Slashdot Mirror

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

EGCG:
1. Inhibits fatty acid synthase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=164 04708&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=166 11078&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_docsum

2. Upgrades hypothalamic AMPK to suppress adipogenesis and induce apoptosis of adipocytes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=162 36247&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=159 76140&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
3. Increases fat oxidation, metabolism (likely through COMT inhibition and indirect gene expression)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10584049
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=10702779
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=157 38931&query_hl=165&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://ww

Here's the PubMed link to the Merck Research in the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

Does anybody really think that the rates of autism really doubled in this time period. Isn't it far more likely that the rate of diagnosis simply went up. What would cause parents to become aware of this unusual condition called autism? Maybe they saw a segment about it on TV?

1. Something is WRONG with your child when they are autistic. You know there is because she/he doesn't act normally. A minimally responsible parent figures out what it is.

2. The medical condition of autism is well-defined. It doesn't just visit the child like a common cold. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/autism.cfm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

3. "retarded" is not a medical condition. That is the social term for a host of developmental problems.

people watch more TV when it's rainy out
This is the West. It doesn't rain much... There's no excuse for watching more TV other than babysitting your child for you. I'll go further than that and say there is no reason for children to watch television until at least 5. But this means parents have to raise their children. So it's an unpopular opinion.

Please consider your opinions in this matter as poorly constructed as the science you claim is flawed.

I'm a little unclear as to how Friday the 13th could fall on October 31st?

On another note, that urban legends article is pretty interesting; it cites a study from the British Medical Journal that claims that although the number of people driving goes significantly down on a friday the 13th, the number of accidents goes significantly up. Anyone know anything about this study, or if anyone has tried to replicate these disconcerting results?

On another note, I fell down half a flight of stairs today -- stairs I have never fallen down before, despite using them at least 3 times a week. My friend got a flat tire. This anecdotal evidence proves... well, nothing, but I'm still interested in that study.

but it is my opinion that a hug is about being close to someone and feeling their warmth, not being sqeezed by an air compressor

Certainly the social aspects are a big part of it, but it's possible that light squeezing pressure on the chest may have a physiological effect. I would speculate that it might, for example, stimulate more complete exhalation, which would in turn trigger a relaxation response.

It would be interesting to compare a vest like this with the use of calming acupressure points to induce relaxation responses.

On more serious note, I am more interested in the ability to send audio, video, data or any signals back to the brain. This would be more useful in stomping out handicaps.

You mean like a cochlear implant? They exist, but don't work very well. The deaf community is pretty heavily opposed to them. (n.b. many deaf people are not part of the deaf community.)

Of the 535 members of the house and senate, a total of two percent, meaning twelve members, have, or have had, children in Iraq or Afghanistan...I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.

U.S. armed forces currently stand at about 1.4 million strong. Even if we were to ramp back up to the Cold War readiness levels, that is 2.0 million (at a cost of about $1.5 billion per 10,000 personnel, that is a huge ramp up). The adult, military age (the 15-40 cohort) population of the United States is approximately 160 million (take the 15-64 cohort of about 200 million, then subtract out all cohorts above 40). The representation of the general population in the armed forces is therefore 1.4:160, or 0.875%.

Back out about 10 million as a wild-assed guess for people in the general population who are unsuitable for the armed forces (NIH estimates about 6% of entire population exhibit severe mental health problems, so perhaps this might account for about 6 million within the military age cohort ineligible for military service). So about 150 million in the general population are eligible (physically and mentally, not talking about political/religious/ethical disposition) for military service with some quick back of the envelope calculations. That puts the general population representation in the U.S. armed forces at 1.4:150, or 0.933%. If you increase the size of the armed forces to Cold War levels the representation of the general population goes to 1.333%. If you decrease the available pool of eligible volunteers by another 20 million down to 130 million and increase the force levels to 2.0 million, that puts the general population representation at 1.539%. The actual, precise general population numbers might budge by a few million here or there, but that is only going to move the ratio by a few fractions of a percent as you can see.

