Slashdot Mirror

DNA mutates constantly, due to a variety of reasons: reactions with internal cellular molecules, during replication, and as a result of external agents, e.g., chemical mutagens, ionizing radiation, UV, etc. There are a number of DNA repair mechanisms, even in prokaryotes (bacteria). You'd be dead without them.

A textbook example of defective DNA repair is the disease xeroderma pigmentosum -- extreme sensitivity to UV sunlight, resulting in cancer. The cure is simple: stay indoors during the daytime, for the rest of your life. Normal individuals repair the DNA damage automatically, but xeroderma pigmentosum patients have defective genes for a DNA repair mechanism.

Here's more on the broken mechanism of xeroderma pigmentosum and other damage/repair topics.

I don't share the same completely dim view of Biotech as you - at least in the sense of the time scale involved. It does seem to take the occasional brave leap forward by a company to "embarrass" some others into making a leap, other times there just happens to be profit in finding something more effective, more 'humane', with less side effects.

A combination of such things helped us progress forward in antidepressants, from monoamine oxidase inhibitors through tricyclics to SSRIs that can be prescribed by almost any practitioner (the book "The Synaptic Self" by Joseph Ledoux has a pretty good history on the subject)

That said, there always seems to be a cycle of 15-20 years from seeing something in a research paper/science magazine to seeing them come to fruition for the sake of humans, some of which I'm sure is related to IP issues, which are tougher to fault in medicine; there's more expense involved, and no direct equivalent of an open source movement :)

New-grown organs will make their way out of the lab slowly, but surely. Techniques with simple tissues, like skin,are already available. More complex multi-tissued organs that have to approximate embryonic growth patterns, kidneys for example, have had some success in animals, including pigs, but the age of the cells used for growth are really important at the moment.

There are two endeavors that will really help out the cause: telomerase research, which is one of the means to 'immortalize' cells - just read of some interesting advances in New Scientist where they've managed to immortalize a human muscle cell line with a hijacked retrovirus. This isn't a good option for most tissues, because it can make benign tumor growths keep growing, so they're trying the same experiment with adenoviruses instead for a 'one shot' version of the same effect.

The other is the nascent science of unravelling histone tails and their meanings. Histones are the spools around which DNA is wrapped. The histone 'tails' appear to determine what parts of the DNA get read/ignored/transcribed at any one time, and is one means outside of the DNA to control protein synthesis. Cracking this code could help us understand what makes a stem cell a stem cell, and how histone tails might indicate whether a cell is a neuron, or a liver cell or what have you. It could also indicate why we've had some trouble with cloning (the DNA doesn't change, but the histone code does). Organ growing is akin to cloning on a limited basis, and often requires identical, less specialized or stem cell versions of the tissue you wish to generate.

One interesting fallout of organs grown this way - applied often enough until the technology gets cheap, and you have an interesting alternative to getting meat from animals.

That wouldn't be utopia, mind you. If there's a 'cheaper, more humane way' to get meat, we could lose some farm species. Not to mention that the 'vat meat' might be too uniform, get infected, and would constantly have to be screened for tumors :)

Something to think about :)

The virus has never been isolated?

Bullshit.

The virus was isolated from peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC),cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)and lymph nodes of 3 AIDS patients by coculture with PBMC stimulated by PHA for 72 hours from uninfected donor.

we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the replication properties of nine drug-resistant and nine drug-susceptible viral isolates derived from patients with primary HIV-1 infection

etc. etc. etc.

The HIV virus has been isolated and much research has been done on it. Do a quick search on PubMed and you'll find plenty of abstracts.

How about this: why don't you start taking the standard dosage of AZT that many "AIDS sufferers" took? How long do you think you will live? What side effects do you think you will encounter.

If I had HIV/AIDS, the virus replication would be slowed. Side effects would include not dying as quickly as people before AZT was used.

The virus has never been isolated?

Bullshit.

The virus was isolated from peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC),cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)and lymph nodes of 3 AIDS patients by coculture with PBMC stimulated by PHA for 72 hours from uninfected donor.

we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the replication properties of nine drug-resistant and nine drug-susceptible viral isolates derived from patients with primary HIV-1 infection

etc. etc. etc.

The HIV virus has been isolated and much research has been done on it. Do a quick search on PubMed and you'll find plenty of abstracts.

