Look, you're free to destroy your body against the recommendations of all major medical organizations who've commented on high protein diets (and by "high protein", they're typically talking about 1g/lb, not 2.5g/lb). But don't try and pretend that it's somehow natural or good for you.

Triple my bodymass in grams of protein is 726.75 grams of protein.

Sorry. 2.5x the "high protein" diet.

Back to your enumerated points (I'm focusing on your ridiculously-off-the-charts-high-protein/low carb/low fat diet)

Do you have Inuit genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat large amounts of seal blubber and other fats like the Inuit? Whoops.
Do you eat the mere ~100 grams of protein and ~200 grams of carbohydrate that the Inuit eat per day? Whoops.
Do you have Maasai genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat the very high-fat diet of the Maasai -- so high fat that a common treat for kids is fat boiled in water? Whoops.
Do you have Bantu genetics? Whoops.
"Northern" and "Southern" indians are not technical terms. Whoops. Did you mean to refer to a particular study or were you pulling that out of a hat?
Do you have any native american genetics from any group? Whoops.
Are you of the mistaken notion that people of different genetic makeups process foods the same? Big whoops. (ever heard of "lactose intolerance"? "Lactose tolerance" is an evolutionary adaptation developed in cultures whose diet included dairy. Cultures adapt to their native diets)
Have there been a ridiculously large number of studies on the negative effects of saturated fats? Whoops.

My average training week includes 30mins of weight lifting upon waking, 1hour of training for lunch, and 1 hour of weights/football/throwing everyday for 4 weeks.

That's it? You eat 600 grams of protein per day and that's all you do? For God's sake!

Look, you're free to destroy your body against the recommendations of all major medical organizations who've commented on high protein diets (and by "high protein", they're typically talking about 1g/lb, not 2.5g/lb). But don't try and pretend that it's somehow natural or good for you.

Triple my bodymass in grams of protein is 726.75 grams of protein.

Sorry. 2.5x the "high protein" diet.

Back to your enumerated points (I'm focusing on your ridiculously-off-the-charts-high-protein/low carb/low fat diet)

Do you have Inuit genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat large amounts of seal blubber and other fats like the Inuit? Whoops.
Do you eat the mere ~100 grams of protein and ~200 grams of carbohydrate that the Inuit eat per day? Whoops.
Do you have Maasai genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat the very high-fat diet of the Maasai -- so high fat that a common treat for kids is fat boiled in water? Whoops.
Do you have Bantu genetics? Whoops.
"Northern" and "Southern" indians are not technical terms. Whoops. Did you mean to refer to a particular study or were you pulling that out of a hat?
Do you have any native american genetics from any group? Whoops.
Are you of the mistaken notion that people of different genetic makeups process foods the same? Big whoops. (ever heard of "lactose intolerance"? "Lactose tolerance" is an evolutionary adaptation developed in cultures whose diet included dairy. Cultures adapt to their native diets)
Have there been a ridiculously large number of studies on the negative effects of saturated fats? Whoops.

My average training week includes 30mins of weight lifting upon waking, 1hour of training for lunch, and 1 hour of weights/football/throwing everyday for 4 weeks.

That's it? You eat 600 grams of protein per day and that's all you do? For God's sake!

Look, you're free to destroy your body against the recommendations of all major medical organizations who've commented on high protein diets (and by "high protein", they're typically talking about 1g/lb, not 2.5g/lb). But don't try and pretend that it's somehow natural or good for you.

Triple my bodymass in grams of protein is 726.75 grams of protein.

Sorry. 2.5x the "high protein" diet.

