Slashdot Mirror

By "lifestyle", you imply choice, which is an incorrect analysis of threat vectors for HPV. In any case, even if it were only sexual behavior that resulted in HPV transmission (it isn't), sexuality is hardly a "lifestyle." The vast majority of people engage in it, and of the remainder, a large number are trying to or intend to.

HPV presently has about a 50% incidence in the US population.

Combine that fact with the knowledge that HPV 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancers and that these can be passed non-sexually -- now it is obvious we need to vaccinate.

Actually, it is a lifestyle as in you choose what you do; HPV is listed as an STD, and really only becomes an issue when two or more incompatible strains interact - meaning, multiple partners within relatively short periods, again - a lifestyle choice.

By "lifestyle", you imply choice, which is an incorrect analysis of threat vectors for HPV. In any case, even if it were only sexual behavior that resulted in HPV transmission (it isn't), sexuality is hardly a "lifestyle." The vast majority of people engage in it, and of the remainder, a large number are trying to or intend to.

HPV presently has about a 50% incidence in the US population.

Combine that fact with the knowledge that HPV 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancers and that these can be passed non-sexually -- now it is obvious we need to vaccinate.

stay away from milk, sugar and gluten.

You were doing pretty well right up until you mentioned gluten. This near fanaticism with avoiding gluten is approaching the same level of thinking organic foods are more nutritious.

Gluten comes from certain grains. Despite this fact, I have seen products, including fruit itself, labeled as "gluten free" which do not use grain in their production. This article spells it out very nicely:

The researchers noted that many symptoms attributed to gluten may actually be caused by sensitivity to other components of wheat flour or other ingredients found in wheat-based foods like bread, pasta, and breakfast cereals.

Symptoms that have been attributed to gluten sensitivity include diarrhea, abdominal cramping, bloating, headaches, fatigue, and even those associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Di Sabatino and Corazza write that some people may experience these symptoms when they eat foods containing gluten simply because they believe these foods will make them sick.

They conclude that common sense must prevail to "prevent a gluten preoccupation from evolving into the conviction that gluten is toxic for most of the population."

To some extent true, but there is load of artificial coloring which do not exist naturally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is only existing because we made it, and is not existing in insect specie or anything. Heck Some artificial coloring may induce hyperactive behavior in children. http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/... and http://www.scientificamerican....

Assuredly evidence might not be enough to forbid the ingredients, but it is enough to warrant caution and maybe remove it from children's food. Personally I do not know the research good enough to tell. Anyway, definitively not natural. But the natural fallacy (which you might have wanted to mention) never took hold for me. Pure natural arsenic or botulism toxin is poison, artificial non naturally existing recent antibiotic, preservative additive are helpful. It is not about the natural or artificial provenance that people should look to, but the effects. But then again that's why it is called a fallacy.

Snark Fail. You're behind the times .... by decades.

Maggots and Leeches: Old Medicine is New
Leeches Cleared for Medical Use by the FDA

Too bad you didn't post under your own name, it would have been nice to associate that snark fail of yours to you. Do try to keep up.

oh and here you go http://www.webmd.com/diet/tran...

No, I don't, actually. This is all based on advise I took from a doctor after being diagnosed with NAFLD. The simplified message they gave me was "eat less sugar." But I looked it up and found things like this:

http://www.webmd.com/heart-dis...

And this:

http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/0...

And of course, an NIH whitepaper that I can't find at the moment.

Anyways, knowing what I already knew about calories, and the fact that I was already consuming fewer calories than my basal metabolic rate, meant I had to shift my calorie consumption away from carbs and more towards protein/fat. And, it was the correct move.

> This would be something to get upset about if GIMP wasn't shit [...]

Butthurt? Don't despair! There might be a cure for that

Someone called Dateline NBC.... maybe it was a reaction to a drug. Death by viagra? Drug reactions are usually what suddenly kill rich folk like e.g. (Bruce Lee, Michael Jackson, Jim Belushi) The rich can afford better doctors and more drugs.

