Slashdot Mirror

"As for biology, its purpose does not involve answering that question"

Absolutely incorrect. I can tell you for a fact that explaining consciousness is a priority of biological science.
Go to Pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
and search for the term consciousness.

"That's because classical physics is flawed"
Not flawed, incomplete. Just because a theoretical framework cannot explain everything does not make it wrong, it's just too simplistic to accomodate all of the data. It may still be a valuable framework for explaining how things work. A computer programmer, for example, does not need to understand QM to write some code. His non-QM (and therefore "flawed") understanding of how the world works is sufficient for him to understand how a computer works.

Is consciousness outside the realm of classical physics? Noone knows, and it is an error on your part to state outright that biology cannot address this question.

We will know the answer at some point, but our understanding of the brain is far too primitive to make assertions of this sort.

In the meantime, Occam's razor tells me to side with the simpler alternative: that everything related to personality and self awareness occurs in the physical substrate of the brain using neurochemical processes that we are studying.

Please cite a reference, since Google doesn't back you up.

National Institute of Health:

Epidemiological studies attempting to link AD with exposures in drinking water have been inconclusive and contradictory. Thus, the significance of increased aluminum intake with regard to onset of AD has not been determined.

Alzheimer's Society (UK):

The overwhelming medical and scientific opinion is that the findings outlined above do not convincingly demonstrate a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease, and that no useful medical or public health recommendations can be made, at least at present.

It appears the consensus from reputable sites is that we don't know, and there's no consistent correlation that's shown up in studies so far.

And I can tell you all, from personal experience, that they are a complete godsend. The short story is I had serious learning problems at school, I had serious hobby problems at home, I had serious problems all up. I was interested in EVERYTHING and my mind wouldn't let me settle down and truly enjoy & work at any one thing in a productive way. Doctor wanted to put me on ritalin at age 9, my parents jacked up at that and called him crazy, then spent the next 7 years trying all kinds of alternative bullshit to help me.

Then I scored a constant supply of ritalin, and the world was a different place. I could actually DO things. I made more improvements to my schoolwork in the year after starting it than I had in a decade before. It changed my life. My parents still don't like it, they think ritalin = amphetamines = crack cocaine = me dead by age 30, but I don't live with them any more and that's their problem.

I wouldn't mind seeing a reference on a claim like that. I call BS. See http://www.discover.com/issues/may-92/features/aqu estionofsize42/

You should read the article you cited, where it begins to discuss the endocrinological differences between pygmies and average people, their extremely low birth size, their lack of an adolescent growth spurt, and so on. It seems your article actually supports me. Actually, essentially every reference I find which is newer than 1980 supports me. Mercedes de Onis is responsible for a great many studies you can look into if you're interested, but the canonical reference is TJ Merimee's paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM issue 316, pp906-91. That's in 1987, if you actually intend to look it up, and want to call your library to make sure they have it first. That paper discusses insulin-like growth factor (you can read more about that on the internet as IGF, not ILGF.) Studies show that the Bantu, Ituri, Efe and Mbuti - the peoples we refer to as pygmies from the Congo forests of Zaire - stop growing at between 10 and 12 years of age, have no postpuberty endocrine phase at all (the 13-15 year old omg how tall did you get last summer thing.)

More detailed studies have since been made, though they're not as easy to read. Another reasonable paper is RC Bailey's, from Annals of Human Biology, issue 18 pp113-20, which is from 1991. That paper focuses specifically on the near-total lack of IGF-1, which is the most common reason for non-dysplasic dwarfism (that is, the stuff that isn't about your skeleton binding early.) The group of conditions circling around IGF-1, IGTD and similar chemicals is known as GHD. In the pygmy peoples there's also been a demonstrated lack of ICF-I by Renaldo Martorel, and there are several statistical studies which suggest (we're not sure yet) a resistance to Partial Growth Hormone, presumably due to damage in GHBP's ectodomain. Alternate isolated peoples show problems in other parts of the growth sequence, such as the Mountain Ok, Aeta and Mamanwa, who are lacking Growth Hormone Binding Protien but who do not show the resistance to GH.

A more important paper, but one which is almost impossibly for a layperson to read, is E.Z. Tronick S.A. Winn's paper in the Journal of Pediatric Developmental Behavior, issue 13, pp421-4, from 1992. That paper addresses the complete lack of other problems, most notably reduced vision, mental retardation, brittle skeleton or fragile tendon disorders which would be expected if the lack of growth was based on dietary fault. In fact, the only dietary health problem commonly attributed to the pygmies is hypoglycemia, which is suspected to be largely due to the major and frequently unreliable usage of honey in their diet and trade relationships with surrounding peoples.

