Slashdot Mirror

If they are just trying these techniques now, then paleontologists need to start visiting with other departments. The sciences have evolved so much over they last 20 years that in order to do any real work you have to associate with people outside your discipline.

Confocal:

LSCM has been used for ages outside of biology in quality control for chip manufactures.
Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy improves your Z resolution by eliminating light from above and below the plane of focus. This helps in thick biological samples. Usually you can only image up to 300 microns into a sample (sometimes up to 700 depending on objective and wavelength).
Now, with fossils, I assume that you can only see the very top layer, because light wont penetrate rock that far.

Raman.
The Raman effect was described in 1928. However, robust applications in conjunction with microscopy are somewhat new so I would say that this group is not coming on board to late in the game. Raman with microscopy is pretty cool because you can make chemical maps that correlate to images you have taken. See this paper .

Anyway , I'm glad to see that they are using some advanced techniques.

I thought I'd add this, a review published in the BMJ that does a meta-analysis of 214 existing public health studies on public water fluoridation. It basically finds that it is safe and effective.

Ok so you found a site with an agenda: Eliminating flouride consumption, that claims it's bad. Right, of course they are going to claim that. Now I can find information from respected orignizations, like the CDC and NIH, that says it's not only fine but good for oral health.

http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/waterfluoridation/in dex.htm
http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Disease sAndConditions/Fluoride/WaterFluoridation.htm

Now I don't care to argue with you about who to believe, I'm just pointing you that you are presenting only a source with an agenda. Have a look at what the CDC has to say, as well as others.

Here's another one: Money Talks.

The NSF's budget has increased every year during the Bush administration. From 2001-2003, for example, the NSF granted more money to more researchers every year. Last year's budget proposed by Bush, according to the ACS included similar increases:

The FY05 administration request for NSF is $5.7 billion, a 3-percent increase or $167 million over the FY04 budget.....a 4.7-percent increase for the NSF Research & Related Activities account. .....The biggest increase in NSF's FY05 budget goes to its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account, which receives a 37.6-percent increase, bringing its funding level to $213.2 million in 2004.
The FY05 NSF increases would bring the average annual research grant award size to approximately $142,000, up $3,000 over FY04. Average annual grant duration would continue to be 3 years.

Oh yeah, and the NIH budget doubled[pdf] from 1999 to 2003. For several of those years, a man named George W. Bush was president.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=o ff&q=cache:RiutkwYiglgJ:www.gghjournal.com/pdf/vol ume_10/10-2/ab2.pdf+homosexual+genetic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7560926&dopt=Citation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10743878&dopt=Citatio n
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=o ff&q=cache:XUpe9dlCFPgJ:www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83 No3/251.pdf+homosexual+genetic

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=o ff&q=cache:RiutkwYiglgJ:www.gghjournal.com/pdf/vol ume_10/10-2/ab2.pdf+homosexual+genetic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7560926&dopt=Citation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10743878&dopt=Citatio n
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=o ff&q=cache:XUpe9dlCFPgJ:www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83 No3/251.pdf+homosexual+genetic

So 1 in 4 of all Americans are obese because of a virus? Obesity has jumped from 13% in 1960 to 30% in 2000. It has been on the rise in all categories for several decades now. Now, do you still think that a majority of this is because of a virus? It's not because of a change in the average person's lifestyle, or the prevalence of fast food joints, or clever marketing for sugary cereals and sweets? What about soft drinks?

Where did I dispute there might be a viral cause for obesity in my original post in order to "prop up" my "motivational self-help ranting?" Like it or not, there is already a very real cure for obesity out there now. Whether or not people want to take advantage of it is another issue.

I think he/she means Crohn's disease.

http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/croh ns/index.htm

Antisocial Personality Disorder is a disorder which is characterized by a disregard for the rights and feelings of others. It was formally known as "Dysocial Personality Disorder," "Sociopathy," and "Psychopathy." A person with this disorder is often called, a "Psychopath." This however is not the proper term because it's meaning has been changed, and it's actually biased language; it is a label, although "Antisocial Personality Disorder" (ASPD) is a label in itself. It's just considered unethical to call someone a name.

ASPD is named this way because it gives emphasis on the social part of the disorder. However, it is misleading. Most people understand that "antisocial" means to be socially distant, sulking, or whatever. What it really means is "socially distructive." It is very true that those with ASPD disrupt the lives of those around them. Those with ASPD are often highly charming.