At 2.243% representation within the armed forces, the elected national representative leaders are anywhere from about 50% to over 100% over-represented when compared to their constituents, depending upon your demographic assumptions. I assert that as long as you are going to run the comparisons, as a representative republic, comparing per capita representation in the armed forces between the national leadership's children and the general population is an entirely appropriate manner to judge the overall relative commitment of either group to backing up their war rhetoric with sharing the burdens of war. It is impractical to throw your leadership of military age en masse into a war effort, but if you believed that you would have come out and said it; instead, you focused on the rate of enlistment of the adult age children of the leadership.

This is all assuming you accept the premise (which you apparently do, because that is the foundation of your assertion when you are counting the progeny of the leadership who enlist) that the individual choice of a legally recognized adult (even as young as 18) to join the military, which translates into a familial burden, counts as a commitment. Other posters have sagely pointed out that congressional members have no legal right to force their adult age children to either join or not join the armed forces. If it does count as a commitment of the leadership, it likely does so only in a very loose manner. Probably best to focus on what the legislative leadership can directly control to measure their commitment to the war, which is the legislation and funding of the war effort. Now, if you had claimed the leadership is showing more commitment to a war than the general population as a basis for an argument that the war has no popular support, these numbers migh

Lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer. Lung cancer has killed more women than breast cancer every year since 1987. And the gap is widening: lung cancer deaths in women are increasing. CDC TFK

Lung Cancer kills more women every year than breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers combined. Joan's Legacy

"There are four major cancers that account for over 50 percent of cancer deaths. Far and away, the most important in both men and women is lung cancer." PBS online focus

Yet women's magazines and other media pass out gobs and slathers of information on breast cancer. They hardly ever even mention lung cancer. By an amazing coincidence, they run a lot of tobacco product advertising. ACSH

Oh wait, it's not a coincidence: NIH

DNA isn't an especially robust molecule. It probably didn't survive that long. It is prone to a variety of reactions that will degrade it over time relatively quickly. Though it was originally thought to survive much longer, DNA older than a million years is now considered pretty dubious, and is likely contamination from other sources, such as soil microbes, or it is degraded fragments with no meaningful signal left in them (e.g., older DNA extracted from fossils tens of millions of years old contains roughly equal left and right amino acids, whereas living tissues contain all left ones, implying the DNA has been severely degraded). Previous discoveries from fossils tens of millions of years old (e.g., from old amber) have proven unreproducible. There's a good review in this PDF format paper by Hofreiter et al., 2001.

By contrast, some organic molecules, such as collagen, are much more durable than DNA, and could plausibly survive much longer in the right conditions, such as if embedded in the minerals that form bone. This general fact has been known for a long time (those papers are from the 1960s and are both PDFs), though how old such remains might ultimately be found is still uncertain. Also, even if the organic molecules were severely degraded, it doesn't mean they vanish completely -- some degraded C-bearing organic residue might remain as long as it wasn't dissolved away, and it could still preserve the shape of the original tissues, even if it wasn't compositionally the same anymore.

Some organic molecules are extraordinarily durable and occur as fossils routinely. The sporopollenin that forms the cell wall of spores and pollen is like the "plastic garbage bag" of organic materials. It can survive multiple passages through the digestive system of animals, and still be intact. Fossil pollen and spores are often recovered from sedimentary rocks essentially unchanged, except for a bit of thermal alteration, and geologists use potent acids like concentrated HCl and HF to dissolve the minerals away, but the pollen and spores are untouched!

Finally, even if the organic molecules themselves get destroyed (e.g., it isn't, say, collagen anymore), minerals could precipitate in contact with the soft tissues and preserve their shape at microscopic scale. The soft tissue isn't actully there, but the structure is. Such preservation is rare, but is known for other types of soft tissues in an older dinosaur (the linked example of the dinosaur Scipionyx does show soft-tissue structures, such as intestines, but they are all mineralized).