Back to your enumerated points (I'm focusing on your ridiculously-off-the-charts-high-protein/low carb/low fat diet)

Do you have Inuit genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat large amounts of seal blubber and other fats like the Inuit? Whoops.
Do you eat the mere ~100 grams of protein and ~200 grams of carbohydrate that the Inuit eat per day? Whoops.
Do you have Maasai genetics? Whoops.
Do you eat the very high-fat diet of the Maasai -- so high fat that a common treat for kids is fat boiled in water? Whoops.
Do you have Bantu genetics? Whoops.
"Northern" and "Southern" indians are not technical terms. Whoops. Did you mean to refer to a particular study or were you pulling that out of a hat?
Do you have any native american genetics from any group? Whoops.
Are you of the mistaken notion that people of different genetic makeups process foods the same? Big whoops. (ever heard of "lactose intolerance"? "Lactose tolerance" is an evolutionary adaptation developed in cultures whose diet included dairy. Cultures adapt to their native diets)
Have there been a ridiculously large number of studies on the negative effects of saturated fats? Whoops.

My average training week includes 30mins of weight lifting upon waking, 1hour of training for lunch, and 1 hour of weights/football/throwing everyday for 4 weeks.

That's it? You eat 600 grams of protein per day and that's all you do? For God's sake!

Look, you're free to destroy your body against the recommendations of all major medical organizations who've commented on high protein diets (and by "high protein", they're typically talking about 1g/lb, not 2.5g/lb). But don't try and pretend that it's somehow natural or good for you.

In many ways it worked very well.

Per capita alcohol consumption in the states dropped from 2.6 gallons in 1910 to 0.97 gallons in 1934.

Apparent per capita ethanol consumption for the United States, 1850-2005

Nor is it the least likely that anything you are drinking now has the dubious parentage and potency of the pre-World War One product sold out of the saloon or roadhouse. "A Fight in Five Minutes."

Agreed, mostly.

But sometimes Doctor's can know about interactions (assuming the patients tell them what they are taking/planning to take).

Someone died from 2 ounces of a dextromethorphan (DXM) cough syrup. Because she was also taking Nardil (a very powerful MAOI).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1930348

Fatal serotonin syndrome! (a horrible way to die).

2 ounces of cough syrup is a bit more than usual, but she was taking it for its intended purpose, and some people take lots more that than for non-recommended purposes and not come anywhere near dying.

Then again, anyone on Nardil (a very dangerous drug) should know all the warnings, such that eating the wrong kind of cheese can kill you... Perhaps her Dr. didn't or she didn't listen.

P.S. Someone needs to fix Firefox's spell checker. Can't recognize Nardil, DXM, (OK understandable), serotonin or dextromethorphan (come on now...)

So can you cite a reliable source for this story? It still sounds like an urban legend that has been contoured to fit Mr Lovins political theories.

University of Maryland Listserv has a message with the part from Lovins' "Natural Capitalism". Both provide the message and the book provide the sources they got the info from:

"Cheng, F.Y. 1963. Deterioration of thatch roofs by moth larvae after house spraying in the course of a malaria eradication programme in North Borneo. Bull. WHO 28:136-137."
"Conway, G.R. 1969. Ecological aspects of pest control in Malaysia, pp. 467-488 in Farvar, M.T. and J.P. Milton, eds. The Careless Technology. Natural History Press, New York, NY."
"Harrisson, T. 1965. Operation cat drop. Animals 5:512-513."

Try googling for just "thin egg shells lead" instead of leaded gas

Ok, I used leaded gas because that's what you used. Dropping "gas", wow too many results. Try thin egg shells lead birds OR eagles OR falcons, some of the first results were about fish eggs. The second result is from University of Southern California, The Brown Pelican which blames their "population decline and the threat of extinction" on DDT but says nothing about lead. Going through 8 pages of results looking for science or university, college, links I didn't find any saying or suggesting lead had anything to do with thin egg shells. You may wonder why I only checked science or educational links. That's because I wanted scientific links. Ah, here's one although how qualified it is I don' know. Anyway here's what ScienceMaster says on the influence of lead:

"In addition to the adverse effects of DDT, bald eagles also died from lead poisoning as a result of feeding on hunter-killed or crippled waterfowl containing lead shot and from lead shot that was inadvertently ingested by the waterfowl. (In 1991, a 5- year program to phase out the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting was completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)"

I don't discount heavy metals and other things can affect egg shells, however I also think DDT does as well. I also believe spraying DDT to exterminate mosquitoes, and exterminating them, does have unforeseen cascading effects. Such as killing parasitic wasps, which allows their prey wood eating caterpillars to increase their population.