Characteristics of ASPD include callious, charming, grandious (huge ego), high sense of entitlement, impulsiveness, unreasonable life goals or failure to plan ahead, and others. Check out a wiki on this disorder.

In my research, I've found studies that demonstrate a lack of activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brains of those with ASPD. One study shows 11% less prefrontal grey matter in the brains of those with the disorder compared to control groups (sorry I couldn't link the full text).

The prefrontal cortex is at the front of the brain and is responsible for higher thinking.

Another study is of a boy who was playing Russian Roulette. The boy got the bullet. He was said to have a future diagnosis of ASPD (he was too young for the diagnosis at the time). The surgery removed parts of his prefrontal cortex. No change in his personality, or minimal change, was reported by those who knew him.

Studies on rats show the importance of the prefrontal cortex in the characteristics of ASPD above. Rats with legions cut into their brains tended to be more impulsive. Other studies show a lack of self control, that is, inhibition of an action in a go/no-go task, was weaker in patients with ASPD. (I couldn't find these studies on the Internet, but they may be found in scholarly journels, however, it's been time since I've done this research, and I don't feel like getting up to search them) This shows a stronger link to the prefrontal cortex and these characteristics stated above.

This is important to know since a lot of these people will find themselves charged with crimes. Ted Bundy had this disorder, and so did most serial killers (I do not know if all of them had the disorder). When these people are assessed using the fMRI scan to see if they know more than they should, there might be a problem with their damaged prefrontal cortex. That is, this brain damage can interfer with lie-detection.

>>Or that HIV works in tandem with another virus to cause AIDS.
>A mystery virus that has escaped detection so far ?

Human Herpes Virus 8, the virus which causes Kaposi's sarcoma, has been identified for some time and it's link to AIDS patients is well documented. Of course, HHV8 is not required for AIDS so far as I know, but it certainly makes HIV much much worse.

From the cited article;
The results suggest that HHV-8 might be a cofactor for HIV progression and that HHV-8-infected endothelial cells might play a relevant role in transendothelial HIV spread.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1597617 7&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Here is what I mean:

You know how your brain just likes something about the "packaging" of Google Maps, Gmail, Google Reader, etc.? It's like, the foil wrapper on a pack of Upper Deck baseball cards, or the perfectly shiny and good-feeling plastic Diet Coke bottle that makes a great "clicking" sound when you twist the cap, before the final "crack" and whoosh of bubbles. When you see these packages, your brain immediately associates with them that tiny little "rush" that comes from the use of the associated product and of the packaging itself. (E.g., opening the pack and seeing what baseball cards you got; twisting the cap and having the first sip of caffeine and l-phenylalaline). Because software is, at the UI level, both packaging and product, this same phenomenon can exist.

I believe that Google has created these brain-friendly packages for most of its products. Google Video simply missed the mark entirely, in that sense. It feels like work to use the thing. It doesn't feel like something that will, even if just a tiny, tiny bit, excite me on some level.

I can't see a reason to rethink those tests. Obviously any one of them doesn't disprove evolution - it does however stuff up the current universal common descent part of it - of course scientists will modify the theory rather than throwing it away, until someone comes up with something that explains things better.

But any of those the things I mentioned screw up the current understanding of how things went. Of course none of them has ever turned up - in fact the opposite has happened, things have turned which support the current theory.

When I talk about finding genes I don't mean in one genetically engineered lab animal, I mean in a species (such as the human genome containing the tail genes also found in mice).

But evolution THEORY is that somewhere along the line there were MAJOR DNA changes, there is no proof of this happening

No to both claims. Evolution could be in principle fully explained by a sequence of minor DNA changes. In practices there is evidence of major DNA changes in the past. See http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/21bio/zfish/post er/gd.html , for example, or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9729879&dopt=Abstract , or http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/6/577 (Just a couple of examples googled in 30'').

You mean like a game where you beat the shit out of your state senator?

To beat the shit out of somebody, all you have to do is give him or her a stool softener, right?

ummm... I'm looking at a bunch of quotes that are 8 years old or older. The relationship between HIV and AIDS has been demonstrated in a minor amount of cases (see here.

Some people never show symptoms of HIV infection, some develop full blown AIDS and die shortly after. But, the few cases that do tie HIV and AIDS together have pretty much convinced many scientists that HIV and AIDS have some sort of real link.

