Slashdot Mirror

Sitting or laying in the same spot for any length of time, regardless of whether you're playing a game or doing work or lying in a hospital bed, can cause deep vein thrombosis and kill you with a blood clot.

Refs:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=3010041
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00 0156.htm

• PubMed's list of Derek Lovley's papers (pops).
• Geobacter Project Page at UMass (pops).
• The paper in question (pops -- warning, PDF).

from followng a few links: geobacter is anaerobic; it can tolerate a low level of oxygen, but basically lives in underground water with very low oxygen concentration. So spraying it not the air will kill it. Also, if I understand the chemistry (quite likely I haven't), it consumes rust, not iron per se.

I don't really get how that will happen. Yes, I agree that we treat this planet pretty badly, but I think the planet and humans are tough enough to take it.

Have you heard about the antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria being found in hospitals?

Combine that with the constantly increasing population densities in our cities, and the odds of some kind of pandemic increase.

You just have to look at any intensive farming methods, to see that the occurrence of parasites increases whenever organisms are placed in population densities that don't occur naturally.

I am a Ph.D. student at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada. I actually do research using GVS. Here's links to some of our research (Pubmed). GVS 1,
GVS 2
GVS 3
(disclosure: I am Carlsen on the papers :)). What troubles me is that the magnitude of the deviations is so large from the video. We showed that when walking in an open environment (e.g. like in the video), deviations due to GVS (with eyes open) is VERY small (~10 cm over a 3m distance). Even with eyes closed, the magnitude of the deviation was only 30 cm for 3m forward travel. GVS amplitude was set at 3x the threshold required to induce sway while standing (~1.5 mA) and some subjects reported that this could get painful. My main beef with this is that it appears from the video that the researchers were exaggerating the effect for the cameras. This is not to say that GVS does not have useful commercial applications, but this notion of "remote controlled humans" is an exaggeration. We have tried hooking up GVS to a flight simulator and got mixed feelings from subjects, but I believe that if tweaked correctly, this could be an area of application. However, because people react differently to different levels of stimulation, the problem of individual differences, and determining a threshold level might be tricky (also too high of a current can fry your brain, so kids, don't try this at home)!!

I am a Ph.D. student at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada. I actually do research using GVS. Here's links to some of our research (Pubmed). GVS 1,
GVS 2
GVS 3
(disclosure: I am Carlsen on the papers :)). What troubles me is that the magnitude of the deviations is so large from the video. We showed that when walking in an open environment (e.g. like in the video), deviations due to GVS (with eyes open) is VERY small (~10 cm over a 3m distance). Even with eyes closed, the magnitude of the deviation was only 30 cm for 3m forward travel. GVS amplitude was set at 3x the threshold required to induce sway while standing (~1.5 mA) and some subjects reported that this could get painful. My main beef with this is that it appears from the video that the researchers were exaggerating the effect for the cameras. This is not to say that GVS does not have useful commercial applications, but this notion of "remote controlled humans" is an exaggeration. We have tried hooking up GVS to a flight simulator and got mixed feelings from subjects, but I believe that if tweaked correctly, this could be an area of application. However, because people react differently to different levels of stimulation, the problem of individual differences, and determining a threshold level might be tricky (also too high of a current can fry your brain, so kids, don't try this at home)!!

I am a Ph.D. student at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada. I actually do research using GVS. Here's links to some of our research (Pubmed). GVS 1,
GVS 2
GVS 3
(disclosure: I am Carlsen on the papers :)). What troubles me is that the magnitude of the deviations is so large from the video. We showed that when walking in an open environment (e.g. like in the video), deviations due to GVS (with eyes open) is VERY small (~10 cm over a 3m distance). Even with eyes closed, the magnitude of the deviation was only 30 cm for 3m forward travel. GVS amplitude was set at 3x the threshold required to induce sway while standing (~1.5 mA) and some subjects reported that this could get painful. My main beef with this is that it appears from the video that the researchers were exaggerating the effect for the cameras. This is not to say that GVS does not have useful commercial applications, but this notion of "remote controlled humans" is an exaggeration. We have tried hooking up GVS to a flight simulator and got mixed feelings from subjects, but I believe that if tweaked correctly, this could be an area of application. However, because people react differently to different levels of stimulation, the problem of individual differences, and determining a threshold level might be tricky (also too high of a current can fry your brain, so kids, don't try this at home)!!

"ID is only a set of apologies for why you can not interpret genesis literally. It's a "made up" idea that came forward when the scientific amount of evidence for evolution became so overwhelmingly huge that certain proponents of creationism understood that the old 6-day, 6000 year old created Earth did not fly."

Actually, it's been around since Cicero.

"I'd be willing to pay $1,000,000 to anyone who can come up with scientific evidence for ID that will stand scientific peer-review. Any takers?"

This article stood up to peer review, but was withdrawn because of political pressure. This article stood up to peer review and was published. Dembski's The Design Inference was peer-reviewed. This article was done by a young-earth creationist, with creationist results, but it was allowed to be published because he only left it as "an unsolved problem in theoretical biology.". And of course the whole basis of modern biology -- genetics -- was found by a creationist showing why continual evolution was not likely.

Do I get a million dollars!?

Again, I'm reminded of stories of voyages of discovery from 200 years ago. The crew sailing with Captain James Cook actually fared better than most, according to Wikipedia:

At that point in the voyage, Cook had lost no men to scurvy, a remarkable and unheard-of achievement in 18th century sea-faring. He forced his men to eat such foods as citrus fruits and sauerkraut -- under punishment of flogging if they did not comply -- although no one yet understood why these foods prevented scurvy. Unfortunately, he sailed on for Batavia, the capital of the Dutch East Indies, to put in for repairs. Batavia was known for its outbreaks of malaria, and, before they returned home in 1771, many in Cook's crew would succumb to the disease, including the Tahitian Tupaia, Banks's secretary Herman Spöring, astronomer Charles Green, and the illustrator Sydney Parkinson.