Another paper from 1992, Zhou Xianjin's paper to Nature in issue 376, pp771-4, suggests that the Efe may in fact have two seperate kinds of pervasive dwarfism, a flaw in the nuclear scaffolding HmGI-c and HmGI(y), which is critical during embryogenic cycle dependant phosphorylation. Awesomely, Nature actually gives the references for their papers online, which saves me a lot of retyping.

You can also look up the Mountain Ok from Papua New Guinea, who show deficiencies in GHRhR. Unfortunately, the Kongkandji, Indindji and Barbaram aboriginal peoples of Australia are essentially extinct, so we have no idea what kept them small; medical science, working largely from photographs, suggests thanatophoric or diastrophic dysplasia, both of which are genetic disorders with a high recurrence in spontaneous mutation, due to the damage being near the end of the appropr

Weed, LSD, and MDMA are also all safer than beer and cigarettes too.

As far as the economy and why we pay athletes millions of dollars and farms nothing it's because our system works on the premise of scarcity and capital. Those with scarce resources that are desired by many, such as the ability to dunk the basketball from the free-throw line are going to make more than the folks who can drive a tractor. No natural disaster would change that.

What you're really talking about though is a shift away from a system where the people with capital maintain the privilege. We need scientists and researches to maintain ownership of their ideas, but not exclusivity of their use. (Let their value be negotiated on an open market.) The Open Source Movement is the first real viable example of how much we would benefit economically from this model. Look at the billions in opportunity cost we have saved because of the cooperation on the Apache project. Ask Oracle where they would be without it.

I've often thought about letting patient futures be a tradable commodity. i.e. "Oh, that's a great idea that guy or company came out with. I'm going to put $200 bucks and buy a share of that idea."

The value of the shares is the use price someone pays to use the idea, which the scientist receives for payment. It would make markets and manufacturing perfectly competitive, and split out the R&D departments to separate businesses that sell 'ideas.' I think this would work particularly well with the pharmaceutical industry, as the drugs that would help our society the most would have the most fiscal backing, instead of the ones that will have the highest profit margin. Then the drug companies could stop complaining that it is SO expensive to research new drugs while spending more on advertising than on R&D.

The article doesn't really say what it's the first to do. Cells have been grown in matrices for a long time. Look at Dermagraft(tm), or the work by Anthony Atala http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1663187 9&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum, or Linda Griffith http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1649602 3&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum, or anyone else who has been doing this same exact thing for years.

The article doesn't really say what it's the first to do. Cells have been grown in matrices for a long time. Look at Dermagraft(tm), or the work by Anthony Atala http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1663187 9&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum, or Linda Griffith http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1649602 3&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum, or anyone else who has been doing this same exact thing for years.

I couldn't find much about EXPO but I found some previous work.

They have a publication in Nature biotech: The failure of many bio-ontologies to follow international standards for ontology design and description is hampering their application and threatens to restrict their future use.
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n9/abs/nbt09 05-1095.html;jsessionid=873A8C7D8ADA6CD6B7ABB60E1E 640D45

They discuss microarray experiments.

Microarray experiments are interesting from the massive data they produce and what you can get out them. In a microarray experiment, you looks at all the mRNA trancripts generated in an organism under specific conditions. You get a whole lot of data from this experiment and often the researchers are only interested in one specific question and the rest of the data goes to waste. However, when the data is standardized and made available other researchers can look at the same data with a different question. Or look over multiple datasets with standardized data. These are massive data sets and for other people and groups to use the data (or you using the data in a different way) depends on standardization.

Right now, to find other research, you do a text search for a name you know. But what if someone is doing a very similar experiment with a different set of proteins that have a different name? If you could search the structure of the experiment instead of just the text, you could conceivably pull relevant information that you didn't know about.

Interestingly, King has another paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1472463 9&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist.
King RD, Whelan KE, Jones FM, Reiser PG, Bryant CH, Muggleton SH, Kell DB, Oliver SG.

Department of Computer Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth SY23 3DB, UK.

The question of whether it is possible to automate the scientific process is of both great theoretical interest and increasing practical importance because, in many scientific areas, data are being generated much faster than they can be effectively analysed. We describe a physically implemented robotic system that applies techniques from artificial intelligence to carry out cycles of scientific experimentation. The system automatically originates hypotheses to explain observations, devises experiments to test these hypotheses, physically runs the experiments using a laboratory robot, interprets the results to falsify hypotheses inconsistent with the data, and then repeats the cycle. Here we apply the system to the determination of gene function using deletion mutants of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and auxotrophic growth experiments. We built and tested a detailed logical model (involving genes, proteins and metabolites) of the aromatic amino acid synthesis pathway. In biological experiments that automatically reconstruct parts of this model, we show that an intelligent experiment selection strategy is competitive with human performance and significantly outperforms, with a cost decrease of 3-fold and 100-fold (respectively), both cheapest and random-experiment selection.