Perhaps I've been going through this the wrong way as I don't oppose controlling mosquitoes, what I oppose is how they are controlled and what causes their numbers to increase. Studies, including a United Nations study, concluded mosquito populations increase where dams are built. And the economic reasons for dams have been shot down as well. Dams cost more than they were originally sold as costing and the benefits are less than they were sold for. The study Incidence of malaria among children living near dams in northern Ethiopia: community based incidence survey" shows the incidence of malaria in children is significantly higher, sevenfold, near dams than away from them. WCD To Study Brazil's Tucurui Dam and Amazon/Tocantins River Basin says dams are "creating a vast reservoir in which disease-bearing mosquitoes breed". Methods of controlling mosquitoes, other than not creating places they can breed, are available. Though not used alone, bats can help control mosquitoes. As can birds, frogs, and lizards. From University of Florida:

Thiomersal is one of those words that is more misspelled (as "thimerosal") than spelled correctly (according to hit counts from a Google Search). Both the blogger and the lawyer in this case have it wrong. More info is at http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/questions/en/ and http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/en/index.html. Also see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=516680.

I looked on PubMed Central and found this:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=226096

There's a little bit in there on computer monitors.

Regards, Non.

In a series of experiments, proofreading performance was consistently better with positive polarity (dark text on light background) than with negative polarity displays (light text on dark background). This positive polarity advantage was independent of ambient lighting (darkness vs. typical office illumination) and of chromaticity (black and white vs. blue and yellow). A final experiment showed that colour contrast (red text on green background) could not compensate for a lack of luminance contrast. Physiological measures of effort and strain (breathing rate, heart rate, heart rate variability and skin conductance level) and self-reported mood, fatigue, arousal, eyestrain, headache, muscle strain and back pain did not vary as a function of any of the independent variables, suggesting that participants worked equally hard in all experimental conditions, so that the interpretation of the primary performance measure was unlikely to be contaminated by a performance-effort trade-off.

The purpose of the experiment was to investigate the effects of chromaticity combination on reading speeds and subjective preference ratings for small Chinese characters. The experiment was 7 (text chromaticity) x 7 (background chromaticity) split-plot design. Analysis of variance showed that the text chromaticity was not significant, but background chromaticity was. The findings suggested that achromatic color was the most effective background chromaticity with lower reading time and had a higher preference rating; however, the highly saturated short-wavelength blue was least effective.

In a series of experiments, proofreading performance was consistently better with positive polarity (dark text on light background) than with negative polarity displays (light text on dark background). This positive polarity advantage was independent of ambient lighting (darkness vs. typical office illumination) and of chromaticity (black and white vs. blue and yellow). A final experiment showed that colour contrast (red text on green background) could not compensate for a lack of luminance contrast. Physiological measures of effort and strain (breathing rate, heart rate, heart rate variability and skin conductance level) and self-reported mood, fatigue, arousal, eyestrain, headache, muscle strain and back pain did not vary as a function of any of the independent variables, suggesting that participants worked equally hard in all experimental conditions, so that the interpretation of the primary performance measure was unlikely to be contaminated by a performance-effort trade-off.

The purpose of the experiment was to investigate the effects of chromaticity combination on reading speeds and subjective preference ratings for small Chinese characters. The experiment was 7 (text chromaticity) x 7 (background chromaticity) split-plot design. Analysis of variance showed that the text chromaticity was not significant, but background chromaticity was. The findings suggested that achromatic color was the most effective background chromaticity with lower reading time and had a higher preference rating; however, the highly saturated short-wavelength blue was least effective.

Turns out Komodo dragons have a fairly lethal cocktail of bacteria in their saliva.
Kills prey that manages to escape their immediate grasp, then they use smell to track it down.
Naturally they need protection from this goo too.