Would it be that much worse to be afflicted with cancer in the 2000's than with malaria in the 1700s? At least we have morphine now.

The suggestion that brain ailments might afflict spacefaring explorers strikes a familiar chord as well:

Cook returned to Hawaii in 1779. On February 14 at Kealakekua Bay, some Hawaiians stole one of Cook's small boats. Normally, as thefts were quite common in Tahiti and the other islands, he would have taken hostages until the stolen articles were returned. However, his stomach ailment and increasingly irrational behaviour led to an altercation with a large crowd of Hawaiians gathered on the beach. In the ensuing skirmish, shots were fired at the Hawaiians and Cook was speared to death.

Another factor to keep in mind is the motivation of the sailors. For one thing, conditions at home didn't offer much better chance at longevity. But perhaps more importantly, Captain Cook believed in the medicinal value of large quantities of beer:

The custom of allowing British seamen the regular use of fermented liquor is an old one. Ale was a standard article of the sea ration as early as the fourteenth century. By the late eighteenth century, beer was considered to be at once a food (a staple beverage and essential part of the sea diet), a luxury (helping to ameliorate the hardship and irregularity of sea life) and a medicine (conducive to health at sea).

It sounds like we won't be exploring Mars until we have a population of would-be explorers that is 1) worse off here than in space, 2) led by a captain with a penchant for the lash, and 3) drunk off their arse.

There is little evidence that pot has any negative effects...

Uh, wrong. There is good and mounting evidence.

Mental Illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strenghtened

The link between regular cannabis use and later depression and schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by three new studies.

Marijuana Use Increases Risk of psychiatric illness Cannabis link to depression

This study suggests that girls who use cannabis as teenagers are more likely to develop anxiety or depressive disorders.

Psychotic symptoms more likely with cannabis

Marijuana in adolescence and early adulthood increases the likelihood of psychotic symptoms in later life.

Study suggests marijuana abuse increses risk of depression

Subjects diagnosed with cannabis abuse at the start of the study were four times more likely to experience depressive symptoms.

Marijuana makes blood rush to the head

Smoking marijuana can affect blood flow in the brain so much that it takes over a month to return to normal. And for heavy smokers, the effects could last much longer, a new study suggests.

Child Development

Marijuana use in pregnancy damages kids learning

Children born to mothers who use marijuana during pregnancy may suffer a host of lasting mental defects.

Dope-smoking dads double risk of cot death (SIDS)

Dope-smoking dads double the risk of cot death, a survey in California has revealed.

Maternal marijuana use during lactation and infant development at ...

THC concentrates in the mother's milk and is absorbed and metabolized by the nursing infant.

Reproductive effects

The Effects of Marijuana on the Endocrine System

Marijuana directly effects the endocrine system causing:

reduced sperm counts, sperm deformations, shrunken testes size, degenerates the seminiferous tubules, halves testosterone levels, decreases libido, causes the accumulation of breast tissue in men, causes anovulation, causes an acute reduction in prolactin, reduces adrenocortical reserve causing reduced ability to respond to stress, inhibits growth hormone, and depresses thyroid activity.

Cannabis, cannabinoids and reproduction

Marijuana inhibits implantation and increases miscarriage rates. Marijuana use during or after birth may impair reproductive behavior of children when they reach adulthood.

Study finds marijuana use in rats stops reporduction Research Survey: Common Ancestors

Marijuana suppresses the production of luteinizing hormone in rats by stimulating the production of stress hormones. "It turns out that marijuana is a stressor, which might explain a lot of its effects on the brain and on people"

Marijuana firmly linked to infertility

Scientific American Tue, 12 Dec 2000

General Heal

I was referring to these

Well, according to Meriam-Webster, the definition of human is as follows:

Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs

Since a collection of several tens of cells with potential is no more a primate than a fucking newt is by the definition, I'd say no, it's clearly not human. Let's say we define human to be the stage when a fetus (very different thing, for all you fundamentalists who believe we're murdering babies, as you've been told to believe) has at least a reasonable chance to survive ex-utero, without extreme medical intervention.

Also, let's throw out the entire concept of PLAYING GOD as an ethical issue. If that was the ruler by which we lived scientifically, and it was adhered to strictly rather than constantly being eroded and pushed back year after year, we'd be in the dark ages. Wanna bet that King Richard III would be more than a little horrified (and maybe bring divinity into it) at the idea of machine-breathing? Okay with that? Than how about taking a dead man/woman's flesh and putting it into your own body? That's called an organ transplant, to you folks living in the dark ages. Learn to deal with the fact that a substantial percentage of people living today (including a close friend of mine's son with adrenoleukodystrophy) are only alive because of our willingness at some level to PLAY GOD.

Point of fact. "Meth orphans" refers to methamphetamine which is a highly addictive stimulant and not methadone which is used in the treatment of narcotic withdrawal and dependency.

"Well, no one can argue with that. I assert that there is one "pre-existing semantic domain" that includes all species found so far on Earth. You'll never see a UCAGT encoded lifeform evolve into one that uses a different chemical encoding."

Except semantic domains are at a higher level. In addition, there are multiple encodings, not just one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintg c.cgi?mode=c

"There's no physical mechanism that prevents new species (by any common meaning of that word, it doesn't really have a single technical definition) from forming."