Fortunately, for that very reason, the "mouse-bioinformatics research network" (mBIRN) has been funded by the NIH to chop up and scan mice brains for years now.

>Let's face it: he's a scientist, he wanted to do it, he had to convince the sponsors. That's fine..

Umm, he is the sponsor. So he had to convince himself?

The mouse genome project is a big deal. The genetic map of the brain is part of it. More info on the Mouse Genome Project here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/mouse/

I would suggest performing a surgery on an animal Done. Thirteen years ago.

a) "spellcheck" the chromosome copying, and b) prevent the telomeres

b) is easy, you can shut off telomerase for a while(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerend er.fcgi?artid=14711&tools=bot)

Aside from "all my life, you've got a good point, and it appears that I might be low in that number - the first is recent and from a "non-lefty biased" source, the others vary in source quality and recent (the last is 1977).

13.8% http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6664484&dopt=Abstract
12-15% http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/faq.html#perc entage
13% http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/lefty-faq.htm l
11% http://www.righthandlefthand.com/
8-15% (Wikipedia really, but I've confirmed the original source through my University's access to the online copy Hardyck, C., & Petrinovich, L. F. (1977). "Left-handedness," Psychological Bulletin, 84, 385-404. - You have to read the article itself to get the range, the abstract lists only 10%)

Little roll and plain hyper-reduced photocopies by two medical students (both women).
In the second picture there is an eurocent for comparison (however, sizes are similar).
And here there is a scientific paper about cheating in medical schools published by the British Medical Journal; in particular, about the possible relation with future dishonest behaviour.

• heavy metal poisoning
• heavy metal toxicity

• heavy metal poisoning
• heavy metal toxicity

No, but they found his footprints!

De Grey is just a zealot who knows the vocabulary of science. Note that his topic is ostensibly biology, geriatrics and the biology of aging to be specific, but he talks about it as a philosophy.

There is no "reversing" or "stopping" of aging. One year from now, we'll all be a year older. If you are healthier than you were the year before, you are STILL A YEAR OLDER. If you are 65 and can run a 4-minute mile, you are NOT 25 or 35, you are simply a 65-year old who is much healthier than the AVERAGE 65-year old.

This is more than semantics. It's how the "anti-aging medicine" industry (note that there is no recognized medical board specialty in "anti-aging" the way there is in neurology, pediatrics, orthopedics, etc.) like the A4M spreads its FUD and makes its Benjamins. People are obsessed with "being younger" instead of being healthier, and they expect some snake oil to make it happen partially because these fallacies are not challenged rigorously enough in public arenas.

But note that this evangelical zeal is about "reversing aging" or "stopping aging", and "aging is a disease". Bzzt! Thanks for playing, but aging is simply a function of time. If this zeal was really about helping older people as a group be healthier than they are now, then they couldn't claim to be revolutionary, because there is plenty of research being done on healthy aging. These jackasses just want to find a way to sell snake oil in the 21st century.

Well, perhaps because "mad cow disease" (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) is closely related in its effects to a non-beef-consumption-related disorder called Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, not to mention the other disorders mentioned which are also being traced to "bad" proteins.

Whatever the source of the disease, curing it would be a good thing. We know the transmission vectors of HIV and yet that disease still spreads. Maybe we shouldn't try to cure that, either?

How it turns out: Airway compromise due to soft tissue injury produced further problem during tracheostomy. Emergent airway management is discussed. Post-healing sequel resulted in loss of voice and prevented normal oral feeding.

Catholic priests have 3x the prostate cancer rate of normal men.