How about this: why don't you start taking the standard dosage of AZT that many "AIDS sufferers" took? How long do you think you will live? What side effects do you think you will encounter.

If I had HIV/AIDS, the virus replication would be slowed. Side effects would include not dying as quickly as people before AZT was used.

Although the solution proposed in the article would increase storage capacity by, say, a factor 2 or 4, it still is a temporary solution that does not solve the fundamental problem at hand.

The fundamental problem is the superparamagnetic limit: if you make a magnetic domain (a bit) smaller than a certain size, it becomes thermodynamically unstable. In English, this means that very small bits loose their value after a while. It also means that for the time being, we'll have to use tricks to pack the bits closer together while keeping them large enough to be stable.

It should be noted that perpendicular recording is not the only effort to achieve higher recording densities in the looming shadow of the superparamagnetic limit. Indeed, harddrive manufacturers have seen this problem coming for a number of years now, and have had meeting to discuss possible solutions.

On a brighter note, there seems to be progress in circumventing the superparamagnetic limit: very recent research show promising results for the future.

I know I sure saw some behavior that could be characterized as psychotic. There was definite pacing in small circles. Running around and shouting happened frequently. Repetitive behaviors such as pipetting samples into 96 well plates were not unusual.

Now I work at another research institute and while some of the behaviors seen at NIH are common here, it is much more sane. (well, not normal, but better than NIH, fer sure).

If you're interested in lab animal care, there are a large number of sites that detail it to death. The government is a good place to start, of course.

The NIH has a good start with something of this nature. The NCBI (part of the National Library of Medicine) has a fully-searchable set of about 20 books. The books are generally cover biology topics, but represent some of the standard texts used in college courses. They call the project Bookshelf and it is entirely free. Several books contain direct links to gene sequences, etc.

My apologies for so many subscription-required articles. Unfortunately, the biosciences are just like that. There have been some moves lately to make this less so, but large publishing companies like Elsevier and the Cell people and Science und Nature have been rather resistant. Hmmm, I wonder why.

My apologies for so many subscription-required articles. Unfortunately, the biosciences are just like that. There have been some moves lately to make this less so, but large publishing companies like Elsevier and the Cell people and Science und Nature have been rather resistant. Hmmm, I wonder why.

It appears that the game was funded through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Why does the game cost money then?

And why can't I find grants to fund my own game creations? :-)

Here's the definition from the Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions:

Addiction is the compulsive use of a substance or activity resulting in physical, psychological, or social harm to the user; the user continues in this pattern of behavior despite the harms that result. Addiction is differentiated from psychological dependence and physical dependence. Psychological dependence is the feeling that someone has when they think that drugs or activities are necessary to achieve a feeling of well-being. Physical dependence is marked by the development of tolerance to a drug or activity's effects so that increased amounts of a drug or activity are needed to obtain the desired effect. Tolerance also reveals its presence by the development of withdrawal symptoms when the drug or activity is stopped for a sufficient time. These matters are more complex than often thought.

And here's the definition of addiction from the National Institutes of Health's MedLine.

Drug dependence (addiction) is compulsive use of a substance despite negative consequences which can be severe; drug abuse is simply excessive use of a drug or use of a drug for purposes for which it was not medically intended. Physical dependence on a substance (needing a drug to function) is not necessary or sufficient to define addiction. There are some substances which don't cause addiction but do cause physical dependence (for example, some blood pressure medications) and substances which cause addiction but not classic physical dependence (cocaine withdrawal, for example, doesn't have symptoms like vomiting and chills; it is mainly characterized by depression).

What you described is a voluntary lack of self-control. I think that's called gluttony.

Well, you sure seem to have a lot of faith in voodoo^H^H^H^H^H^Hpsychiatry. Moreso, it would seem, than the witch doctors^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpsychiatrists themselves. To wit:

During the 1998 NIH Consensus Development Conference on Attention- deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (or ADHD) evidence was presented indicating wide variations in clinical and research approaches for identifying and diagnosing ADHD. This variation reflects the lack of an objective assessment tool in ADHD diagnosis and the paucity of normative information on the developmental progression of ADHD-relevant cognitive functions (e.g., attention regulation, impulse control). The lack of agreement also likely stems from the absence of a theoretical consensus of underlying causes, or pathways, specific to ADHD. Variations in theory and diagnostic strategy make theoretically driven assessment tools and etiology-targeted treatment procedures difficult. Wide variations in diagnostic strategy underscore the need for pragmatic assessment tools amenable for use in the major systems of service entry points for children with ADHD symptoms, such as primary care settings.