I couldn't see big leaps of innovation coming from this kind of experimentation, but there is a lot of basic grunt work done in research that this system could automate.

Without RTFA, my first thought is why the hell are idiot celebrities in charge of choosing finalists? Unless these celebrities are also scientists. After all, the cheeseholes at VH1 keep telling me that Apathy is Lethal and we've gotta do something about AIDS killing 3rd-world kids, but take a look for yourself: where does AIDS fit on this list? I'll give you a hint: it's nowhere near 1. And what is? Severe rotavirus diarrhea. What's that you say? Sheryl Crow never told you about that one.

Honestly, I'm sick of those commercials telling me that I'm not doing enough about AIDS; not only have I done more than enough to help, there are frankly much bigger fish to go after if you really want to save lives.

If celebrities are the initial filtering mechanism, then this entire contest is moot.

"Although Rummy is just about as evil as they come and the FDA approval process is unfair, I still trust Aspartame."

It's your body. If you would stand in line for a free, totally unnecessary radiation treatment thinking that it isn't a big deal and could even be healthy, that's fine. I would still go out of my once to tell you that what you're about to do is the worst thing you could do to yourself but if you in turn started citing studies by radiation equipment manufacturers and others that have a vested interest there, then I would just smile politely and walk away. You can do whatever you want to yourself for all I care and you don't have to listen. That's your privilege. However that privilege ends where other people get hurt because you've been proselytizing to them.

Approximately 10% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into methanol... in the small intestine. Most of the methanol is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde. Some scientists believe that the methanol cannot be a problem because: (a) there is not enough methanol absorbed to cause toxicity, (b) methanol and formaldehyde are already a by-product of human metabolism, and (c) there is more methanol in some alcoholic beverages and fruit juices than is derived from aspartame ingestion. (Wikipedia)

Right! People have been _extremely_ rarely observed going into convulsions and dying on the sidewalk all because of a scant few hundred micro- to milligrams per kilogram of body weight of Formaldehyde, Methanol and all the other wonderful metabolic by products. They die in hospitals after years of consumption and exposure, cancer surgery, radiation and chemical treatment. You (and whover you copied that text from) are patently leaving out the dimension of time here.

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1218049 4&query_hl=2 See also a .gov site on the subject when "evil Rummy" is calling the shots here.

Phenylalanine is an amino acid commonly found in foods.[...]Research indicates that Phenylalanine can be an effective part of an overall program to fight chronic pain and depression in some cases, including the mood swings of premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Some sources contend that it can increase energy and mental alertness. So it's a natural amino acid that can function as a CNS stimulant. It can't hurt you any more then the caffene already in the pop, as long as you don't abuse it. (Even stronger CNS stimulants like amphetamines are fairly safe as long as you use a small enough quantity of them and maintain a normal sleep cycle).

Right. As a matter of fact Phenylalanie (Aspartam) does have analgetic (painkilling) properties. I wonder if Paracetamol (Tylenol) tasted just as sweet whether people would be gurgling that instead? As far as the stimulating effect on the CNS (Central Nervous System :-)) is concerned, I'll agree that any beneficial effects there are only marginal.

Aspartic acid is an amino acid commonly found in foods. Approximately 40% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into aspartic acid. A lot of FUD has been drummed up about aspartic acid being an "excitotoxin". I really is just one of the 20 natural proteinogenic amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins.

Interesting. Did you know that some of the most deadliest toxines in nature such as the venom of the Black Mamba are really just proteins and building blocks of proteins?[..] Animal studies HAVE found aspartame to be cancer causing, but no major human study has. Lab rats live a maximum of 1.5 - 2 years (provided they are not forcefed with aspartame). Humans have a considerably higher life expectancy ... even when exposed to aspartame. Add to that the obvious lack of interest in conducting such studies.



But that's one

Although Rummy is just about as evil as they come and the FDA approval process is unfair, I still trust Aspartame. Aspartame itself is not a "poison that attacks nerve ends"; although its components may have some health effects in huge amounts, typical food consumption is safe. It is approximately 180 times sweeter than sugar, so diet foods and beverages only contain a small amount of it.