I agree with you if you mean "by most technical definitions", but disagree with you if you mean "by any definition". I disagree that semantic information can arise on its own. If you look at all of the genetic algorithsm on computers, and any other relationship, you see that development of these algorithms can only proceed within a high-level set of predefined semantic meanings.

Genomes can adapt, but only to the extent to which their existing coding allows them to adapt.

"Of course, in the realm of microscopic organisms with fast reproductive cycles, speciation is seen constantly in the lab and in nature. Somehow that doesn't seem to bother creationists - "OK, I'll give you that germs and other icky stuff evolved, but man was created!" or something."

Actually it's a lot different. For example, if you take the Nylon bug, you will find that it has one of the most adaptable genomes on earth. However, it is still just as readily recognized as the same creature that was identified a hundred years ago. Is it a new species? Depends on the definition of species. Has it become a multicellular creature? No. Is it fundamentally a different creature? No. It adapts in specific ways to its environment, according to the semantics encoded in its genome.

There is a lot of latent expressibility in genomes as well. Lots of "junk DNA" has actually been seen to be latent potential that just needs to be "turned on". For example, many plants have the genes necessary for both C3 and C4 photosynthesis, but only one set has the promoters in place. This is indicative of a pre-adaptation -- both C3 and C4 in place, and whichever one is needed is switched on.

While computer codes are not totally synonymous with genetic codes, I have trouble understanding anyone who has programmed computers believing in the types of changes proposed by evolutionists being capable with the types of change mechanisms proposed. Do we program by having a group of testers test randomly changing programs, and then only keeping the good ones for later variation? Would it be possible, even given 4 billion years, for such a process to change "Hello World!" into Microsoft Word, with every intermediate program being at least viable?

While I am not able as yet to point to a mathematical proof that such would not be possible, I'm fairly sure that it truly is not possible.

1. UNIX/Linux/MacOS X:
   • The good news: Apps that use the zoneinfo files will work correctly--provided the Sysadmin updates them. The latest source is available from http://www.twinsun.com/tz/tz-link.htm (click on the FTP distribution link. The source files must then be compiled using the zic (zone information compiler) utility.
   • The bad news: If the app's not using the zoneinfo files (perhaps because the user's TZ environment variable is set to a POSIX time zone rule literal,) then all bets are off. POSIX TZ rule literals are evil.
2. Windows: The current time zone rules are stored in the Windows Registry. Changing them requires either a Windows Update, or else using Regedit and doing it by hand. Unlike Unix, the Windows time zone definitions only represent the curret annual transition ruleset--past history is not supported. This means that Windows timestamps captured in the past will show local time based on the new rules (once they're updated,) regardless of the actual local time at the (Universal) point-in-time designated by the timestamp. The analogous situation holds for future points-in-time.
3. Java: Analgogous situation to that of Windows (see above,) only worse due to the following serious design flaw in the standard Sun date/time classes: "Dates" are reprsented as to-the-millisecond timestamps that designate midnight of the intended date in a particular time zone. Now, what happens to the "date" when local time is reintrepted as being one hour earlier?

What really bugs me, though, is the lack of proper name handling. Scholar seems to interpret searches quite literally, whereas pubmed, for example, translates queries. Try the following searches to see what I mean:

Gunn WG

Gunn WG

Gunn W

W Gunn

Pubmed will find all three references for "WG Gunn" in a search for "gunn W", and a 1/3 instances of WG Gunn in a search for "William Gunn", however, it chokes on "WG Gunn". Scholar finds only 2/3 instances of "WG Gunn" in a search for exactly that, but never "wg gunn" in a search for "william gunn", and searching for "w gunn" turns up nothing for "wg gunn", however, there are results for wj gunn and ws gunn.

It's tricky, but necessary, for a scholarly database to get this right. "w gunn" should turn up "w gunn" as well every record where the first name starts with g, including both the ones with and without a middle initial. "william gunn" should turn up the set of results included in "w gunn", "william gunn", and "wg gunn". "wg gunn" should also turn up every record of "wg gunn" in addition to the set of results where the first name begins with w, the second name begins with g and the last name is gunn. "Gunn WG" should be identical to "WG Gunn".

When doing name searches, if in doubt, include the result. People are more likely to be put out if their articles don't turn up where they should than if they do turn up where they shouldn't. I mean, the whole point of publishing is to get your work out there so other people can read it, right?

There is a problem, specifically that a common name will return too many hits. "Smith B" turns up over 4000 hits on pubmed and 4 on Scholar, whereas "b smith" turns up 39000 on Scholar and nothing on pubmed (the query gets translated unless you specify that it's an author search) but too many results is never as bad as too little in an author search, because you can further narrow using date ranges, initials, and keywords.

What really bugs me, though, is the lack of proper name handling. Scholar seems to interpret searches quite literally, whereas pubmed, for example, translates queries. Try the following searches to see what I mean:

Gunn WG

Gunn WG

Gunn W

W Gunn

Pubmed will find all three references for "WG Gunn" in a search for "gunn W", and a 1/3 instances of WG Gunn in a search for "William Gunn", however, it chokes on "WG Gunn". Scholar finds only 2/3 instances of "WG Gunn" in a search for exactly that, but never "wg gunn" in a search for "william gunn", and searching for "w gunn" turns up nothing for "wg gunn", however, there are results for wj gunn and ws gunn.

It's tricky, but necessary, for a scholarly database to get this right. "w gunn" should turn up "w gunn" as well every record where the first name starts with g, including both the ones with and without a middle initial. "william gunn" should turn up the set of results included in "w gunn", "william gunn", and "wg gunn". "wg gunn" should also turn up every record of "wg gunn" in addition to the set of results where the first name begins with w, the second name begins with g and the last name is gunn. "Gunn WG" should be identical to "WG Gunn".