Couldn't find a better link than this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12238371/

Can you even back up your claim that you are more likely to get shot with your own gun?

Perhaps then Alzheimer's is caused by cholesterol damage? You know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then... what was I about to say?

Perhaps then Alzheimer's is caused by cholesterol damage? You know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then... what was I about to say?

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. I did not say that properly of course; it should have been: 70%+ are sexually active by the time they are 16.

I can't find a source right now (not the sort of thing I bookmark). Here are some random hits from google agreeing with my point:

78% in Britain http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10023100

60%+ had oral sex: nymag.com/lifestyle/sex/annual/2005/15079/

66% of 12 graders had sex: http://www.aspeneducation.com/factsheetpromiscuity.html

Lots of others as well.

Same here except smoking marijuana.

I haven't smoked since I was sixteen. Might if they legalized it... then again, might not. Depends on the occasion, I suppose. At this point, I'm desperately holding on to the brain cells I have left. ;-)

Well like you I have smoked, and inhaled, but it's been somewhere around 20 years since I've had a drag. I like the taste but I didn't like losing control so I didn't smoke enough to get high. For the same reason I don't drink so much I get drunk, as soon as I start getting a buzz I quit drinking alcohol. Unfortunately as I am now I'd rather be drunk and or high almost all the tyme now because those brain cells, neurons. As I'm a survivor of a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, they have been damaged.

Byte was quite a different magazine in those early days.

"Byte" was a good how-to, if you read long enough you should of been able to build your own, from one of the kits offered or maybe by yourself. It was the only magazine I know that was like it, all the other computer magazines focused more on using them. "Byte" also had some articles on what they could be used for, that's what Jerry Pournelle's "Chaos Manor" column was about, but it had more how-tos.

This is the paper. There were several faces more attractive than the average. So, a conclusion from that paper was that you can't do wrong with average, but you can do better on occasion.

Note also that inserting the P connector into the wrong type of V port can seriously damage the P connector:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1968092&pageindex=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18361515?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Here is the link to the Journal article. I'm reading through this now, but I'm hoping to god they characterised the glycosylation on these babies, it should help tie my PhD thesis together quite nicely.

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace Where Hydrogen is built into Helium At a temperature of millions of degrees...

i.e. people with PHD's believing they could 'shock' their mentally ill patients and "cure" them

I was under the impression that electroshock therapy actually does work in certain cases where all else fails. This pubmed abstract seems to support that case.

Technically the TCA does not include the ETC. At least, not according to Stryer's Biochemistry

From Stryer's:
The function of the citric acid cycle is the harvesting of high-energy electrons from carbon fuels. Note that the citric acid cycle itself neither generates a large amount of ATP nor includes oxygen as a reactant.

Again, nitpicky, but many points have been lost on tests on that technicality :)

While this discovery is of great importance, we still need to find an inhibitor for this enzyme that will not also inhibit normal pyruvate kinases. BTW, if anyone is interested in reading more about the discovery, Harvard Medical School has a more detailed press release and the two related articles in Nature can be found here (protein structure) and here (relationship to cancer). We haven't gotten to AZT yet, but this is a pretty large step towards finding a sort of "magic bullet" for tumors. At the very least, it's a common weakness most cancerous cells share.

While this discovery is of great importance, we still need to find an inhibitor for this enzyme that will not also inhibit normal pyruvate kinases. BTW, if anyone is interested in reading more about the discovery, Harvard Medical School has a more detailed press release and the two related articles in Nature can be found here (protein structure) and here (relationship to cancer). We haven't gotten to AZT yet, but this is a pretty large step towards finding a sort of "magic bullet" for tumors. At the very least, it's a common weakness most cancerous cells share.

Other than giving people goosebumps? Guess why people buy caffeinated shampoo... Pointy hair looks sooooo sexy...