Approximately 10% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into methanol in the small intestine. Most of the methanol is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde. Some scientists believe that the methanol cannot be a problem because: (a) there is not enough methanol absorbed to cause toxicity, (b) methanol and formaldehyde are already a by-product of human metabolism, and (c) there is more methanol in some alcoholic beverages and fruit juices than is derived from aspartame ingestion. (Wikipedia)
See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1218049 4&query_hl=2

Phenylalanine is an amino acid commonly found in foods. Approximately 50% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into phenylalanine. I can't see why this would be a bad thing. Phenylalanine is used in living organisms, including the human body, where it is an essential amino acid. Phenylalanine can also be converted into L-tyrosine, another one of the twenty protein-forming amino acids. L-tyrosine is converted into L-DOPA, which is further converted into the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine. Research indicates that Phenylalanine can be an effective part of an overall program to fight chronic pain and depression in some cases, including the mood swings of premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Some sources contend that it can increase energy and mental alertness. So it's a natural amino acid that can function as a CNS stimulant. It can't hurt you any more then the caffene already in the pop, as long as you don't abuse it. (Even stronger CNS stimulants like amphetamines are fairly safe as long as you use a small enough quantity of them and maintain a normal sleep cycle).

Aspartic acid is an amino acid commonly found in foods. Approximately 40% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into aspartic acid. A lot of FUD has been drummed up about aspartic acid being an "excitotoxin". I really is just one of the 20 natural proteinogenic amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins.

"...since aspartame is broken down into these components before it is absorbed into the blood stream, aspartame in its initial form does not have the opportunity to travel to target organs, including the brain, to cause cancer." (American Cancer Society)

Animal studies HAVE found aspartame to be cancer causing, but no major human study has. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/265559_soda 05.html/

You are right that fist to skull contact is more likely to result in a broken hand. But orbital bones can certainly break under contact with elbow (as sometimes happens in basketball games).

The skull is NOT impenetrable. A properly swung baseball bat can easily penetrate it. More to the point, a properly swung staff or wooden sword can do the job as well. It can most certainly be accomplished with a hammer, but you'd have to be VERY skilled with a frying pan (though you could certainly kill with blunt force).

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00 0060.htm

For the record, one punch can CERTAINLY kill if the person is hit in the correct way. The fact that you have not perished yet does not constitute evidence.

do cite the *proof* to which you refer. it isn't that i don't everyone on slashdot, rather, i like to review the source material.

Yes, the evidence that differences among the DNA of different organisms are of the sort that arise by mutation is available in a number of publicly accessible DNA sequence databases. For comparisons between species, a good place to start is the NCBI taxonomy project, where you may obtain access of the billions of bases of sequence information available for a variety of species, as well as tools for making comparisons between gene sequences.

it seems to me you had a reasonable choice - address the quote and explain why it isn't relevant. you rejected the reasonable option and proceeded to attack the poster.

I did explain why the quote was not relevant: "science is based on evidence, not the words of the prophets." To put it more directly: as a scientist I am interested in evidence, not somebody's opinion. Argument from authority may be considered acceptable in religion--in science, it is not. This fundamental principle dates back to the dawn of science--the motto of one of the earliest scientific societies, the Royal Society of London, is "Nullius in Verba," which loosely translated means "Take nobody's word."

you can't explain why a hybrid land/water ear (not advantageous on land, not advantageous in water - no hybrid environment exists) is an advantage.

I can hear pretty well underwater. I guess I must have a "hybrid land/water ear."

Also refer to the NIH Hematopoietic Stem Cells. There's tons of research going on, so tell your friend to hang on...

Very little has come out of the ISS in terms of, say, physics research, but if you go over to PubMed and search for "international space station", there is a modicum of biomedical research. Not enough to justify the ISS's existence, but still ...

I was interested that you posted about the healthcare industry, because I work in it today, and also went to a university which has done quite a bit of research into the area of health & bio informatics. From the research, it is clear that the semantic web and healthcare are actually a great match for each other, particularly when it comes to things like concepts & ontologies (for example, check out MeSH if you haven't seen it before).

Another example of how semantics make sense for healthcare is in identifying how to properly code a particular diagnosis or procedure. For example, if I know that going to visit your doctor in the office is a procedure represented by the number 99213, I need to be able to figure that out when I send in my medical bill. Here's a hierarchy that might help in this scenario:
General Example: Where->Who->How->What
Specific Example: In a doctor's office->by a doctor->in person examination->99213

However, good will only come of this if semantic technologies ever make the leap from research to practice for ordinary healthcare professionals.

As for EDI, it is a crime that such poor standards exist today (the HIPAA X12 transaction set springs to mind), and that a technology like XML markup exists, but is not the basis of our standards. XML has a lot of overhead over say, your fixed width files, but it sure makes parsing this data and finding columns and fields a lot easier!

Yes, checking with her doctor first would be a good idea :-). I wish you luck and here is some more info for you:

Run this search through the PubMed database: 'Clauss zolpidem'.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=P ubMed You should get six hits and the email address for Dr. Ralf Clauss (the guy who did the study) is claussrp at yahoo.com

Google has some more hits: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe =off&q=Clauss+zolpidem&btnG=Search

Microtubules and memory

Some quantification of the quantum interactions of neurotubules.