When doing name searches, if in doubt, include the result. People are more likely to be put out if their articles don't turn up where they should than if they do turn up where they shouldn't. I mean, the whole point of publishing is to get your work out there so other people can read it, right?

There is a problem, specifically that a common name will return too many hits. "Smith B" turns up over 4000 hits on pubmed and 4 on Scholar, whereas "b smith" turns up 39000 on Scholar and nothing on pubmed (the query gets translated unless you specify that it's an author search) but too many results is never as bad as too little in an author search, because you can further narrow using date ranges, initials, and keywords.

What really bugs me, though, is the lack of proper name handling. Scholar seems to interpret searches quite literally, whereas pubmed, for example, translates queries. Try the following searches to see what I mean:

Gunn WG

Gunn WG

Gunn W

W Gunn

Pubmed will find all three references for "WG Gunn" in a search for "gunn W", and a 1/3 instances of WG Gunn in a search for "William Gunn", however, it chokes on "WG Gunn". Scholar finds only 2/3 instances of "WG Gunn" in a search for exactly that, but never "wg gunn" in a search for "william gunn", and searching for "w gunn" turns up nothing for "wg gunn", however, there are results for wj gunn and ws gunn.

It's tricky, but necessary, for a scholarly database to get this right. "w gunn" should turn up "w gunn" as well every record where the first name starts with g, including both the ones with and without a middle initial. "william gunn" should turn up the set of results included in "w gunn", "william gunn", and "wg gunn". "wg gunn" should also turn up every record of "wg gunn" in addition to the set of results where the first name begins with w, the second name begins with g and the last name is gunn. "Gunn WG" should be identical to "WG Gunn".

When doing name searches, if in doubt, include the result. People are more likely to be put out if their articles don't turn up where they should than if they do turn up where they shouldn't. I mean, the whole point of publishing is to get your work out there so other people can read it, right?

There is a problem, specifically that a common name will return too many hits. "Smith B" turns up over 4000 hits on pubmed and 4 on Scholar, whereas "b smith" turns up 39000 on Scholar and nothing on pubmed (the query gets translated unless you specify that it's an author search) but too many results is never as bad as too little in an author search, because you can further narrow using date ranges, initials, and keywords.

What really bugs me, though, is the lack of proper name handling. Scholar seems to interpret searches quite literally, whereas pubmed, for example, translates queries. Try the following searches to see what I mean:

Gunn WG

Gunn WG

Gunn W

W Gunn

Pubmed will find all three references for "WG Gunn" in a search for "gunn W", and a 1/3 instances of WG Gunn in a search for "William Gunn", however, it chokes on "WG Gunn". Scholar finds only 2/3 instances of "WG Gunn" in a search for exactly that, but never "wg gunn" in a search for "william gunn", and searching for "w gunn" turns up nothing for "wg gunn", however, there are results for wj gunn and ws gunn.

It's tricky, but necessary, for a scholarly database to get this right. "w gunn" should turn up "w gunn" as well every record where the first name starts with g, including both the ones with and without a middle initial. "william gunn" should turn up the set of results included in "w gunn", "william gunn", and "wg gunn". "wg gunn" should also turn up every record of "wg gunn" in addition to the set of results where the first name begins with w, the second name begins with g and the last name is gunn. "Gunn WG" should be identical to "WG Gunn".

When doing name searches, if in doubt, include the result. People are more likely to be put out if their articles don't turn up where they should than if they do turn up where they shouldn't. I mean, the whole point of publishing is to get your work out there so other people can read it, right?

There is a problem, specifically that a common name will return too many hits. "Smith B" turns up over 4000 hits on pubmed and 4 on Scholar, whereas "b smith" turns up 39000 on Scholar and nothing on pubmed (the query gets translated unless you specify that it's an author search) but too many results is never as bad as too little in an author search, because you can further narrow using date ranges, initials, and keywords.

The titanium dioxide particles are only a few nanometers wide. The whole power of nanoscale approaches like this one is that nanoparticles often have unique properties which they do not possess in larger particle sizes, due to the very high surface-to-volume ratio and/or limited electronic states available. In this case, TiO2 becomes reactive.

What nobody has said for some reason is that an otherwise harmless material is not necessarily harmless at the nanoscale, so you have to go back and do toxicology studies all over again. And furthermore, nanoparticles are so small that they can penetrate and embed themselves even within your living cells, where since they are minerals they may not be degraded.

In fact, TiO2 nanoparticles have been documented to be toxic. Embedding them in the surface of buildings puts them in a position where they are likely to wear off into the atmosphere or runoff water.

Note also that the content is different. Google Scholar tries to include as many sources as possible, whereas Highwire's portal AFAIK searches only those journals hosted by Highwire Press.

By pointing this out I don't mean to denigrate Highwire. Rather, they publish a lot of journals that are important (to me) and they do a really good job of making online journals easy to use, unlike some other publishers. However, I, along with most biomedical types, almost always start my searches with PubMed. And the (not free) Web of Science is very useful at times too.

Nitpick returned:

Psychosis is not a disorder in the sense of a separate Axis I category. Rather, it is a loss of contact with reality that can be part of many disorders, including severe depression.

Interestingly, it was discovered in anecdotal studies which found that epileptic patients had a lower incidence of depression. Current ECT treatment involves sedating the patient and basically inducing a mild seizure under a controlled environment. Both the psychiatrist and an anesthesiologist are typically present to monitor for adverse changes.

If this new device pans out, it may represent an important new treatment for those patients who literally have no hope beyond ECT.