Just for clarity, the average survival rate for individuals properly treated with HAART is well over 5 years after AIDS diagnosis. 6-24 months is the prognosis for untreated patients. Also many patients with AIDS do not die from it, although it is often difficult to determine whether AIDS is implicated in their deaths... I'm just saying, for perspective's sake, that life itself is a death sentence, so you're right but you're also wrong in saying it's not a chronic condition; there do exist individuals who are able to almost completely control it for very many years using drugs and who die of relatively natural causes. The following paper reports a 25% mortality after 5 years for patients treated with contemporary HAART methodology: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16260908

No. TRIM5alpha has been in the news for quite some time. It's a gene carried by old world monkeys that prevent them from getting HIV. The human version of TRIM5alpha has a mutation which does not protect us from HIV but does protect us from other types of viruses (it's thought). There are experiments that show that TRIM5alpha prematurely disassembles the capsid cores of HIV particles as they are infecting cells. These cores contain the viral RNA as it is being made into viral DNA for insertion into the host cell genome.

So you can imagine the interest in TRIM genes and proteins. Just Pubmed TRIM5alpha and you'll see many articles. TRIM22 is probably a homologue of TRIM5alpha. The article does not seem to mention anything about TRIM5alpha probably because it makes it seem like their work has already been done. See below for the original finding:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14985764?ordinalpos=110&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I'm basing this on the contents of the BLAST ftp archive, where the plants directory covers almond, barley, various beans, beet, cocoa, corn, eggplant, oat, wheat, onion and tomato, amongst others. These files are down to the nucleotide level and can be processed with any of the open-source BLAST applications (which is good), but I will admit I can't be sure which of these are complete genome sequences and which are partial.

Fuck that, we sequence everything http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/mvhome/mvhome.cgi

drugs are the only scientifically proven way to get back to leading a normal life.

• "A survey of the 35 female and 42 gay sexual partners of circumcised and genitally intact men, and a separate survey of 53 circumcised and 30 genitally intact men themselves, indicated that circumcised men experienced significantly reduced sexual sensation along with associated long-lasting negative emotional consequences."; Adverse sexual and psychological effects of male infant circumcision. Boyle GJ, Bensley GA
• "We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function; however some specific domains of sexual function (i.e. avoidance and communication) seemed to be affected by the age at circumcision procedure in this cohort of sexually active males. In addition, prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher, with premature ejaculation being the most common dysfunction in the survey. We concluded that childhood circumcision age might affect some domains of male sexual function in adulthood, but not the overall function."; Effects of childhood circumcision age on adult male sexual functions. Aydur E et al.

Also, you say in a post further down:

• The psychological impact of circumcision; R. Goldman 1999
• Physical, sexual, and psychological effects of male infant circumcision: an exploratory survey; GA Bensley, GJ Boyle 2001

And finally, although circumcised men have lower risk for some infections and penile cancer, WHO states that "some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds". Promoting circumcision is being considered by the WHO as a way of reducing the risk of HIV infections in countries in a particularly dire state, like South Africa. But again, it only reduces the risk, and does not in any way replace the use of condoms. Also, studies are still ongoing on this.

So there. Was there anything unclear?

Actually, no, it does not. Even worse: tell men they are protected (although they are not) and they will not bother using condoms. Ergo, circumcision helps spread AIDS.

To verify it you would have to have a control group and then the group that you infect with HIV and see if they get AIDS more... Good luck getting that past the ethics board.

There is Blattner et al in '93 looking at three lab workers who were exposed to HIV, http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102203749.html

And of course Schechter et al in '93, which looked at 715 homosexual men, with about a 50/50 split of HIV positive and HIV negative. All 136 who ended up with AIDS during the study were HIV positive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2112396

To verify it you would have to have a control group and then the group that you infect with HIV and see if they get AIDS more... Good luck getting that past the ethics board.

There is Blattner et al in '93 looking at three lab workers who were exposed to HIV, http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102203749.html

And of course Schechter et al in '93, which looked at 715 homosexual men, with about a 50/50 split of HIV positive and HIV negative. All 136 who ended up with AIDS during the study were HIV positive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2112396