Depending on how much of the brain and conciousness is a "quantum computer", rather than a neurological one, in addition to memory the person might lose little. It all depends on how much of our minds resides in neural cells, and how much is in the quantum field that it accesses. Bottomline? We probably don't know.

Microtubules and memory

Some quantification of the quantum interactions of neurotubules.

Depending on how much of the brain and conciousness is a "quantum computer", rather than a neurological one, in addition to memory the person might lose little. It all depends on how much of our minds resides in neural cells, and how much is in the quantum field that it accesses. Bottomline? We probably don't know.

The study investigates the effect of zolpidem (CAS 82626-48-0) on brain injuries and cerebellar diaschisis. Four patients with varied brain injuries, three of them with cerebellar diaschisis, were imaged by 99mTc HMPAO Brain SPECT before and after application of zolpidem. The baseline SPECT before zolpidem showed poor tracer uptake in brain injury areas and cerebellar diaschisis. After zolpidem, cerebral perfusion through brain injury areas improved substantially in three patients and the cerebellar diaschisis was reversed. Observations point to a GABA based phenomenon that occurs in brain injury and diaschisis that is reversible by zolpidem.

The problem with this study is a small sample group and no control. You can't make many broad conclusions from that data.

Indications, efficacy and tolerance of drug therapy in view of improving recovery of consciousness following a traumatic brain injury

... RESULTS: The synthesis provides evidence about the theoretical actions and efficacy of the available pharmacological agents. The clinical studies are less convincing: indications and therapeutic choices are empirical. Studies report often single cases. Randomised studies are rare, often heterogeneous concerning the aetiology of the brain lesions. The evaluation scales are varied and too wide. In this context, amantadin, amphetamine, methylphenidate and bromocryptin showed some positive effects. ...

All of the drugs described in the above study have dopaminergic function; either indirectly increasing dopamine levels (amantadin, amphetamine, and methylphenidate) or directly agonizing the receptors (bromocriptine). It is interesting that GABA, an inhibitory rather than excitatory neurotransmitter in most cases, shows efficacy here as well.

The study investigates the effect of zolpidem (CAS 82626-48-0) on brain injuries and cerebellar diaschisis. Four patients with varied brain injuries, three of them with cerebellar diaschisis, were imaged by 99mTc HMPAO Brain SPECT before and after application of zolpidem. The baseline SPECT before zolpidem showed poor tracer uptake in brain injury areas and cerebellar diaschisis. After zolpidem, cerebral perfusion through brain injury areas improved substantially in three patients and the cerebellar diaschisis was reversed. Observations point to a GABA based phenomenon that occurs in brain injury and diaschisis that is reversible by zolpidem.

The problem with this study is a small sample group and no control. You can't make many broad conclusions from that data.

Indications, efficacy and tolerance of drug therapy in view of improving recovery of consciousness following a traumatic brain injury

... RESULTS: The synthesis provides evidence about the theoretical actions and efficacy of the available pharmacological agents. The clinical studies are less convincing: indications and therapeutic choices are empirical. Studies report often single cases. Randomised studies are rare, often heterogeneous concerning the aetiology of the brain lesions. The evaluation scales are varied and too wide. In this context, amantadin, amphetamine, methylphenidate and bromocryptin showed some positive effects. ...

All of the drugs described in the above study have dopaminergic function; either indirectly increasing dopamine levels (amantadin, amphetamine, and methylphenidate) or directly agonizing the receptors (bromocriptine). It is interesting that GABA, an inhibitory rather than excitatory neurotransmitter in most cases, shows efficacy here as well.

But if you only constitute a small percentage of the total population, the transmission rate might be so low that an epidemic never happens. That's what we see with partial vaccination, which leaves communities in which only a small number of people are suseptible. There are mathematical models of this. The same thing applies to computers: if there were enough heterogeneity within the population, there would be epidemic thresholds keeping viruses from propagating widely. This doesn't make you feel better when you're the target of a small, sporadic outbreak, but it does address the Internet-stopping problems.

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/zolpid.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmas ter/a693025.html

I don't see any mention of fetal stem cells. What I do see is the non-generic names for the drug: Ambien® and Ambien CR®.