(Source: NIH, emphasis mine.)

Please allow me to translate (and embellish) this for the laypersons:

We don't really know what ADHD is, what causes it, how it works, how to diagnose it, or even if it's anything more than a mere label which has recently become popular because of its ability to fulfill a strong desire on the part of the "sufferer" to achieve victim status, which is commonly cherished by certain members of society for its ability to imbue the "sufferer" with increased power in the form of: (1) self-righteous indignation, (2) self-justified calls for extra "respect" or "sympathy", or some other sort of special treatment or benefit from society as a whole, or (3) unlimited excuses (from external sources) for lack of self-control, poor performance, or inability to adapt.

So, given this confusion surrounding diagnosis, and given google's ability to provide lots of juicy detail symptoms, I would accept your dare were it not for one important detail: I don't really like stimulants other than caffeine.

I was diagnosed at 14, but my parents did not allow me to take medication. I was on Ritalin for a while in my 20's, and it did help me concentrate... then again, as my shrink put it, "Ritalin would probably help *anybody* concentrate, whether they have ADHD or not."

I've had my share of problems in life (it took me 10 years to finish college) but I don't know if it was the ADHD, the screwed up childhood, the occasional spells of depression, my unrealistic expectations of life the universe and everything, or a little of everything combined.

I'm in grad school now and I haven't been taking Ritalin for maybe five years now. Maybe I self-medicate, I don't know-- I do drink tons of coffee and occasionally other stimulants (but not very often). I haven't tried natural remedies, and frankly don't trust them unless they're backed by research I can look up on PubMed myself (but I'm a biologist, so I guess that's easy for me to say). I do use Melatonin in the evenings though, because it helps me sleep and feel more perky the next morning.

My coping strategies are to make lists of everything I need to do, and carry the list (and a pencil or two) with me everywhere, crossing things off as I do them. Every large, looming, anxiety producing problem can be broken into manageable sub-tasks (and if they're too hard to deal with, that's a sign that *they* need to be broken up into smaller sub-tasks). Owning a PDA helps (though my checklists change so often that data input is too much of a hassle, hence the paper lists). I try to be well organized at home and file stuff I may need later in a hanging file cabinet (and that's a struggle with the very core of my being, let me tell you). When I need to remember to deal with something I sometimes post a note on my door, or in the bathroom, or on my desk lamp. I work at jobs where they're not terribly anal about me being in a certain place by a certain time (luckily that describes grad school as well as the sysadmin jobs I worked before then). Harsh experience (those ten years of college I mentioned...) has taught me to treat all paperwork and bills (except mail order soliciations) as CODE RED priority stuff that I get done as soon as I get it out of the envelope or as soon as I have the necessary information to fill it out, whichever comes first... because if I don't, it's going to sit around forever and get buried under more paperwork. Exercising helps... and by exercise I mean anything that gets your muscles moving and your blood pumping, not necesserily just jogging in a circle-- paintball, ballroom dance, martial arts, rock climbing... you get the idea.

I shun anal-retentive, time-obsessed, compulsively rule-following control freaks. They are the ADHD-ers natural enemy. If someone invents a bomb that selectively kills every bean-counter on Earth, I hope they launch it good and hard. For now, just avoid the weasly little bastards.

The flip side of that is that the interesting, lateral-thinking, creative, fun people who can keep up with me disproportionately turn out to have ADHD themselves! To me, having ADHD simply means that I'm less capable of putting up with bullshit that no human being should have to put up with in the first place. ADHD is only a 'problem' in the same way that left-handedness or homosexuality are problems. They're not problems you have, they're problems society has *with* you.

We're lucky that we were born when when we were. I suspect I'd be much, much less functional if there were no computers to enable me to do stuff quickly, before I lose interest, and to remind me of commitments I've made.

A woman (with ADHD) I was shag-buddies with for a while told me that some ADHD males tend to stay erect for a long, long time before they are able to come. I don't know how generally true that is, but I'm that way, and I see it as more of a feature than a bug.

Really, the main bad thing about ADHD is if you someday decide to shag for reproductive purposes. Th

Ok, this is ridiculous. I've seen far too many posts saying the equivalent of: "ADHD doesn't exist, these people are just lazy."