Please provide a citation. The first study I found claims the opposite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7242091&dopt=Abstract

In case you are wondering what exactly the big deal is about stroke rehab, here is a snippit of a government factsheet:

In the United States more than 700,000 people suffer a stroke* each year, and approximately two-thirds of these individuals survive and require rehabilitation. The goals of rehabilitation are to help survivors become as independent as possible and to attain the best possible quality of life. Even though rehabilitation does not "cure" stroke in that it does not reverse brain damage, rehabilitation can substantially help people achieve the best possible long-term outcome. What is post-stroke rehabilitation? Rehabilitation helps stroke survivors relearn skills that are lost when part of the brain is damaged. For example, these skills can include coordinating leg movements in order to walk or carrying out the steps involved in any complex activity. Rehabilitation also teaches survivors new ways of performing tasks to circumvent or compensate for any residual disabilities. Patients may need to learn how to bathe and dress using only one hand, or how to communicate effectively when their ability to use language has been compromised. There is a strong consensus among rehabilitation experts that the most important element in any rehabilitation program is carefully directed, well-focused, repetitive practice - the same kind of practice used by all people when they learn a new skill, such as playing the piano or pitching a baseball.

I'm a big fan of Attenborough too, but I think Irwin's show reached a different kind of person, and everybody could stand to have more appreciation of nature. Really, sneaking a nature show into a stunt show is what he did, and it's really sad that the odds caught up with him. Steve Irwin's off-camera work showed he really cared about wildlife, and it's really sad to lose someone like that.

A stingray barb to the chest - ouch, that's a painful way to go. If I'm right, only one person has ever survived that.

The dog bite problem should be reconceptualized as a largely preventable epidemic. Breed-specific approaches to the control of dog bites do not address the issue that many breeds are involved in the problem and that most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fc gi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8657532&dopt=A bstract

That's a question only UCLA and the researchers can really answer, by providing us with the information about what the research was. They refuse to do so.

I want to say that this study says something about broccoli intake affecting caffeine metabolism, but I don't speak biologist enough to know.

Aha. Apparently this all has to do with enzyme CYP1A2, which breaks down caffeine (under "substrates") as well as many other drugs, and whose action is increased by broccoli, as well as by chargrilled meats, insulin and certain drugs such as Prilosec.

By the way, the study I was in was published as a dissertation as well as in Aviat Space Environ Med.. I hadn't had call to look it up until now. Neat!

I want to say that this study says something about broccoli intake affecting caffeine metabolism, but I don't speak biologist enough to know.

Aha. Apparently this all has to do with enzyme CYP1A2, which breaks down caffeine (under "substrates") as well as many other drugs, and whose action is increased by broccoli, as well as by chargrilled meats, insulin and certain drugs such as Prilosec.

By the way, the study I was in was published as a dissertation as well as in Aviat Space Environ Med.. I hadn't had call to look it up until now. Neat!

Reed Elsevier, one of the leading commercial STM publishers, had an operating margin of approximately 26% in 1997 [12], and a 2002 Morgan Stanley report on STM publishing listed a profit margin of 37% for Elsevier's core titles [9, 13].

NIH and the National Library of Medicine has been working for years to make information available to the public. Grateful Med/PubMed has been online for at least 10 years that I know of. Yes, it consists primarily of abstracts. But abstracts tell you most of what you need to know. Ask a scientist to tell you honestly how many of the papers they reference in their work they actually read, or only read the abstract.

For the last several years NIH/NLM been making full articles to some publications available via a link on the abstract.

And, the idea of making all the research they oversee/fund available to the public? The head of NIH asked for this a year and a half ago: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2005/od-03.htm

As for material that the general public isn't able to understand, NIH translates and publishes an enormous amount of public oriented material on paper and on their web sites. They even have teams of people who go to large public gatherings (fairs, pow wows, etc.) and have vendor booths where they hand this stuff out.

NIH has already been pushing for more and faster release of information, and they already put out more useful information for the public than some entire departments. It'd be nice to have a law to make them all do it, I'm just saying they already have a good model to follow.

Not true. See here. Some things are more difficult if one is a vegetarian (by which I mean one who does not eat animal flesh), but it is patently false that it was not possible to be a vegetarian before now. We'd have survived just fine. We just would have eaten differently.