Information on ECT (admittedly, from 1985) from the NIH Consensus panel can be found here.

Are you sure he isn't actually having a daily petit mal seizure? I feel like I'm having them during long, boring meetings.

For most *nix systems, look in /usr/share/lib/zoneinfo for zone definition files. If you're lucky (or have Solaris), there's a src directory in there.

You'll find a README file with a reference to a place with updated zone files.

On the other hand you could try to roll your own like I did for Belo Horizonte and edit the rules in one of the source files (I would think "northamerica" for the US ;)

Do a man zic for more info on compiling and then distributing to other systems.

"In the present study, the genotoxic effects of the low-calorie sweetener aspartame (ASP), which is a dipeptide derivative, was investigated using chromosome aberration (CA) test, sister chromatid exchange (SCE) test, micronucleus test in human lymphocytes and also Ames/Salmonella/ microsome test. ASP induced CAs at all concentrations (500, 1000 and 2000 microg/ml) and treatment periods (24 and 48 h) dose-dependently, while it did not induce SCEs. On the other hand, ASP decreased the replication index (RI) only at the highest concentration for 48 h treatment period. However, ASP decreased the mitotic index (MI) at all concentrations and treatment periods dose-dependently. In addition, ASP induced micronuclei at the highest concentrations only. This induction was also dose-dependent for 48 hours treatment period. ASP was not mutagenic for Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100 strains in the absence and presence of S9 mix."

Abstract from PubMed.

'nuff said.

I was even told that everything was fine or at least according to the examinations. That I lost more and more weight, could not digest *any* food at all any more, had a steadily dropping blood pressure and so on was...well...a little inexplicable (in the words of my physician). But so what? Only by accident I stumbled over what food intolerance can do to our metabolism - celiac disease, lactose intolerance, iodine intoxication (for example). And it was the internet where I could find the explanations, the doctors couldn't give me. Changing my diet changed my life. Many thanks to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=p ubmed and Elsevier http://www.sciencedirect.com/!

Yea I know what you mean, the doctor that gets paid 100k a year just wrote me off as another case of IBS after charging me 7k for 2 invasive tests. I knew it wasnt IBS and I told him so, did he listen? No, hell no he didnt. I ended up stumbling up Celiacs via Google which then in turn lead me to a Celiacs sufferers website where I found a forum that basically everyone that posted their was a exact clone of me in terms of symptoms and habits.

Charge and tell them they are simply nuts? Or, somewhat more sensible, tell them they have IBS and they should realize it that there is no cure?

Doctors getting paid 100k and up shouldnt just write people off like that.

GOOGLE SAVED MY TEH INNARDS FROM POO OVERLOAD.

I was even told that everything was fine or at least according to the examinations. That I lost more and more weight, could not digest *any* food at all any more, had a steadily dropping blood pressure and so on was...well...a little inexplicable (in the words of my physician). But so what? Only by accident I stumbled over what food intolerance can do to our metabolism - celiac disease, lactose intolerance, iodine intoxication (for example). And it was the internet where I could find the explanations, the doctors couldn't give me. Changing my diet changed my life. Many thanks to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=p ubmed and Elsevier http://www.sciencedirect.com/!

And for the scientific rigour of medicine: Almost all tests have a specific rate of failure. They either give false negative or false positive results. And some people simply are so called non-responders when it comes to medical tests. What then? Let them suffer? Charge and tell them they are simply nuts? Or, somewhat more sensible, tell them they have IBS and they should realize it that there is no cure?

That is exactly what happens today.

No, thanks doctor! No more pseudo-scientific talking here! Let's have a look at the web!

PS: Perhaps it is time to create something like OpenHealth.org - "Health for geeks" ? ;-) (Oh no, the address is already taken...) Any better suggestions?

I think he has got it totally wrong. IMHO there is an ever widening gap between scientific evidence and medicine. Just pick out some common diseases and read the description in any standard textbook for them. And then check the "truth" in the book against the current research, e.g. by searching for the appropriate keywords at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=p ubmed. What you surely will notice is how little of even ten year old scientific research results ever makes it into the books. And, finally, try to find a doctor who at least knows what is in the books. Good luck!

As long as you only suffer from a few broken bones, a doctor may know what to do. But if it happens that you suffer from something not so obvious, better don't bet on your doctors scientific understanding! You may lose...

And, last but not least, modern medicine is about selling sick people expensive treatments, not about curing them. There would be no business case otherwise, or would it?

RTFA. Excerpt: "Cobblestone-like walking paths are common in China. The activity is rooted in traditional Chinese medicine and relates to some of the principles of reflexology, in that the uneven surface of the cobblestones stimulate and regulate "acupoints" located on the soles of the feet."

Then TFA is blowing smoke. There is only one TCM acupoint located on the sole of the foot, Kidney 1; and CM has no relation at all to reflexology.

But what about all the times that it doesn't work? And there are many. The trouble with things like this is people focus more on the times they succeed and tend to forget about all the times that things failed.

Of course. The same is true for any treatment, conventional or complementary. Western physicians aren't immune to believing in treatments that don't work. Hell, just a few decades ago your doctor would be telling you to take up smoking to help lose weight.

There is a huge difference between a medical doctor prescribing you a treatment that has been properly scientifically and medically proven and tested...

But very few of the treatments used in standard Western medicine have been so tested! Please show me a controlled double-blind study of coronary bypass surgery.