Furthermore, the finer method of action for *limus in atopic dermatitis is being hashed out but still pretty well known (they are both analogs of cyclosporine and as such their method of action was shown to be similar). Since at least 2000 this is what has been said:

Tacrolimus does not have any specific receptors at its cell surface. It penetrates the cell and binds to the cytoplasm of the T-cells at a specific "binding protein". Thus a complex comes into being which again binds calcineurin. The larger complex generated this way inhibits both the transcription of cytokins as Interleukin 12 as well as the T-cell proliferation. The significantly increased serum-IgE-level, typical for atopical diseases is lowered. Furthermore, Tacrolimus inhibits the release of histamine and inflammatory mediators from mast cells and basophilic granulocytes.reference

Tacrolimus, topical 0.03%, 0.1% (Protopic) -- Reduces itching and inflammation by suppressing the release of cytokines from T cells. Also inhibits transcription for genes that encode IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, GM-CSF, and TNF-alpha, all of which are involved in the early stages of T-cell activation. Additionally, may inhibit release of preformed mediators from skin mast cells and basophils, and may down-regulate expression of FCeRI on Langerhans cells. Ruzicka T, Bieber T, Schopf E, et al: A short-term trial of tacrolimus ointment for atopic dermatitis. European Tacrolimus Multicenter Atopic Dermatitis Study Group. N Engl J Med 1997 Sep 18; 337(12): 816-21 reference

The important part there is the langerhans part as they are limited (pretty much) to within the skin. Also, the may parts have some evidence, but the results need to be further studied, and replicated, here are some replicated experiments from 2004/5, so the evidence is there and growing:

• Gisondi P, Ellis CN, Girolomoni G. Pimecrolimus in dermatology: atopic dermatitis and beyond. Int J Clin Pract. 2005 Aug;59(8):969-74.
• Koo JY, Fleischer AB Jr, Abramovits W, Pariser DM, McCall CO, Horn TD, Gottlieb AB, Jaracz E, Rico MJ. Tacrolimus ointment is safe and effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: results in 8000 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Aug;53(2 Suppl 2):S195-205.
• Hanifin JM, Paller AS, Eichenfield L, Clark RA, Korman N, Weinstein G, Caro I, Jaracz E, Rico MJ; US Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment treatment for up to 4 years in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Aug;53(2 Suppl 2):S186-94.
• Tan J, Langley R. Safety and efficacy of tacrolimus ointment 0.1% (Protopic) in atopic dermatitis: a Canadian open-label multicenter study. J Cutan Med Surg. 2004 Jul-Aug;8(4):213-9.

In your defense, the 2005 PDR still says the method of action is not fully known...but that is not surprising, it may have been updated for '06, or not. It is not a very flexible book.

In short, much work has been done since 2000 on this subject, mostly because the results have been really impressive, especially in those patients who were refractive to other therapies.

In closing, you just hit a tender spot that is a bane of medical education. In th

Stricker RB has 125 articles in Pubmed and a Long CV.

The only viral marketing campaign here is the one claming that the disease is just a viral marketing campaign!

Antibacterial soaps are a marketing ploy and nothing more

Bzzt. Wrong.

Many antibacterial soaps contain additives such as triclosan or triclocarbon. Both the AMA and the CDC have recommended against the use of antibacterial soaps vs. regular soaps. The antibacterial soaps themselves don't seem to save you from any cough, colds and flus as at least one study published in Annals of internal medicine shows.

As for just being marketting, manufacturers would be at risk of false advertising, violations of which are the domain of the FTC

These particular antibiotic additives are effective in controlled settings (eg. hospitals) with proper application, but indescriminate use at home doesn't seem provide benefits, and in fact raises concerns about the development of resistant strains of bacteria.

The CAV3 and RYR2 genes are not the problems themselves. The problems come from specific MUTATIONS in those genes. The article specifically says: "In each study, two of the 135 cases possessed mutations in either CAV3 or RyR2."

And before anyone starts going "2/135 isn't much," the scientists didn't say these mutations alone are responsible for the disease. They say In the two recent separate studies, researchers examined caveolin-3 (CAV3) and the cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) and found molecular and functional evidence in both to implicate them as SIDS-susceptibility genes. . Susceptibility is the key word here. Having the mutations doesn't guarantee SIDS; it only increases the likelihood of it.

Whenever you read a simplified article about genetic susceptibility, 9/10 times the "gene" that is linked to the disease doesn't actually mean the gene causes the disease. It means that mutations in the gene cause the disease.

The mutations impair the normal function of the gene. In the case of these two genes, CAV3 is the gene coding for a protein found in muscle and losing it results in muscle degeneration, while RYR2 is the gene coding for a calcium-release receptor in cardiac muscle.

The CAV3 and RYR2 genes are not the problems themselves. The problems come from specific MUTATIONS in those genes. The article specifically says: "In each study, two of the 135 cases possessed mutations in either CAV3 or RyR2."

And before anyone starts going "2/135 isn't much," the scientists didn't say these mutations alone are responsible for the disease. They say In the two recent separate studies, researchers examined caveolin-3 (CAV3) and the cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) and found molecular and functional evidence in both to implicate them as SIDS-susceptibility genes. . Susceptibility is the key word here. Having the mutations doesn't guarantee SIDS; it only increases the likelihood of it.

Whenever you read a simplified article about genetic susceptibility, 9/10 times the "gene" that is linked to the disease doesn't actually mean the gene causes the disease. It means that mutations in the gene cause the disease.