Well, it DOES exist, it's a simple fact. Just look here:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/events/pradhd.htm

There really shouldn't need to be anything said beyond that.

People that say those with ADHD are simply lazy are as ignorant as someone who would tell and parapalegic to stop whining and just get up and walk, or tell a blind person to stop groping around for christ's sake and just look where you're going...

You obvisously have no idea what you are talking about. See this link here:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/events/pradhd.htm

That's all that needs to be said.

ADHD is real, it's here, so please, even if you don't have it, please respect it for what it is.

nih.gov/adhd
What Causes ADHD?
Health professionals stress that since no one knows what causes ADHD...

Can Any Other Conditions Produce These Symptoms?
The fact is, many things can produce these behaviors.

Does that seem to warrant placing 17% of children on a mind-altering drug?
Ritalin is just the laudanum of the 21st century.

Or perhaps DNA accumulated from other sources. Like endogenous retroviruses.

That is retrovirues that have transcribed their RNA into DNA and merged it with out genome. About 8% of the genomic DNA is from ERVs i.e. they exceed by far the number of protein-coding gene sequences.

So the question is what are they doing there?

Do they help mediating jumping genes?.

When did they arrive?

Are they involved in schizophrenia or any other diseases?

Find out more here or here.

Greg Bear has put this to good use in some of his recent books: "Darwin's Radio", "Vitals" and "Darwin's Children".

It depends what you mean by bioinformatics, which in itself is a broad and fairly uninformed decision. Most of the time these days people mean molecular biology, so for a good overview of what it means in molecular biology have a look at this. Then it really depends on what you want to do. Do you want to administer the systems, identify new software and try to maintain and improve a toolset? In that case you need some computer science. Also it's also a hell of a lot easier to be a self taught computer person than it is a biology person. If you want to do mainly lab work, then you really need the biology, but doing all of your spare classes on computers on basic algorithms, basic programming, a management / design subject and would be good for getting into bioinformatics. Perl has quite a strong presence in molecilar biology bioinformatics and is a handy "glue" language, as a lots of data passing through different specialised processes, and helps to teach you stuff about libraries, how to use the world wide web and such like. I'm personally more interested in the application of computers to ecological questions, and if that's your thing, then you need GIS and a solid statistical background, and not to be too scared of maths. You also need to have a handle on basic biological processes like sex and death, and evolution is very important. This becomes more of a task of managing extremely rich data sets. If you have a computer background already you need to study biology, and get some hands on expreience on a good research project that will stretch your computer skills. From a biology background it's slightly different. Try to learn how networks work, how to read source code and how to glue programs together. That's my exprience so far anyway.

It is assumed that thousands of years ago all people had hypolactasia in the same way as most mammals do today. At that time in cultures where milk consumption was started after childhood, lactase persistence had a selective advantage. Those people with lactase persistence were healthier and had more children than people with hypolactasia, and the frequency of the lactase persistence gene started to increase.

it seems most likely that the European and Arabia-Sahara centers of LAC*P prevalence, and the Uganda-Rwanda center (if it in fact exists), arose independently. Population movement and gene flow can be very extensive and, no doubt, have played a substantial role around the centers. Despite the efforts of some authors to find a common origin in the ancient Middle East, it is simpler to suggest independent origins than to postulate gene flow from the Middle East to Scandinavia and to the interior of East Africa. The problem might be resolved in the future if gene sequencing could show that the LAC*P alleles in Sweden and Saudi Arabia are, in fact, the same or are distinct forms of the gene with a similar function.

Finally, the LAC*P and LAC*R genes are interesting far beyond their biomedical significance. Along with linguistics, archaeology, and physical anthropology, further research on lactase genes and other genetic markers will provide clues to the prehistory of peoples, their migrations and interminglings, and the origins and development of major language families.

Incidentally, the "not addictive" study you linked is speaking from an extremely specific neurophysiological perspective, and only applies to light consumers (1-3 cups of coffee / day).

• Dempsey MF, Condon B., "Thermal injuries associated with MRI," Clin Radiol 2001 Jun;56(6):457-65
• Brown TR, Goldstein B, Little J., "Severe burns resulting from magnetic resonance imaging with cardiopulmonary monitoring. Risks and relevant safety precautions," Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993 Jun;72(3):166-7.
• Schaefer DJ, "Safety aspects of radiofrequency power deposition in magnetic resonance," Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1998 Nov;6(4):775-89.