No problem. It sucks to see people suffer.
Anyway, I just thought I'd clarify that Major Depressive Disorder essentially is clinical depression. It's the heading that the DSM-V (psych bible) puts continued depression of greater than two weeks. You might have heard the term unipolar depression as well. That just means that there are no manic states associated with the patient. Unless you're a nervous person by nature (think you're going to get every side effect and complication) it's probably worth your time to read up on your condition a bit. Increased health literacy is associated with improved outcomes.

I think you've over-thought my post, I was mostly making a snarky response to the nonsensical argument that sugar is the problem. :)

It's hard for me to get worked up about sugar. Want to talk about heart disease and attribute it to our sugar intake? I have a single word response: exercise. Regarding dental caries, studies suggest that only 10% to 40% of the population flosses on a regular basis. The variation depends on how you define 'regular', but the 'never flosses' group is invariably >50% of the population. Flossing comes with health benefits that extend outside of the mouth and makes you more attractive to potential mates (as does exercise) but most people can't be bothered.

Society has an obsession with sugar that has gotten out of hand, in my not so humble opinion. I've read articles written by MDs condemning the intake of fruit juices, in Runner's World of all publications! That's a magazine aimed at distance runners, do you really think that a few glasses of orange juice are a problem for that population? "Reduce your intake of fruit juice to lose weight!" Umm, fuck you, I'm running 20+ miles a week, I'll drink as much orange juice as I want. I may even have a soda. :) (I actually hate soda, but you get the idea....)

Since you brought it up, I don't dispute the "diseases of civilization" hypothesis, it's certainly true on the macroscopic scale of western civilization. On the individual level though? I don't buy it. There are things one can do to manage the "risks" of civilization, starting with exercise and sensible dietary choices. The people that don't do these things, well, that's their loss. They're still better off than they would be in a hunter-gatherer society.

The obvious solution is more and better information on the Internet. Doctors have a vested interest in keeping patients ignorant, so their "rants" should be discounted.

The Internet doesn't make you smarter; you only think it does

Even the most reputable health web sites with the most accurate information can cause trouble for the hypochondriac. ''Hypochondriacs tend to latch onto diseases with common or ambiguous symptoms or that are hard to diagnose," says Fallon. For example, illnesses such as HIV or lupus, and neurological disorders including multiple sclerosis can cause vague symptoms like fatigue, swollen glands, and strange physical sensations.

Second-Guessing the Doctor

Barsky and Fallon say hypochondria often breeds suspicion and distrust between a sufferer and his or her physician. Some doctors may be too quick to dismiss the worries of hypochondriacs, and hypochondriacs are likely to ruin relationships with good physicians by second-guessing them from the start.

For instance, Barsky says, a hypochondriac needs to resist the compulsion to self-diagnose and to seek assurance from doctors and friends. The best one can do is to get regular medical treatment from a trustworthy doctor trust and to live a healthy life.

Fallon agrees: ''In a loose sense, a hypochondriac becomes almost addicted to looking up information, examining himself, and getting reassurance from other people,'' he says. ''Checking just makes things worse.''

And what about using the Internet to look up that worrisome symptom? ''If it's just going to make you upset,''says Barsky. ''Don't do it.''

Internet Makes Hypochondria Worse : Cyberchondria

Except for at least one aspect. "Flaxseed can act like the hormone estrogen." http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-...

The only problem would be coming up with ten million turds.

iPecacuanha?

but I want my cats to have the freedom to roam around outside

I bet you let your kids play unsupervised in the street too, right? After all, your kids should have the "freedom to roam around outside", right? And they're smarter than cats, so surely they'll be just fine, right? Right? Let 'em out in the morning, surely they'll come back for dinner, yes?

Both of my cats are around or over 10 years old.

The plural of anecdote is not "data." The average lifespan of a cat is considerably less when allowed outdoors. For excruciatingly obvious reasons. Given the average, anyone who can rub two brain cells together can extrapolate the risk.

And fuck you too, pal.

Hey, why not? After all, you're already fucking your cats. Why stop there?

Thank you. Not sure how that meshes with people drinking wheat grass juice -- having seen it grown, when the shoots are young, they look exactly like wild grass.

This WebMD page suggests a few reasons, including "One published study reports on a miniature poodle that ate grass and then vomited every day for seven years. Three days after putting the dog on a high-fiber diet, the owner reported that the dog stopped eating grass entirely."