The mutations impair the normal function of the gene. In the case of these two genes, CAV3 is the gene coding for a protein found in muscle and losing it results in muscle degeneration, while RYR2 is the gene coding for a calcium-release receptor in cardiac muscle.

well.. let's see...

well.. let's see...

they will just refer you to the next quack's accupuncture needles. They might calll themselves 'alternative' but the correct term is 'unproven' or for most of those treatments it is just 'proven to be total bullshit'.

There is in fact significant evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture and acupressure in a wide variety of conditions.

The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion?

Savely VR, Leitao MM, Stricker RB.

South Austin Family Practice Clinic, Austin, Texas, USA.

Morgellons disease is a mysterious skin disorder that was first described more than 300 years ago. The disease is characterized by fiber-like strands extruding from the skin in conjunction with various dermatologic and neuropsychiatric symptoms. In this respect, Morgellons disease resembles and may be confused with delusional parasitosis. The association with Lyme disease and the apparent response to antibacterial therapy suggest that Morgellons disease may be linked to an undefined infectious process. Further clinical and molecular research is needed to unlock the mystery of Morgellons disease.

PMID: 16489838 [PubMed - in process]

Actually, "we" have evolved since the beginning of the agricultural age. This report (OMIM here and PubMed here) demonstrates a shift in the frequency of an allele of a gene that is expressed in the brain.

Actually, "we" have evolved since the beginning of the agricultural age. This report (OMIM here and PubMed here) demonstrates a shift in the frequency of an allele of a gene that is expressed in the brain.

For more information on telerobotic surgery systems (they're a few years old now):

http://www.teleroboticsurgeons.com/
http://www.teleroboticsurgeons.com/davinci.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1471286 6

You're a moron

"Opiate withdrawal is caused by stopping, or dramatically reducing, opiate use after heavy and prolonged use (several weeks or more).

Opiates include heroin, morphine, codeine, Oxycontin, Dilaudid, methadone"

It produces the same withdrawal symptoms as the other opiates, and if taken in high enough doses, produces similar effects. On other, shorter, easier for you to understand words, they fiend for it the same way they fiend for everything else.

"I would also like to point out to you that you read /. often enough to know how often I post here! Everything you wrote about me applies to you!"

I would like to point out that once again, you've said something galatically stupid.

Your history One click, one time, one minute. Wow, you sure make it easy to show that you're a buffoon.

I await your guaranteed to be moronic reply, mostly because I know your life is so empty that you can't resist responding when someone exposes your pitiable existence for what it is.

Not to put a monkey wrench into things, but a substantial proportion of the people reading this are colonized with Staph aureus, and depending upon what part of the world you hail from and your recent medical history, there's a good chance that it's MRSA. If you know a friendly microbiologist, get them to swab your nose. You'd be surprised.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1653404 7&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum/

MRSA is typically resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics, including penicillins and cephalosporins. Just because it's resistant does not mean that it's going to eat away at your flesh. Methicillin sensitive strains will do that just as happily, particularly if they produce leukocidins (eg: MRSA strain USA300).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1644711 0&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum/

Calling vancomycin a cure for MRSA is exceedingly short sighted. VRSA/VISA (the I stands for intermediate, not insensitive), is becoming increasingly common in some regions. Topical agents, such as mupirocin or chlorhexidine may help to attenuate nasal and skin carriage (groin, axilla etc), but reports of MuRSA are also beginning to surface. It's an uphill battle.

My advice? (And yes, I hold a PhD in the field). Avoid contributing to the problem. Don't suck down antibiotics every time you get the sniffles, especially if you don't have to. More importantly, if your doctor insists upon it, don't stop taking the antibiotics the moment you feel better: finish the entire course, as prescribed. Data to associate feedlot/livestock antibiotic supplements and the transmission of resistant pathogens into human populations is scant. Worry first about the factors you can control. Your children will thank you for it.

Not to put a monkey wrench into things, but a substantial proportion of the people reading this are colonized with Staph aureus, and depending upon what part of the world you hail from and your recent medical history, there's a good chance that it's MRSA. If you know a friendly microbiologist, get them to swab your nose. You'd be surprised.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1653404 7&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum/

MRSA is typically resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics, including penicillins and cephalosporins. Just because it's resistant does not mean that it's going to eat away at your flesh. Methicillin sensitive strains will do that just as happily, particularly if they produce leukocidins (eg: MRSA strain USA300).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1644711 0&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum/

Calling vancomycin a cure for MRSA is exceedingly short sighted. VRSA/VISA (the I stands for intermediate, not insensitive), is becoming increasingly common in some regions. Topical agents, such as mupirocin or chlorhexidine may help to attenuate nasal and skin carriage (groin, axilla etc), but reports of MuRSA are also beginning to surface. It's an uphill battle.