• Dempsey MF, Condon B., "Thermal injuries associated with MRI," Clin Radiol 2001 Jun;56(6):457-65
• Brown TR, Goldstein B, Little J., "Severe burns resulting from magnetic resonance imaging with cardiopulmonary monitoring. Risks and relevant safety precautions," Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993 Jun;72(3):166-7.
• Schaefer DJ, "Safety aspects of radiofrequency power deposition in magnetic resonance," Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1998 Nov;6(4):775-89.

• Dempsey MF, Condon B., "Thermal injuries associated with MRI," Clin Radiol 2001 Jun;56(6):457-65
• Brown TR, Goldstein B, Little J., "Severe burns resulting from magnetic resonance imaging with cardiopulmonary monitoring. Risks and relevant safety precautions," Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1993 Jun;72(3):166-7.
• Schaefer DJ, "Safety aspects of radiofrequency power deposition in magnetic resonance," Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1998 Nov;6(4):775-89.

I'm not sure if this is the one I am thinking of, but the timing is about right...

Stem cells don't automatically grow into babies - if that were the case, this'd be the Easy Route to human cloning.

An in-depth look into what stem cells are, can be found here.

It's a shame, but often to accomplish work in the sciences (which means publishing and getting grants) one often has to use the best tool for the job. Sometimes this means spending lots of money and effort to develop tools which are not available. Other times it means purchasing hardware that is available and can do the job (those $40k SGI Octanes come to mind). Some times you can get lucky and use a tool that is both free and commonly available (a wonderful example is ImageJ developed by Wayne Rasband(sp?) who also wrote the seminal NIHImage.

Unfortunately, one can waste huge amounts of time, effort and money attempting to find solutions that will meet your needs for lower costs/free, but that time and money might be better spent obtaining the tools that will do the job and simply working at the job until it is accomplished. I understand what you are saying though in that I am trying to transition our lab from Wintel to Macintosh for a whole variety of reasons from security to ethics to simply that all around, Macs seem to be better tools, especially with OS X. That said, we still have to run Wintel hardware and Microsoft operating systems until the tools that we require are on our platforms of preference and we still will probably have to have both operating systems co-exist for some time to come. That is OK with me though as I will always go for the better tool. If it is available on Windows, that's what I will get. However, the MacOS is so much better that if the tools are also available for OS X, I will default there.

And for every study linking THC to stopping cancer there is a study refuting that.

Bullshit. Here are the studies I know of.

Here's a study.

Here's another study.

And another.

And then of course there is Dr. Guzman's work itself.

Now you show us the studies that refuse these.

UCLA says smoking weed leads to lung cancer and that THC supresses anti-tumor immune responses.

Thanks for the link. Were you perhaps referring to this study? The study that was funded by the federal government, i.e., the study where if they don't report what the federal government wants to hear they'll lose their funding? Well that was put to rest by a research at Johns Hopkins Medical School who concluded in effect that no such risk exists. UCLA was doing bogus science. Indeed, if you read their report carefully, you'll note that cancer was never caused by the THC; that they simply thought it would occur based on the higher concentrations of certainl chemicals marijuana smoke shares with tobacco smoke, forgetting the whole time that a marijuana user inhales far, far less smoke than the average tobacco smoker.

Of course they had to say something though. Remember that this came out shortly after Dr. Guzman's work in Madrid.

Criminalizing IV drugs spreads AIDS? Is that like criminalizing cats spreads mice?

No, not at all. According to the logic put forth by our drug policy, heroin is a menace because once addicted the user loses the ability to choose (nevermind the fact that tobacco and alcohol are more addictive than heroin according to the NIDA.) So if these addicts have no choice but to use drugs, the only people with the opportunity to make a choice as to whether they transmit deadly diseases or not are those who stand in the way of these addicts using their drugs safely.

In other words, we know they're going to use heroin, and they want to use heroin safely, but we won't let them. We would rather see them spread deadly diseases than let them use clean syringes.

Like I said. Barbaric.

The fact is that the majority of AIDS/HIV transmission comes from sex and from infected mothers giving birth, not drugs.

The fact is that most people die of natural causes, so it's OK for us to kill? Your logic is rephrehsible.