How many peer reviewed journals are cited above? ZERO!
Here's an easy to read summary of the real evidence: http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm
And a more detailed summary: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

Here are some of the proven, reviewed, science backed theories, quoted from the NIH site above:

"AIDS and HIV infection are invariably linked in time, place and population group."

"Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS."

"HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS."

"Newborn infants have no behavioral risk factors for AIDS, yet many children born to HIV-infected mothers have developed AIDS and died."

"The HIV-infected twin develops AIDS while the uninfected twin does not."

These are peer reviewed scientific theories. Anyone can cast doubt on them, but to do so with such little evidence is irresponsible, especially considering the gravity of the disease. No serious journal proposes that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

They would tend to suggest the figures are closer to 1.4% in males and 2.2% in females. But if there's any conflicting data on this, I'm more than happy to accept it!

PS The Pubmed ID of the article is 16026639. You can get the abstract here

The state-of-the-art in cryonics today is *vitrification*, not freezing. Very high quality brain preservation is possible when freezing is prevented with cryoprotectants

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreserv ation1.html

Changes in dendritic spines cited by one poster as evidence that 5 minutes of clinical death is irreversible are in fact known to be *spontaneously reversible*!

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/2 2/5333

The world record for recovery of large animals without brain damage after intervals of clinical death at normal temperature using advanced resuscitation technology is now 16 minutes, not 5 minutes.

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/annals.html

Even just post-resuscitation hypothermia, hemodilution, and hypertension will get you to 13 minutes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2298837

The brain doesn't go "kaboom" after a few minutes of circulatory arrest. Foreseeable technologies will likely eventually extend the reach of resuscitation medicine to one hour or more of clinical death at normal temperatures. A person with a stopped heart is fundamentally A SICK PERSON that doesn't really die until much later.

On top of it all, all this is moot for cryonics patients who suffer attended cardiac arrest, for whom the preservation process is started immediately, the first step being restoration of blood circulation and oxygenation.

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CardiopulmonaryS upport.html

People should do at least some minimum checking before making confident pronouncements about the stupidity of others. There are some very sharp people behind this field

http://www.cryoletter.org/

Um...DNA methyltranferases do exist and methylation can be reversed. Take a look here and here for demethylation and here for a methyltransferase.

Um...DNA methyltranferases do exist and methylation can be reversed. Take a look here and here for demethylation and here for a methyltransferase.

Um...DNA methyltranferases do exist and methylation can be reversed. Take a look here and here for demethylation and here for a methyltransferase.

They've been doing this for years now with humans.

Yes, I saw a program on Dicsovery years ago but I cannot find it on their site.
Basically, some Siberian Doctors were using the Winter weather to induce hypothermia in patients undergoing open-heart-surgery.
Here's a report from 2001 and Another report from 2002

I always thought it would be funny to get one of those medical alert bracelets that reads "in case of stroke please administer PCP". But then being old, disoriented and in the thrall of a medical emergency might not be the ideal time for your first, mind-altering experience. Heh.

all fields of science are today in at least some form of crisis. "Publish or perish", and a bureacratic/accountancy driven push for quantity of publications over quality, has caused an explosion in the number of published articles and an equally dramatic drop in the substance of said articles. The result is that even in a small sub-field, there are too many publications for an indiviual to keep track of.

The brain tumor survey looks like shaky science. As someone in the article pointed out, it was based only on a survey of *living* subjects and most with serious brain tumors die within 18 months and were therefore omitted from the study. From reading the article, it looks as though they asked 1,000 people with brain tumors how much they used a cell phone and then went and asked 1,700 people who didn't have a brain tumor how much THEY used a cell phone. Then they used the results of this survey to claim that the amount of cell phone use between the two group was the same.

Says the article: "The study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - and length of mobile use."

Presumably, they were looking for a higher proportion of the brain tumor sufferers to say 'Omigosh, yes, I use the cell phone 8 hours a day.' while the non-sufferers would say 'Cell phones? What are those?' Instead, they probably found both that both groups used cell phones about the same amount of time and from that comes their 'conclusion' that there is no link between cell phones and cancer. Suppose, though, that cell phones really DO cause cancer but that they only cause cancer in .0005% of exposed individuals after 3 years of use with the percentage rising to 5% after 20 years of use? The cancer-sufferers in the study might just be falling into that .0005% group but that doesn't mean that the non-sufferers get a free pass but only that their time isn't up, yet. Lots of people smoke cigarettes but don't get lung cancer until 30 years, or more, later, and many never get lung cancer. Using similar methodology, we could survey 1,000 lung cancer sufferers and 1,700 non-lung cancer sufferers in the age range of 25-35 in some country such as South Korea where most everyone smokes and both groups would probably report about the same amount of smoking. Then we could say 'See...there's no link between smoking and lung cancer!'