And even if it were true, which I dispute, I doubt you would want really want to assent to the notion that "anything that was necessary to our survival in the past should be continued forever, even if no longer necessary for our survival."

It's called "Trans-cutaneous Electronic Muscle Stimulation" (TEMS) or "Functional Electronic Stimulation" (FES), and contrary to those late-night infomercials for ab exercisers, they are generally accepted not to do anything to stimulate the development of new muscle tissue. I think TENS refers mostly to high-frequency stimulation sometimes used for pain control, and FES is the lower-frequency muscle stimulation.

I have however heard that they are useful in preventing the atrophy of existing muscle, during periods of inactivity. I knew someone who was doing research with them on comatose patients about 30 years ago, trying to see if they prevented tissue degeneration. Not sure of the results or if they still use them that way, though.

But no, in general you can't just hook you biceps up to a TEMS system and look like Ahnold a few weeks later. So I don't think they'd be particularly useful for conditioning vat-meat...but who knows. I'd imagine if there was anything that could actually 'exercise' meat in a vat, it would probably also be effective on conditioning our sedentary butts; whoever makes it will probably have both the farmers and the weight-loss companies beating a path to their door.

A Google Scholar search turned up some interesting stuff:
Effect of transcutaneous electric muscle stimulation on postoperative muscle mass and protein synthesis
MYOSTIM-FES to Prevent Muscle Atrophy in Microgravity and Bed Rest
I can only read the abstracts, but both seem to suggest that the systems can prevent muscle wasting to some degree.

I suffer from Crohn's Disease, along with approximately half a million other Americans. To summarize: Crohn's is an autoimmune disease of the digestive tract which causes inflammation in various places. When you have inflammation in your intestines, that part of the intestine cannot reabsorb liquid.

I don't have a bad case. But there are some horror stories out there: people who have to go 10-20 times a day, people who end up needing permanent ileostomies (a surgical bypass of the end of the intestines), etc.

Even with my relatively mild case, I have to take three Sitz Baths a day, two showers a day, and cleaning up after I go is not fun on top of that.

This toilet seat? Sounds like it would be fantastic for me and others like me. It could probably save me 20 minutes a day, at least. If my health insurance covered it, or I could afford the thing, I'd buy one tomorrow. Seriously.

And one in 350 people in America have this problem along with me. And the numbers are rising. (The disease was unheard of pre-20th Century -- not from lack of diagnostic methods, from lack of existing. There's a growth curve that is followed in developing countries; a Crohn's specialist I spoke to said that there are varioius studies underway to figure out what parts of our diet changed enough to create such an outbreak -- he hinted at processed sugar being a leading candidate. Unfortunately I lack a citation here, but the head of the Crohn's & Colitis center at Mass General seems like a pretty good source to me.)

I can see these things selling very, very well if they can bring the price point down just a tad, or convince health insurance to cover it for people in scenarios like mine (even partially).

So, yeah, I'm unhealthy -- but it's not my fault, and one of these things could make quite a difference.

Our environment contains more substances today which cause cells to mutate: estrogen-like chemicals, fine soot particles, innumerous medicines, radioactive decay, socially acceptable behaviors like smoking. Additionally is the continued decay of the athmosphere's blocking of UV radiation (and basement-dweller sensitivity to the sun) and the "ozone layer" problems. Overuse of antibiotics has created "superbugs" we can't completely cure (tubercolosis, staph infections).

If our bodies were not meant to last this long, babies born of old males and young females should have more genetic problems than young males and females. If our sole purpose was to reproduce a few times and die "young" (before 35), then why do our cells have so many proteins dedicated to detecting and repairing chromosome damage? Shouldn't they deactivate after 35 years?

Why would nature keep old people around? How does nature select for old age genes if you reproduce when young? Some theories are that older people pass their life's knowledge to the next generation, without the next generation having to experience it themselves. Older people act as secondary caregivers, freeing the younger generation to do "useful stuff".