These "indisputable" facts are easily disputed. There is zero evidence that THC would be a magic cure for the hundreds of cancers.

I've just given you four links that say otherwise.

And there is no way that anyone can blame the US for the 6 million cancer deaths world-wide.

It's our drug policy. And thanks to our economic and military might, we've seen to it that this policy is exported throughout the world. Get put on our list of "uncooperative" nations and watch your economy go into the shithole. Stand accused of aiding or abetting drug traffickers and watch our military kill hundreds if not thousands of your citizens.

And by the way, the figure is closer to 300,000,000. From cancer alone that is. Or at least, that is the number of lives that at best we've recklessly endangered. 30 years * 10,000,000 @ year = 300,000,000.

If it's so indisputable, then the Ministries/Departments/Directorates of Health of the other 200+ nation-states on Earth and the World Health Organization are equally guilty.

Do you read the news at all? We were voted out of the U.N. Committee on Narcotics last year! The world is chomping at the bit to institu

The actual Nature article is "Computational design of receptor and sensor proteins with novel functions," in the May 23, 2003 issue (Vol 423 No 6936 pp101-205). It is important to note that they are not making fully functional enzymes yet, but have accomplished the rather daunting task of designing/directing the evolution of a given protein binding substrate A and making it bind a new, completely different substrate B. Their wild-type substrate interacts with 12-18 residues, so multiply that by your 20 standard amino acids across these interacting residues and you have a crapload of sequences to deal with (10^15 to 10^23; I'll take their word for it). I thought the statement "Designer proteins such as this can be developed for bioremediation of weapons dump sites (TNT) and sensitive sensors of drugs/contaminants that can easily be grown in bacteria." was kind of cute as when you search Pubmed with "TNT reductase" you get back a number of articles on bacterial enzymes that allow them to munch TNT. A few years back I got to work on a project to solve the structures of enzymes that pop NO2 groups off of TNT and related compounds; the bacteria that these proteins were subcloned out of were found in the heavily contaminated soil of a former World War 2 munitions plant. Pretty cool what evolution can do when you add a new component to the environment of some organism.

and inside a strand of genetic material that contains thousands, if not millions of ACGT pairs

Actually it's 1501 base pairs (so 3002 bits of information) in one strain of the Influenza B virus.

Okay - that lights my bulb. I only know it from the song. Good and absurd, just like what I aspire to.
Kotman, eh? Ah, well.

So far

total human reads: 23 million

total chimp reads (Pan troglodytes): over 12 million

having worked on annotation of a few of the chimp BAC clones, I can assure you the two species range from about 97% to over 99.9% similar at the DNA sequence level.

I agree, the net is allowing communication to occur on a much better level than before. Things that were difficult or impossible before are now easy and commonplace. I am not suggesting the net is *bad* for research.

Seriously, if the scientific community could be completely open about things, such as say AIDS... a global open net discussion might come up with a solution (provided they can adequately filter the trolls).

The scientific community is much, much more open than nearly anything else. Check out PubMed. A quick search on 'HIV' returns justover 125,000 articles. Now mind you, this isn't like google, those 125,000 are *published* articles in (mostly) peer-reviewed journals, not some half-assed web-page set up 3 years ago and not touched since. If you think the scientific community is anything but open, you have not had much interaction with it at all. Science requires openness to exist, and Academic Science requires publication to survive (try getting funding without publishing...). As for your global open net discussion, the problem is that filtering the trolls and useless suggestions would eliminate 99.9% of the traffic, and leave pretty much only those in the field who are already having plenty of discussions. Science prevents participation only based on familiarity and knowledge.

-Ted

This technology has existed for quite a while...

Pubmed search will show that already several applications for this exists.

As a physician I am stunned that the pubmed database (text-only version here) is not used more by the public. Very stimulating!

Davak

This technology has existed for quite a while...

Pubmed search will show that already several applications for this exists.

As a physician I am stunned that the pubmed database (text-only version here) is not used more by the public. Very stimulating!

Davak

This technology has existed for quite a while...

Pubmed search will show that already several applications for this exists.

As a physician I am stunned that the pubmed database (text-only version here) is not used more by the public. Very stimulating!

Davak

This technology has existed for quite a while...

Pubmed search will show that already several applications for this exists.

As a physician I am stunned that the pubmed database (text-only version here) is not used more by the public. Very stimulating!