This WebMD page says that "dogs today seek out plants as an alternative food source. Most commonly the plant is grass". It goes on to say: "A dog will seek out a natural remedy for a gassy or upset stomach, and grass, it seems, may do the trick. When ingested, the grass blade tickles the throat and stomach lining; this sensation, in turn, may cause the dog to vomit, especially if the grass is gulped down rather than chewed."

"Although dogs don't typically graze on large amounts of grass like a cow, they may nibble on grass, chew on it for a while, and not throw up (an unwell dog will tend to gulp the grass down in big bites and then throw up).

This seems much more like why my dog eats (or bites at) grass.

"Whatever the reason may be, most experts see no danger in letting your dog eat grass. In fact, grass contains essential nutrients that a dog might crave, especially if they're on a commercial diet."

It seems to me that humans don't know why dogs do it. But that it is good for dogs. And no, I've never seen my dogs "drunk" from grass eating.

And then one big dose of that allergen causes it to go away. How fucked up is that?

Either the allergy goes away, or you do (die).

Except it doesn't. Try reading medical research sometime. Repeated exposure to an allergen can cause allergies.

And then one big dose of that allergen causes it to go away. How fucked up is that? Really, allergies make no fucking sense. This data suggests early exposure doesn't lead to developing an allergy in the absence of some other trigger, but people exposed early and often can still get them. Our bodies really are just fucking with us.

New York State Health Department research scientist Michael Kitto, PhD, says only a small fraction of the granite samples he has tested have emitted radon at levels that were over those considered safe.

But he added that a few of his samples showed levels that were high enough to alarm him.

“I wouldn’t have them in my house,” Kitto tells WebMD.

Rice University physics professor William Llope, PhD, found potentially dangerous levels of radiation in some tested samples of granite used in countertops.

. Not all granite is the same.

It's a 2 year old! Good grief, you have never been around a 2 year old before? A 2 year old is supposed to play and learn, not be responsible for the goddamn panic button if mom starts to die. (Yes, to a 2 year old no matter how severe the seizure it will be traumatic and appear to be mom dying).

His "extra" fail safe" is a panic button on top of web cams. Where is the adult to make sure the 2 year old does not try to hug mommy when she is having convulsions. Which of course has the added bonus of possibly killing both the mom and the kid, causing permanent injury to one or both.. and who is all that guilt going to sit on if something goes wrong? Oh gee, if the 2 year old lives they get to feel all the guilt because dad could not think of a better solution than to leave a 2 year old alone with an epileptic... Do you not know anything at all about epilepsy and are posting from pure ignorance?

While we are at it, is the 2 year old also responsible to ensure that the room is clear of obstacles that may harm the mom/child when seizures start? Rolling mom onto her side while mom is flailing?

One of your kids having seizures near adults (parent) is not even close to the same thing as an adult having seizures next to a sole small child. Your persnoal anecdote is useless.

Wholly fuck! I believe this is the the sickest thread I have ever read on Slashdot! (TFA and responses)

It's a 2 year old! Good grief, you have never been around a 2 year old before? A 2 year old is supposed to play and learn, not be responsible for the goddamn panic button if mom starts to die. (Yes, to a 2 year old no matter how severe the seizure it will be traumatic and appear to be mom dying).

His "extra" fail safe" is a panic button on top of web cams. Where is the adult to make sure the 2 year old does not try to hug mommy when she is having convulsions. Which of course has the added bonus of possibly killing both the mom and the kid, causing permanent injury to one or both.. and who is all that guilt going to sit on if something goes wrong? Oh gee, if the 2 year old lives they get to feel all the guilt because dad could not think of a better solution than to leave a 2 year old alone with an epileptic... Do you not know anything at all about epilepsy and are posting from pure ignorance?

While we are at it, is the 2 year old also responsible to ensure that the room is clear of obstacles that may harm the mom/child when seizures start? Rolling mom onto her side while mom is flailing?

One of your kids having seizures near adults (parent) is not even close to the same thing as an adult having seizures next to a sole small child. Your persnoal anecdote is useless.

Wholly fuck! I believe this is the the sickest thread I have ever read on Slashdot! (TFA and responses)

And I say this knowing that most people use alcohol in moderation (1-2 drinks per day). But I also know that alcohol is a massive problem in society. Have a read at this --> http://ncadd.org/index.php/in-...