Also, there are negative cognitive effects that have been demonstrated in cell phone users. Unless more data becomes available, the best approach to cell phones is probably the same as that used for exposure to ionizing radiation which is to minimize your time and distance and don't give them to kids.

Does the public employee union bid against anyone? Yes, they do. http://osmp.od.nih.gov/a76.asp

Hey, if you prefer a real colonoscopy to a virtual one, go right ahead. :)

If on the other hand, you'd prefer an MRI to an anal probe, you might want to check into it.

Virtual colonoscopy (VC) uses x rays and computers to produce two- and three-dimensional images of the colon (large intestine) from the lowest part, the rectum, all the way to the lower end of the small intestine and display them on a screen. The procedure is used to diagnose colon and bowel disease, including polyps, diverticulosis, and cancer. VC can be performed with computed tomography (CT), sometimes called a CAT scan, or with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

More info on it here.

Swallowed pennies can cause ulcers because the stomach acid attacks the zinc.
Also, TFA puts Zinc in the same category as Copper, as a metal that might be in short supply.

The brilliance of x-ray sources are right now undergoing a revolution much faster than Moore's law.

Actually, that is a current scientific hypothesis, but it is still controversial, as there are contradictory results (for instance, one of the consequences of this theory might be the decrease of auto-immune diseases, which is not happening).

Read this abstract for a quick summary.

While this is pretty gross, it isn't really surpising, and it may not represent a public health issue (I don't know). However, it might be worthwhile to point out that there are normally as many as 1000 bacteria per square centimeter on your skin. Furthermore, not all bacteria are created equal. For an introduction to the normal flora of humans see this reference. Now if keyboards are enriched in pathogenic bacteria...

Granted, we now have a bunch of very smart, long-lived, god-awful horny-all-the-time rats running around. You got a problem with that?

The general press and general public really do not bother to focus on concerns such as the ones you bring up. I'm glad you have the ability to think critically, but do not judge everything about this research from this press release. There are thousands of primary articles from scientists dedicated to understanding how to better implant medical devices. Look for articles in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ under pubmed -- search for terms like "implant", "rejection", "immune response", and other such keywords if you want to actually know what more about how science is dealing with this very issue. Such research has already made possible the ability to implant pacemakers, stints, artifical joints, steel plates. It is only a matter of time -- in my professional opinion, about 3-6 years until phase I clinical tests on fabricated retinas begins. Phase I/II are specifically designed to test the safety of medical drugs and devices to address the concerns you bring up about rejection. I think it could be up to 10 years until phase III -- the actual efficacy trial. Then we'll know how people whose vision has degenerated can benefit from this treatment. But we will certainly know before then whether or not animal models will respond to this treatment.

100% of my household thinks this is going too far. what's next? having a really good memory outlawed? i'm tired of the arguement "we lose money if.." maybe that's why drugs are illegal; drug dealers complained that "we would lose money if drugs were legal". it all makes sense now.. lemme get back to my drugs.

Two words: Bull. Shit.

And a critical analysis of the methodology behind the study that started this fearmongering here.

Two words: Bull. Shit.

And a critical analysis of the methodology behind the study that started this fearmongering here.

They actually are probably a huge contributor to the rate of research since they have enable researchers to more quickly find information.

No.

Looking for research information on Google is like looking using Wikipedia to quote information for a paper.

We researchers use the following (between other) places to do serious research:
Scirus
Citeseer
ACM digital library
JStor
PubMed

There are some other specialized catalogues for Economics (Jstor is quite good) or other non computer science related even directly Elsevier.

Of course your University library may be useful and proceedings tend to help too.

I don't have a biology degree but it seems to me that there might be faster ways of creating strains more efficient at harvesting/reducing CO2. I have seen lectures given where Alzheimer's susceptible genes were spliced into the genes of mice neurons using a strain of the herpes virus that had previously infected neurons of Alzheimer's patients.