You simply have to submit the practice to a real scientific double blind-placebo controlled test. Fancy that, here is an example: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/143/1/1 0

A study with only two fatal flaws:

• "A prescription of acupuncture at fixed points may differ from acupuncture administered in clinical settings". In other words, what was tested was nothing like acupuncture as it is actually applied.
• part of the control group received "noninsertive simulated acupuncture", which will also stimulate points - in some cases, as effectively as needle insertion. Those of us who practice acupressure and ABT stimulate points without needle insertion all the time

So you've cited a study that has no bearing on clinical acupuncture.

A better example of a double-blind controlled methodology for acupuncture research is that developed by Allen and Schnyer, where the control is geniune acupuncture adminstered for a condition other than that under investigation. They found:

Thus, based on a small outpatient sample of women with major depression, it appeared that acupuncture provided significant symptom relief at rates comparable to standard treatments such as psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. The effect sizes observed in this small sample were at least as large or larger than those seen in trials of antidepressant medication or psychotherapy, and they suggest that a larger clinical trial is warranted.

The NCCAM is not real science.

The NCCAM is exactly real science. Both you and the "QuackWatch" author seem to have forgotten that the basis of science is research, experimentation, and observation - as opposed to disregarding observations which don't agree with your model and demanding that any research with the potential to undercut your own biases be de-funded.

The most you will ever get from acupuncture, reflexology, chiropracty or any other bullshit is the placebo effect. If anyone claims that any of these things are real, as them why they haven't won the million dollar challenge.

The JREF challenge is for demonstrations of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult" phenomena. There's nothing in the least supernatural or paranormal about acupressure or Chinese medicine!

But don't believe me just on my word. Do your own research. Use google. Go to the library

I've done my own research. I provived a link to PubMed citing many studies. Here is is again: PubMed search on shiatsu or acupressure. Some especially interesing studies involved measuring physiological data such as gastric myoelectrical activity, EEG indications of anesthesia, and norepinephrine levels to show definite effects of acupressure on the body.

The NCCAM is not real science.

The NCCAM is exactly real science. Both you and the "QuackWatch" author seem to have forgotten that the basis of science is research, experimentation, and observation - as opposed to disregarding observations which don't agree with your model and demanding that any research with the potential to undercut your own biases be de-funded.

The most you will ever get from acupuncture, reflexology, chiropracty or any other bullshit is the placebo effect. If anyone claims that any of these things are real, as them why they haven't won the million dollar challenge.

The JREF challenge is for demonstrations of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult" phenomena. There's nothing in the least supernatural or paranormal about acupressure or Chinese medicine!

But don't believe me just on my word. Do your own research. Use google. Go to the library

I've done my own research. I provived a link to PubMed citing many studies. Here is is again: PubMed search on shiatsu or acupressure. Some especially interesing studies involved measuring physiological data such as gastric myoelectrical activity, EEG indications of anesthesia, and norepinephrine levels to show definite effects of acupressure on the body.

The NCCAM is not real science.

The NCCAM is exactly real science. Both you and the "QuackWatch" author seem to have forgotten that the basis of science is research, experimentation, and observation - as opposed to disregarding observations which don't agree with your model and demanding that any research with the potential to undercut your own biases be de-funded.

The most you will ever get from acupuncture, reflexology, chiropracty or any other bullshit is the placebo effect. If anyone claims that any of these things are real, as them why they haven't won the million dollar challenge.

The JREF challenge is for demonstrations of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult" phenomena. There's nothing in the least supernatural or paranormal about acupressure or Chinese medicine!

But don't believe me just on my word. Do your own research. Use google. Go to the library

I've done my own research. I provived a link to PubMed citing many studies. Here is is again: PubMed search on shiatsu or acupressure. Some especially interesing studies involved measuring physiological data such as gastric myoelectrical activity, EEG indications of anesthesia, and norepinephrine levels to show definite effects of acupressure on the body.

The NCCAM is not real science.

The NCCAM is exactly real science. Both you and the "QuackWatch" author seem to have forgotten that the basis of science is research, experimentation, and observation - as opposed to disregarding observations which don't agree with your model and demanding that any research with the potential to undercut your own biases be de-funded.

The most you will ever get from acupuncture, reflexology, chiropracty or any other bullshit is the placebo effect. If anyone claims that any of these things are real, as them why they haven't won the million dollar challenge.

The JREF challenge is for demonstrations of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult" phenomena. There's nothing in the least supernatural or paranormal about acupressure or Chinese medicine!

But don't believe me just on my word. Do your own research. Use google. Go to the library

I've done my own research. I provived a link to PubMed citing many studies. Here is is again: PubMed search on shiatsu or acupressure. Some especially interesing studies involved measuring physiological data such as gastric myoelectrical activity, EEG indications of anesthesia, and norepinephrine levels to show definite effects of acupressure on the body.

jericho4.0 (565125) sez: "Yeah. I'll take that as a hypothesis when I see any evidence of it, you know, actually working."

Then go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and put in "Journal of the American Geriatrics Society" and keep checking until the PubMed listing in entered, or go to http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jgs/0/0 and keep checking until the EarlyOnline posts it. It was just accepted and hasn't appeared yet.

But I'm betting most of the whiners really don't care nearly as much about TFA as they do about getting the chance to whine.

And for the dinks that can't follow links and at least read the release from ORI, reflexology IS a science where they noticed the effect and developed the hypothesis from. Put "reflexology" in the search window in the PubMed link and you'll get 187 references. People doing scientific investigation of something is the verb definition of "science".

Remember, NIH has a center devoted to studying "alternative" therapy, and some of these "alternatives" have been around since before the ancestors of most Europeans (from whence comes "Western" medicine) were tribes yet to gain the smarts and strengths enough to challenge the Romans.