There's no reason to believe our bodies were made to wear out at 60 or 70. Eat less calories, more fruit and veggies high in anti-oxidant compounds, exercise (physical labor and mental), and there's no reason that our bodies couldn't last... longer. How much longer? One study says maybe 120 years.

That would be admitting that dolphins are as smart as they are observed to be smart -- what is smarter than most of animals, and this is already observed.

If he is trying to refute claims that dolphins are "more intelligent" than apes and humans, I think, he would have hard time finding someone making such a claim

however dolphins' behaviour is definitely more complex compared to othe sea animals, and this is a well-researched area.

Also dolphins don't know that the net ends above the surface -- to derive that they would have to understand its purpose, gathering food for land-dwelling humans.

That would be admitting that dolphins are as smart as they are observed to be smart -- what is smarter than most of animals, and this is already observed.

If he is trying to refute claims that dolphins are "more intelligent" than apes and humans, I think, he would have hard time finding someone making such a claim

however dolphins' behaviour is definitely more complex compared to othe sea animals, and this is a well-researched area.

Also dolphins don't know that the net ends above the surface -- to derive that they would have to understand its purpose, gathering food for land-dwelling humans.

the intellectual arrogance here is overwhelming sometimes.

Science is the process of winnowing the not-true from the true. If we give greater credence to the resulting conclusions, does that make us arrogant? I suppose it does because we won't consider all points of view equally. Tough shit though, it's justified arrogance. If you don't believe in the results of the scientific method I invite you to think hard the next time you go to the doctor.

Learn more about how we know HIV causes AIDS

Even though, I am not sure about considering recognising oneself in the mirror as a true test of intelligence (since many mammals do it - maybe it is a function of mammalian brain ?, the parent is quite right on the second point.

When the scientists took apart Einsteins brain, they found that it was brimming with glial cells. Does that make him stupid ? Heck, I want my brain to contain more glials now ...

I am not sure whether this study is fully correct, if it is surmised only on the fact that it has more glial cells.
Could be that there could be other reasons. Anyways, I couldn't find the same in the article.
Cos, till now we have not been able to find the actual center of intelligence, and surmising that an animal is stupid just by looking at the composition of brains could be a little wrong. Brain size looks to be the best bet here.

An examination of cetacean brain structure with a novel hypothesis correlating thermogenesis to the evolution of a big brain.

* Manger PR.

School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Road, Parktown, 2193, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa. mangerpr@anatomy.wits.ac.za

        This review examines aspects of cetacean brain structure related to behaviour and evolution. Major considerations include cetacean brain-body allometry, structure of the cerebral cortex, the hippocampal formation, specialisations of the cetacean brain related to vocalisations and sleep phenomenology, paleoneurology, and brain-body allometry during cetacean evolution. These data are assimilated to demonstrate that there is no neural basis for the often-asserted high intellectual abilities of cetaceans. Despite this, the cetaceans do have volumetrically large brains. A novel hypothesis regarding the evolution of large brain size in cetaceans is put forward. It is shown that a combination of an unusually high number of glial cells and unihemispheric sleep phenomenology make the cetacean brain an efficient thermogenetic organ, which is needed to counteract heat loss to the water. It is demonstrated that water temperature is the major selection pressure driving an altered scaling of brain and body size and an increased actual brain size in cetaceans. A point in the evolutionary history of cetaceans is identified as the moment in which water temperature became a significant selection pressure in cetacean brain evolution. This occurred at the Archaeoceti - modern cetacean faunal transition. The size, structure and scaling of the cetacean brain continues to be shaped by water temperature in extant cetaceans. The alterations in cetacean brain structure, function and scaling, combined with the imperative of producing offspring that can withstand the rate of heat loss experienced in water, within the genetic confines of eutherian mammal reproductive constraints, provides an explanation for the evolution of the large size of the cetacean brain. These observations provide an alternative to the widely held belief of a correlation between brain size and intelligence in cetaceans.

        PMID: 16573845 [PubMed - in process]

I can not see how this is a serious article.