Davak

This technology has existed for quite a while...

Pubmed search will show that already several applications for this exists.

As a physician I am stunned that the pubmed database (text-only version here) is not used more by the public. Very stimulating!

Davak

This technology has existed for quite a while...

Pubmed search will show that already several applications for this exists.

As a physician I am stunned that the pubmed database (text-only version here) is not used more by the public. Very stimulating!

Davak

www.expervision.com/webtr6.htm

http://docmorph.nlm.nih.gov/docmorph/ here are some OCR programs

http://www.scansoft.com/omnipage/

http://www.abbyy.com/

more ocr links than you really want http://web3.humboldt1.com/~jiva/ocr/_ocr_resource. htm

The books linked there are serious crippleware. Very hard to browse and read. If you have specific questions in Biology you can search some quality books here: PubMedBooks

We're already doing that, and the results have been pretty promising. There's a good review written up by my honours supervisor here.

Here is an excellent read on type one diabetes and stem cell research, and a comment on why study sjogren's in conjunction with diabetes (namely, the organ being damaged is much easier to get at and assess.)

Here is a great site for info- the CDC genomics site, which includes info on common and rare genetic diseases, and can give a greater array of background info. NCBI offers another set of info- an explanation of human mouse homology (thus answering the question... why mice?

I hope this helps put some extra info out there for those of you who are interested. And frankly, as one who has had to deal with the sudden "switching on" of not just one but a whole array of diseases- since my DNA happened to include the lucky strands- I'm now having my stance on animal testing completely revised...

Here is an excellent read on type one diabetes and stem cell research, and a comment on why study sjogren's in conjunction with diabetes (namely, the organ being damaged is much easier to get at and assess.)

Here is a great site for info- the CDC genomics site, which includes info on common and rare genetic diseases, and can give a greater array of background info. NCBI offers another set of info- an explanation of human mouse homology (thus answering the question... why mice?

I hope this helps put some extra info out there for those of you who are interested. And frankly, as one who has had to deal with the sudden "switching on" of not just one but a whole array of diseases- since my DNA happened to include the lucky strands- I'm now having my stance on animal testing completely revised...

...their study is correlative and cannot be directly linked, therefore, to causation.

No, the causation is well established.

The correlation in question has been known since the early 1960s and confirmed repeatedly in the medical literature. Because of this, lead was removed from the ingredients of paint and gasoline in the 1970s. The causation has been confirmed since at least the publication of this 1994 meta-analysis:

... Lead interferes with GABAergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission. It has been shown to bind to the NMDA receptor and inhibit long-term potentiation in the hippocampal region of the brain. Moreover, experimental studies have demonstrated that blood levels of 10 micrograms/dl interfere with a broad range of cognitive function in primates. Given this support, these associations in humans should be considered causal.

The important results from the new research cited in the article is that the threshold of activity is much lower than had previously been understood.

That's an interesting analysis which fits pretty well with my idea of how capilatism deals with excess production

You have been reading too much marx. Excess production is pretty much irrelevant from a social standpoint. The history of wheat as a tool of social control goes way back to ancient egypt at least. As Nero said, all the people need are bread and circuses.

Industrialization was nothing more than a new way to keep the masses busy, to keep them from revolting. This was such a failure early on that compulsory schooling had to be instituted to train the masses to accept boredom, drudgery, and bureaucracy with open arms.

The fact that many companies add addictive substances to food is somewhat ancillary. It is not that they are capitalistic, it is that they operate with the express consent and support of the government.

Asthma cases are increasing by orders of magnitude every decade, the once rare condition of autism is now affected one in every 100 males. Americans spend over six billion dollars a year on laxatives. 1 in 7 americans will be on an antidepressant drug at some point in their lives.
To the powers that be that control information and regulations... none of these things seem at all connected, and that is the problem.

The guiding principle of what you and I call society is control. It is not at all based in any concept of material wealth, it is an inborn desire in every man to impose his will on another. A small portion of men use pure violence. The vast majority attempt to enslave a man's mind. Religion. Government. Schools. Social Customs. Food. Most everything you hold dear is a construction, part of the prison for your mind.

Anyway, its a huge topic. Food and drugs are a minor aspect, I would look into the history of compulsory schooling first.

but here are some citations. You can get these journal articles from the US National Library of Medicine or from a commercial service like Medline. You will probably have to go to a library to get the whole articles.