Yes, the Office of Alternative Medicine has been able to "validate" very little of what's been presented to them. The fact that they can't do in 10 years what's worked for a thousand only means "it doesn't work" if you ignore the vast majority of the evidence, which is most often done by insisting it appear in peer reviewed journals, and the hell with centuries of success.

And if you'll notice, this study wasn't funded by OAM. The NIH centers themselves are going around OAM, because they ARE run by scientists who realize there must be something there. This may be in part due to the fact that 50% of the people doing research at NIH are not from the US. Or maybe it's the other way around.

if it is rooted in "reflexology" and "traditional chinese medicine" then I'd have to bet that there will never be any truly scientific studies that prove this product...

Reflexology has nothing to do with Chinese Medicine.

And remember folks, think critically. Anything that advertises itself using "accupressure" or "hidden pathways" is bunk.

"Thinking critically" also means being skeptical of the claims of current medical orthodoxy - looking at the actual evidence rather than being swayed by name-calling.

I don't know anything about reflexology, or about this particular study. But I know more than a little bit about acupressure and Chinese Medicine. While the research is still scanty, there are good clinical studies showing acupressure to be effective.

The NCCAOM has started working more closely with the NCCAM, and I hope to see more and better research forthcoming. Meanwhile, acupressure is an extremely safe treatment that seems to clearly have, at a bare minimum, positive non-specific effects in relieving stress and chronic muscle tension.

I commented on the relationship between the physiological/reductionist and the Chinese Medicine models here a few days ago, I'll take the liberty of briefly repeating myself:

There are several physiological theories about the meridians and points of acupressure, three that I know about involve nervous reflexes, the electrical properties of fascia, and a supposed network of less-differentiated cells throughout the body. It's possible that different points work by different mechanisms. Certainly the "placebo effect" plays a role - as it does in any treatment. Google for placebo surgery, it's fascinating.

Many pracitioners of Chinese Medicine don't care much about trying to find a Western Medicine explanation for how acupuncture, Asian bodywork therapy, and Chinese herbs, create their effects. They see it work every day, that's enough for them. (The same can be said of many Western physicians, a surprising number of whom have little interest or knowledge of biology.) But there is certainly a subset of the community that is interested in understanding from both points of view.

IMHO it's unfortunate that many practitioners of CM have latched on to the idea that qi, a fundamental ascept of the CM model, is some sort of electromagnetic-like energy field. This is a misinterpretation, attempting to fit Taoist concepts of the Universe into a Aristotelian grid. The CM model is very much a functional, not a structural, one; the Vital Substances, the Zang-Fu organs, and the meridians are best understood by what they do, not by chopping people up looking for them.

I recommend Ted Kaptchuk's book The Web That Has No Weaver to those interested in learning more about Chinese Medicine.

if it is rooted in "reflexology" and "traditional chinese medicine" then I'd have to bet that there will never be any truly scientific studies that prove this product...

Reflexology has nothing to do with Chinese Medicine.

And remember folks, think critically. Anything that advertises itself using "accupressure" or "hidden pathways" is bunk.

"Thinking critically" also means being skeptical of the claims of current medical orthodoxy - looking at the actual evidence rather than being swayed by name-calling.

I don't know anything about reflexology, or about this particular study. But I know more than a little bit about acupressure and Chinese Medicine. While the research is still scanty, there are good clinical studies showing acupressure to be effective.

The NCCAOM has started working more closely with the NCCAM, and I hope to see more and better research forthcoming. Meanwhile, acupressure is an extremely safe treatment that seems to clearly have, at a bare minimum, positive non-specific effects in relieving stress and chronic muscle tension.

I commented on the relationship between the physiological/reductionist and the Chinese Medicine models here a few days ago, I'll take the liberty of briefly repeating myself:

There are several physiological theories about the meridians and points of acupressure, three that I know about involve nervous reflexes, the electrical properties of fascia, and a supposed network of less-differentiated cells throughout the body. It's possible that different points work by different mechanisms. Certainly the "placebo effect" plays a role - as it does in any treatment. Google for placebo surgery, it's fascinating.

Many pracitioners of Chinese Medicine don't care much about trying to find a Western Medicine explanation for how acupuncture, Asian bodywork therapy, and Chinese herbs, create their effects. They see it work every day, that's enough for them. (The same can be said of many Western physicians, a surprising number of whom have little interest or knowledge of biology.) But there is certainly a subset of the community that is interested in understanding from both points of view.

IMHO it's unfortunate that many practitioners of CM have latched on to the idea that qi, a fundamental ascept of the CM model, is some sort of electromagnetic-like energy field. This is a misinterpretation, attempting to fit Taoist concepts of the Universe into a Aristotelian grid. The CM model is very much a functional, not a structural, one; the Vital Substances, the Zang-Fu organs, and the meridians are best understood by what they do, not by chopping people up looking for them.

I recommend Ted Kaptchuk's book The Web That Has No Weaver to those interested in learning more about Chinese Medicine.

However my body is sitting here killing millions of bacteria every day.

Well there's a significant difference between bacteria and higher forms of life, e.g. the sensation of pain, a nervous system, etc. On googling, I found PETA saying that insects don't feel pain because they do not have pain-transmitting chemicals such as bradykinin and Substance P. However Ui-Tei K et al directly contradict them, having found Substance P in the common fruit fly. So you can't use the "non-cute animals don't feel pain but cute animals do" defence. There isn't a significant difference there; in fact you could argue that killing fruit flies is wrong but killing naked mole rats is not since they don't have that particular neurotransmitter.

Now, by your judgement, the morally consistent vegetarian would kill himself IMMEDIATELY to prevent himself for having to destroy or maim tiny creatures to prevent them taking over his body or home (bacteria, ants, etc.).