Reference?

O-kay Look under bullets 1 - 4(which support the conclusion the pure HIV culture has caused AIDS in laboratory workers(i.e. humans) which is actually a stronger case than animals.

Duesberg, in fact, doesn't argue that at all. You're just so horribly confused here I don't even know what to say. Actually, Duesberg has probably offered the strongest arguments *against* the position you impute to him here of anyone involved.

Actually, he does argue that Koch's criteria have not been fulfilled, which is what I said he had argued against.

OK, you've got a number of people with severely degraded immune systems. They're a homosexuals, part of a 'scene' that involves unprotected sex with many partners (and you can put that 'many' in capital letters and use the blink tab, it was several people a night, every night) as well as heavy hard drug use. You can't think of a single hypothesis to explain this besides an infectious agent? Please.

I can think of lots of hypotheses but the fact remains that a simple hypothesis(the infective agent is HIV) is the most simple, most accurate, most backed-up hypothesis there is.

If your only answer is "drug use" you have a very weak argument. There are very very many cases of people who are not drug-users and who do not engage in promiscuous sex developing AIDS from exposure to HIV through unprotected sex or transfusions. Read the book "Borrowed Time" for instance. There are also very very many cases of heavy drug-users who do not end up with AIDS and are also, incidentally, HIV negative. Asserting that all gay people who develop AIDS are also hard drug users verges on statistically unfounded prejudice , the kind that the Reagan administration used to deny any obligation to help them.

Nor is there any logical reason to deny that there may be different causes for different cases.

Then the cases not caused by HIV but by other immune deficiency syndrome are not AIDS. I suggest you read this. Look under the justification for the fulfillment of Koch Rule 1. Scientists discovered that a small number of people having a clinical diagnosis of AIDS-like disease actually had a different disorder. Also look at the surveillance statistics.

The immune system is a complex system, and it's hardly inconceivable that it might break down for a number of reasons.

It does break down for a nubmer of reasons. Those are separate illnesses. The most coherent, simple, and productive explanation is that the constellation and development of AIDS-related illnesses and this kind of immune deficiency are caused by HIV, not any other cause. The simplest answer is usually the right one, as a guiding principle. IN this case, we have a simple answer and the data supports this answer. The fact it is complex points to the idea that one source capable of affecting it in its entirety is responsible - otherwise we have to assume that many different forces are responsible, an idea that on its face and statistically is untenable and violates Occam's razor.

As to Duesbergs lack of results, results require experiments, experiments require money, and the day he opened his mouth and questioned Gallos claims his money has been cut off. And THAT is what we should all be outraged about. Duesberg has submitted countless grant proposals with good research designs that would have settled the issues he raises, one way or the other, with good solid data. Up until he opened his mouth on this issue, he was a top rank grant writer, and he's done a lot of first class science. But now all he can do is write, because experiments take money, and no one is willing to fund experiments that might prove the paradigm

Obviously I've been out of the loop for a while, but what happened with the mixed agonist/antagonist compounds that were supposed to essentially eliminate dose escalation (read: abuse, a major problem with pain management). I always thought that it (at least in theory) sounded like an interesting solution, with potential applications beyond pain medication (would MDMA be a viable treatment for depression if escalation and the euphoric 'high' was taken out of the equation?).

I was also wondering about novel alkaloid 7-hydroxymitragynine which was also purported to have opioid like effects with a somewhat different dependency profile, but it looks like I found my answer.

The United States, via government agencies like NIH/NIAID or USAID, funds and performs extensive research on HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in situ throughout Africa and Asia. When you get a free moment, take a look at CHAVI or NIAID, maybe do a few Google searches on the scientists' names. And all of these projects' participants, all the way down to admin staff and IT types like me, realize the current heavy burden of these three diseases on Africa and Asia (both socially and economically). I realize you have issues with large pharmaceutical companies, but please don't think that they are the only ones who do medical research here and abroad.