Does anyone know if there are techniques like this to use to directly alter the genes of other organisms (like algae) using perhaps similar tricks?

Furthermore, what if this could be used for gases other than nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide?

Is there maybe a possibility of coating hot air balloons or zeppelins with this algae and letting them float about in the atmosphere until they become so heavy with algae they descend? I know it's kind of farfetched to propose that but stranger things that once were science fiction have become useful. The article seems to make it sound like just having the algae exposed to the air near a plant.

Trouble is due to the placebo effect, it might fool the brain so well that it behaves as if it is indeed caffeinated.

See Neuropharmacological Dissection of Placebo Analgesia,The Neurobiology of Placebo Analgesia and "13 things that do not make sense".

Then there's also the homeopathy thingy - see num 4 in the newscientist article.

Sounds almost as useful as this research.

Low levels of ionizing radiation seems to be actually beneficial to human health.

This is called radiation hormesis. And this theory started after they found that people who lived in such a distance from hiroshima and Nagasaki that they received low radiation doses. And, years later, this population, exposed to radiation, had much lower cancer rates than non-exposed similar populations.

You can check some references:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1150419 7&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n1s/full/74 00222.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00019A7 0-0C1C-1F41-B0B980A841890000&catID=4

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm. html

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2004/Hormesis-T heory-Toxins27feb04.htm

Absolutely. I can think of no use of technology more harmful to society as a whole than the commuter's car. To keep it simple and in line with the "Terrorist" argument let's just look at deaths. In 2003 approx 42,000 US civilians died in auto accidents. Every few months, more Americans die in, on or under cars than have been killed in every terrorist act in over 100 years of American history. Freeways cause asthma in Children.

If the people who advocate for three hour airport procedures were willing to wait 5 minutes for a bus or a train we could begin to Reclaim our Streets.

8 Gallons? You gotta be kidding. Where did you get that number? 8 gallons of ethanol per capita per year is FIVE SHOTS of 86 proof spirits PER DAY, average. Highly unlikely.
Really, the only reliable numbers available are largely based on legal alcohol sales-- note how they show ZERO consumption during prohibition. It's only rational to assume that illegal sales occurred during prohibition, and that bootlegging continued even afterward. The numbers show "legit" consumption of alcohol normalizing to the same 2.0-2.5oz/per capita range within ten years, after which they float up and down whithin that range. That is, until about the mid 70's when the "war on drugs" had its beginnings, which saw people move to alcohol from other drugs. Likewise, prohibition drove some away from alcohol entirely and into other drugs like marijuana, opiates, and cocaine. For this reason, looking at only alcohol (much less "legal alcohol sales") doesn't give you an accurate picture of all drug demand. Demand for drugs remains relatively static.

Being that it is difficult to obtain statistics on adults of voting age that use marijuana in the United States, the closest thing I can find is http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html,

Which says, "In 2002, over 14 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, and 12.2 percent of past year marijuana users used marijuana on 300 or more days in the past 12 months."

The US population at the time (including minors was 288 million) so:

14/288 = 0.0486111111111111

If the US had a parliamentary system and 4% was required for a party, I would guess there would be a marijuana party.

Keep in mind that the 14 million number is probably a gross underestimate.

If you read the older literature, it seems that placebos are very powerful treatments for many conditions, with a substantial fraction of subjects showing a positive response to placebo. The effect of placebos has been attributed to patient expectation. Some studies showed that patient expectation could override known pharmacological effects of drugs; patients given a stimulant but told that it was a sedative exhibited signs of sedation, and vice-versa. On the other hand, modern studies (e.g. this study suggest that placebos have rather small effects aside from pain (probably via release of endogenous opiates) and psychiatric conditions.

However, modern studies with placebos are done very differently than the early studies. In the old days, experimenters simply lied to the subjects and told them that they were receiving an active drug. This is no longer considered ethical, and subjects in modern studies must sign a form indicating that they are aware that there is a possibility that they will be given an inactive placebo. Given that the ethical issues preclude the replication of the early studies, this is a question that may never be entirely resolved.

A related issue is whether it is ethical for a physician to lie to a patient and give them a placebo. Modern ethical standards impose an obligation on the physician to be honest with patients, which--if placebos really can have beneficial effects--may be an obstacle to optimum treatment in circumstances where no better treatment is available. I've heard of cases physicians recommending herbal or homeopathic treatments, since in such cases they can honestly tell their patients, "Some patients find this helps." This is not quite the same as being able to say "This is a wonder drug; it will definitely make you feel better," but offers a compromise between the obligation to be honest and the obligation to offer the best therapy available.