No, not even close.

The morally consistent approach would be to not kill them. It doesn't matter how you avoid killing them, but killing yourself simply isn't necessary.

it could be argued that [veganism] IMPROVES my quality of life.

I'm not arguing that veganism/vegetarianism isn't a good idea for practical reasons. That is actually what I believe, but it's a completely separate argument that I am not going to let you distract me with.

I'm arguing that any moral choice to avoid killing cute animals through veganism is completely undermined and inconsistent with your actions when you kill non-cute animals (in this case ants) out of convenience.

If your choice of veganism is entirely practical (i.e. you do it solely because it improves your quality of life), then it isn't morally inconsistent because morals aren't a factor at all.

If your choice of veganism is moral and you afford all animals this respect, not just the cute ones, then you are being morally consistent. For instance, if you practice veganism as part of Jainism, then that would be morally consistent.

It certainly does not "inconvenience" friends that I won't eat their food... because I don't demand they prepare something special for me.

Bullshit. If I know a vegetarian/vegan is visiting me, I'll make sure I've prepared something for them to eat. They wouldn't demand it, but I'd be a bad host if I fed everyone else but left them out. Their presence compels me to go out of my way to prepare something special, whether or not they ask for it directly. That is an inconvenience.

Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop. I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?

Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop. I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?

Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop. I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?

Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop. I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?

yikes. having personally seen the effects of HIV infection and AIDS in people who subscribe to the AIDS Denialist school of thought, i felt compelled to reply to this posting.

bottom line:

1. CD4+ T-lymhocyte counts and HIV viral loads have been negatively and positively (respectively) correlated with survival in virtually every patient population ever studied.

2.highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) has been shown to significantly reduce mortality in HIV-infected individuals.

we practice evidence-based medicine in the united states. you can try to poke holes in the virology if you want to (i'm not a virologist) but you can't argue with epidemiology.

the theory that HIV is the causative pathogen in AIDS has not been disproven in any peer-reviewed publication that i have ever seen.

we know how to treat these patients and turn AIDS into a chronic rather than a fatal illness.

here is a more complete resource on the debate.

This is news? Bromelain was shown to have anti-cancer properties decades ago. A search on "Bromelain Cancer" at Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) turns up 69 hits, some going back to 1968.

old news

1: Planta Med. 1985 Dec;(6):538-9. Related Articles, Links Inhibition of tumour growth in vitro by bromelain, an extract of the pineapple plant (Ananas comosus). Taussig SJ, Szekerczes J, Batkin S. PMID: 4095199 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1985.
At least it's not a dupe.

There's one neanderthal DNA sequence already in ncbi:

"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrial D-loop, hypervariable region I."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/viewer.fcgi?db= nucleotide&val=7769684

I doubt that there will be enough good dna for anything like a full sequence as it is unstable over periods of thousands of years.

Here's the second case -- IIRC the first paper was in Cell, but I can't find it.

How do they know it's neanderthol and not from something else?

I'm no anthropologist but I think that Neanderthal skeletons are pretty unmistakeable to the trained eye.

Here is a reseach project:

See if you can find a single study showing that the active ingredients of most sunscreens are safe when absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream.

Refs:

Sunscreen ingredients are absorbed into the blood:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1506332 9

Sunscreen ingredients cause DNA damage:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046 %2Fj.1523-1747.2003.12498.x?cookieSet=1

This example is a little bit different, but I still feel highly relevant.

Take heart disease. One of the top killers in the US. There's a synthetic version of HDL being developed by Esperion Therapeutics Inc.

"The synthetic HDL is a copy of a mutant protein found in 40 residents of Limone sul Garda, a village in the Italian Alps. The mutation makes HDL work more efficiently, scaling up plaque removal."

Here's the kicker. While this mutant version works better, pharmaceuticals could have been making a synthetic version of regular HDL for some time, but none has as they couldn't patent it. So they could have been helping many of these people (albeit at a smaller profit margin) but didn't as the margins weren't obscene enough.

And what about the government? If the private sector doesn't want to invest their money that's one thing, but why isn't the government funding stuff like this?

I wish I could find my cache of the original story as it plain out states that most people would have benefited but there wasn't enough financial incentive until they found this patentable form. After going through a medical hell with my family, I've come to feel this way though I was still surprised to see someone actually say it.

Where's the outrage? Almost everyone has had someone close to them die of heart disease. I highly doubt this situation is unique to heart disease.

Take CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid). Seems to have a wide range of postive effects on the body. Some reasearch even shows it having anticarcinogenic effects. Last time I looked, the biggest researcher in the field was getting a pitance in research funding. Where's all the big cancer charities who collect millions and millions of dollars for research?

Though I'll agree on the point that many supplements do nothing or are worse, dangerous. Once upon a time, I worked out religously and used supplements constantly. The best time physically of my life. Many worked well (I read as much research as I could) and did help. Stopped working out for a couple years and wanted to start up again. I started taking either DHEA or Androstendione (hard to remember which, was 5 years ago).

I had taken the supplement previously without ill effects for long stretches. Though when I did, I was pushing my body to it's limits and not "starting up". Big mistake the second time around. After a few days, my hair started falling out and I was raging. I stopped taking them but it took me a month or two to get back to normal. At the time I wasn't insured so I wasn't able to get it investigated properly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10554220&dopt=Abstrac t

Many properly conducted studies have shown that Microwave cooking destroys Vitamin B12 which is important to combat stress and a lack of it causes lassitude and depression.

As Microwaves cook food faster, they generally retain more vitamins than traditional methods - except for vitamins of the B group.

Microwave cooking is different from Infrared cooking.