1) Meisel, H. ,Frister ,H. in : Barth, C.A.& Schlimme, E., Milk Proteins : Nutritional, Clinical, Functional and Technological Aspects. Darmstadt 1988 / 143.

(2) Svedberg, J.et al, Demonstration of beta-casomorphin immunoreactive materials in in vitro digests of bovine milk and in small intestine contents after bovine milk ingestion in adult humans. Peptides 1985 / 6 / pag.825-830. , Loukas, S. et al, Opioid activities and structures of alpha-casein-derived exorphins. Biochemistry 1983 / 22 (19) / 4567-4573. , Zioudrou, C. et al ,Opioid peptides derived from food proteins. The exorphins. J. Biol. Chem.1979 / 254 (7) / 2446-2449.

(3) Flood, J.F. et al, Increased food intake by neuropeptide Y is due to an increased motivation to eat. Peptides 1991 / 12 (6) / 1329-1332. , Koldovsky, O., Search for the role of milk borne biologically active peptides for the suckling. J.Nutr. 1989 / 119 (11) / 1543-1551.

(4) Teschemacher, H. et al, Chemical characterization and opiod activity of an exorphin isolated from in vivo digests of casein. FEBS Lett. 1986 / 196 (2) / 223-227. , Chang, K.-J. et al, Isolation of a specific mu-opiate receptor peptide, morphiceptin, from an enzymatic digest of milk proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1985 / 260 (17) / pag. 9706-9712.

(5) Teschemacher ,H. et al, Milk protein-derived opioid receptor ligands. Biopolymers. 1997 / 43 (2) / 99-117.

(6) Bell, R.R. et al, The influence of milk in the diet on the toxicity of orally ingested lead in rats. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 1981 / 19 / 429-436. , Lembeck, F. et al ,Substance P as neurogenic mediator of antidromic vasodilation and neurogenic plasma extravasation. Arch. Pharmacol. 1979 / 310 (2) / 175-183.

(7) Read, L.C. et al, Absorption of beta-casomorphins from autoperfused lamb and piglet

>Ketosis is only dangerous in people who lack adequate insulin, namely type 1 diabetics, and in some cases type 2 diabetics.

Type 2 diabetes often caused by being fat.

Nearly six million people in the United States have type 2 diabetes and do not know it.

Be sure to get tested for it before going on this diet.

Some quotes about the dangers, from an MD that believes Ketosis is dangerous:

Dr. Atkins' "induction phase" may cause problems in persons who typically consume large quantities of carbohydrates, or who are prone to hypoglycermia (low blood sugar), because their bodies may not be able to produce either glucose or ketones fast enough to supply the requirements of the brain and muscle activity, causing fatigue which may be sudden or extreme. I am aware of numerous persons who have had major problems with this aspect of the Atkins diet.

One issue which has not been studied adequately is that of potential calcium and bone loss from acidification of the bloodstream by ketones over a prolonged period of time.

However, even in these persons the ongoing state of ketosis may present hazards which are not known at this time, and may not be necessary for weight loss.

The Atkins' diet does not restrict protein intake, which is the correct approach.

Persons who do not have a weight problem and are seeking a long-term maintenance low carbohydrate diet, and those who are only mildly overweight, are probably better off limiting carbs to a lesser degree than recommended by Dr. Atkins, and avoiding high levels of ketosis that are not necessary to achieve their goals.

I just want slashdotters to know that this diet is less safe than the traditional diet of limiting the amount of food intake and slowly increasing your amount of exercise.

The problem with stopping the common cold is not that the cold is a single virus that's impossible to vaccinnate against. It's a collection of more than 200 viruses (so far) that all cause similiar symptoms. If SARS is indeed a single virus from the coronavirus family it should be possible to vaccinate against it.

This is certainly a bug about which to be concerned; my confusion stems from the world-wide response to a condition that has yet to affect more than 3,000 people worldwide. It just seems like overkill.
-j

Assuming it contains alcohol, your homebrew defintely IS carcinogenic.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s007al co.pdf

an automated insulin injector, thanks to your newly-developed diabetes, too!

Except that the link posted in the post is for microbial genomes only. There are a lot of other genomes that have sequenced. NCBI is better place to look for this info.

Here is the *definitive* page for completed genomes:

http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Genom e