My advice? (And yes, I hold a PhD in the field). Avoid contributing to the problem. Don't suck down antibiotics every time you get the sniffles, especially if you don't have to. More importantly, if your doctor insists upon it, don't stop taking the antibiotics the moment you feel better: finish the entire course, as prescribed. Data to associate feedlot/livestock antibiotic supplements and the transmission of resistant pathogens into human populations is scant. Worry first about the factors you can control. Your children will thank you for it.

For more information from PubMed on the mangosteen fruit and its benefits, see these articles at PubMed via NIH.gov. Or, go to my website.

For more information from PubMed on the mangosteen fruit and its benefits, see these articles at PubMed via NIH.gov. Or, go to my website.

For more information from PubMed on the mangosteen fruit and its benefits, see these articles at PubMed via NIH.gov. Or, go to my website.

After learning about this fruit and its many documented benefits, I bought into the company that brought it to the market in the US.

After learning about this fruit and its many documented benefits, I bought into the company that brought it to the market in the US.

the immunity to the negative effects of LDH cholesterol developed in a single man in Italy (creating descendants among whom heart disease and strokes are vanishingly shockingly rare).

This is all a bit old hat, isn't it?
I was pushing bloodcells around using dielectrophoresis in Uni over a decade ago. Shortly thereafter, water was being tested for purity using the same method, and one of the post-docs was moving tagged proteins around too.
How come it took so long to create a system to be used in protein manufacture?
examples:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumb er=297897 (1994)
http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/1/ 516 (1994)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9351287&dopt=Citation (1997)

Update: "they" happen to be NIH again. The false overdose is simply caffeine sensitivity - you have negative effects that aren't overdose, and sensitivity level varies by person. Info on "regular" intake of caffeine (including a sensitivity reaction) is here.

I realize this discussion is over, but just wanted to maybe relieve you a bit. You probably didn't OD because the LD50 (lethal dose in 50% of a control group) for caffeine is unbelievably high. I think something like 900+ cups of coffee's worth within a span of only a few hours. In fact, you are more likely to overdose on water swallowing all those pills than you are to OD on caffeine or drinking all that java than for the caffeine to do you in. Not to say its impossible, but fortunately caffeine is an extremely safe drug so an OD is very unlikely. Usually they (not clear who "they" are) divide overdose symptoms into two categories: real overdoses, and just too much caffeine. The latter is elevated heart rate, nausea, vomiting, and tremors, and that's about it. I've even done it myself on accident. I would guess you took caffeine pills, which sometimes have an additive (probably just castor oil or something similar that isn't an "active" ingredient) to prevent accidental overdose. The additive itself causes nausea and vomiting, which is safer than a heart attack. If you're vomiting from caffeine, I'd guess this is the actual culprit (how dare you blame caffeine!). Definitely no fun, but fortunately not as bad as the real thing. Check out this article and you'll see you probably weren't having a real overdose, because real caffeine overdose has some pretty nasty symptoms.

Disclaimer: I don't know the circumstances. If you did OD on caffeine, and were admitted to a hospital, well, then you're right. That's most certianly not pleasant.

DDT did not decimate the ecosystem of Borneo

Okay, okay, decimate is too strong a word. But it did damage the rivers severely causing large fish die-offs, and when you kill off an entire species in the areas (cats), that's not exactly "no effect."

There were no outbreaks of plague or typhus.

Curiously enough, I didn't say there was. I said the cats were dropped to stop the population from dying. It worked.

Every instance you find of someone saying this is someone retelling a trumped up story they heard. The cats were dropped because there was FEAR an outbreak would occur. It didn't. ... because they dropped the cats!

What am I missing here?

The insect control measures in Borneo are today considered to have been a great success. The problem of malaria went away. Thousands of children lived who might otherwise have died

Yes. Which is why I'm not opposed to it in principle. I'm opposed to people who say it doesn't do any damage. It does. You have to know what you're doing ahead of time. If you just blindly go ahead and do it on a large scale, you could end up with more problems than you started with.

Incidentally, regarding "children living who might otherwise have died", you might want to take a look at Corin & Weaver's paper from the JRTPH. DDT's effects in humans, while not life-threatening, should cause problems with lactation cycles and premature births. It's entirely possible given the levels used that DDT is a net detriment. In any case, it's worse than alternative treatments.

Sorry, I just don't take USAID's position on DDT seriously. They have in the past shown themselves to be tools of of the anti-DDT environmental lobby.

There's plenty of evidence to support their claim. See here, for instance, or here, both of which show that insecticide-treated nets are more cost effective than DDT.

Could be rat poison in the coffee machine on the top floor.

I wonder how many of the people afflicted drink diet soda...?