If you read the older literature, it seems that placebos are very powerful treatments for many conditions, with a substantial fraction of subjects showing a positive response to placebo. The effect of placebos has been attributed to patient expectation. Some studies showed that patient expectation could override known pharmacological effects of drugs; patients given a stimulant but told that it was a sedative exhibited signs of sedation, and vice-versa. On the other hand, modern studies (e.g. this study suggest that placebos have rather small effects aside from pain (probably via release of endogenous opiates) and psychiatric conditions.

However, modern studies with placebos are done very differently than the early studies. In the old days, experimenters simply lied to the subjects and told them that they were receiving an active drug. This is no longer considered ethical, and subjects in modern studies must sign a form indicating that they are aware that there is a possibility that they will be given an inactive placebo. Given that the ethical issues preclude the replication of the early studies, this is a question that may never be entirely resolved.

A related issue is whether it is ethical for a physician to lie to a patient and give them a placebo. Modern ethical standards impose an obligation on the physician to be honest with patients, which--if placebos really can have beneficial effects--may be an obstacle to optimum treatment in circumstances where no better treatment is available. I've heard of cases physicians recommending herbal or homeopathic treatments, since in such cases they can honestly tell their patients, "Some patients find this helps." This is not quite the same as being able to say "This is a wonder drug; it will definitely make you feel better," but offers a compromise between the obligation to be honest and the obligation to offer the best therapy available.

Seriously folks, we need to kill this meme. Math has proofs, science does not. Math != Science. They play in two totally different realms. Nothing in science will ever be "proven", that's not how it works.

In science, we make observations and then propose a postulate than tries to explain why/how we saw those observations. At any point in time, a new, conflicting observation can come in, showing the postulate to be a poor explanation of the actual world. That's called falsifiability. If your postulate isn't potentially (even if improbably) falsifiable, then it isn't scientific. That's why ID isn't scientific. If the postulate is that "God created the universe", what observation could possibly be made to falsify that postulate?

Getting back to your statement:
But science, with its "proof" has a lot more to prove to me before I just jump on the bandwagon of 1) how the universe was created and 2) how life began on this (and any other) planet.
As stated, science is not concerned with "proving" either of these explanations. But postulates have been made to explain the observations we have regarding topic #2. There aren't really any serious proposals to explain topic #1, since there can be no observable data from before the existence of the universe. Don't confuse Big Bang Theory, which desribes what happened after the matter came into existence, with an exaplanation of where that matter came from. Regarding #1, if you have a beef with the scientific theories about the origin of life on Earth, all you have to do is state that there is some observable data that's a counterexample to the prevailing theories. Since these include postulates like "all life decended from a common ancestor", that could easily be falsified by finding an organism that does not appear to be related to the other organisms on the planet. However, despite a century and a half of looking (post-Darwin) and, more recently, decades of research doing genetic sequencing on every organism we can get our hands on, we have yet to find any critter, no matter how strange, that is not somehow related to everything else. Maybe you need more evidence than the 100 Gigabases sampled from over 165,000 organisms, but in my book, that's withstanding a pretty rigorous challenge.

One more time kids: no scientific theory is ever proven "right". Theories get to be called theories when they meet two criteria:

• They are stated such that they can be potentially falsifiable.
• They then need to have withstood numerous scientific attempts to falsify them.

The part of Darwinism that seems to trouble people the most, that of common descent, fits both criteria. All you would have to do to falsify it is simply find an organism that does not appear to be related to the other organisms on the planet. However, despite a century and a half of looking (post-Darwin) and, more recently, decades of research doing genetic sequencing on every organism we can get our hands on, we have yet to find any critter, no matter how strange, that is not somehow related to everything else. Maybe you need more evidence than the 100 Gigabases sampled from over 165,000 organisms, but in my book, that's withstanding a pretty rigorous challenge.

I'm not calling anyone names, I am making a comparison between MS and a particular set of behaviors.

Spoiled children often display a lack of consideration for others, are prone to temper outbursts and are often manipulative. Their behavior is intrusive and obstructive.

• Seasonal Affective Disorder

• Winter depression

• Holiday depression

• More at Medline Plus