If you include deaths from drunk driving then alcohol is the single biggest killer in the United States - ahead of tobacco and all other illicit drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) combined. Not to mention assaults, etc. that are often fueled at least in part by alcohol.

The notion that alcohol has health benefits is complete bunk. Red wine is probably the only one that can even make a case for it, although the amount of anti oxidants present in wine are minuscule at best. Certainly nowhere near that amounts that you would find in dark berry fruits such as cranberries and blueberries.

So what of the negative effects? Have a read --> http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

Alcohol is toxic to human liver cells. If you have 1-2 drinks a day then the amount of toxins are negligible. More than that and there is a good chance that eventually you will develop cirrhosis of the liver. Or cardiovascular disease. Or certain types of cancer.

I'm not saying that we should ban alcohol or that everyone should stop drinking. It's your body - do with it as you will. But I simply cannot accept the premise that alcohol is "healthy" in any way.

Even in this case, it should be pointed out that for about one in three adults, levels of dietary cholesterol do have a significant effect on the levels of cholesterol in the blood. But even for them, the effect is half as much as the effect of saturated fat intake on blood cholesterol.

There's all sorts of potential health info one could write on a package. Every additional bit you add takes attention off every other that's already there. Mandating listing cholesterol when it's not as major of an issue as other information on there, like saturated fat, trans fat, salt, etc is probably not justified.

As for the GP, anyone who lumps all fats together as if they're one substance is an idiot. Different fats need to be treated differently. If you think eating mainly saturated and trans fats comprises a healthy diet and will lead to a long lifespan, you're flatly in contradiction to the overwhelming body of research. But if you eat a lot of monounsaturated and omega 3 fats**, this could well be true (though there's lots of niggling details - for example, mono is probably great if you're heart-risk prone but not if you're breast cancer prone). And even these sorts of categories are still broad generalizations; each is comprised of many different individual fat molecules, and each one may carry its own benefits and risks.

Note on omega 3s... this means as a general rule uncooked omega-3 rich foods. Omega-3s are heat-unstable, they break down under cooking (not to mention it ruins the flavor). They should ideally be stored refrigerated as well. There have been some studies that certain herbs, such as rosemary, can help heat-stabilize omega-3s - but its a limited effect. Also, as mentioned above, not all omega-3s are identical. For example, the EPA and DHA from oily fish or krill are believed to be more effective than the APA from plants, which the body has to convert at low efficiency. But the usually bad taste of the former has discouraged use, while most omega-3 rich plant oils (flax, walnut, hemp, etc) are quite flavorful (really, I have no clue why they're not used more often in salad dressings and the like just for that reason alone). Also, you aren't just what you eat, but also what what you eat eats. For example, eggs from hens fed green plants and omega-3 rich feeds generally are several times higher in omega-3s than hens fed a standard grain feed. The same applies to levels in meats.

St. John's Wort is no more effective than placebo.

(Sources: Search for "effectiveness of X" and pick nih.gov or webmd)

OK, sounds like fun! Lets see... google "effectiveness of st john's wort"... pick the first NIH or WebMD link. Got it, that'd be this one:

Is there scientific evidence that supports the use of St. John's wort for depression?

There is some scientific evidence that St. John's wort may be helpful in treating mild depression, and the benefit seems similar to that of antidepressants. However, two large studies, one sponsored by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), showed that the herb was no more effective than placebo in treating major depression of moderate severity; ironically, the conventional drugs also studied did not fare any better than placebo, either.

Hmm. So, according to the first link (that you recommended) St John's wort is about as effective (or ineffective) as conventional drugs. Only cheaper and with far fewer side effects (Source: ask anyone who's taken a conventional antidepressant)

Meanwhile, Wikipedia (with references) says:

An analysis of twenty-nine clinical trials with more than five thousand patients was conducted by Cochrane Collaboration. The review concluded that extracts of St John's wort were superior to placebo in patients with major depression. St John's wort had similar efficacy to standard antidepressants.

And what about side effects?

The rate of side-effects was half that of newer SSRI antidepressants and one-fifth that of older tricyclic antidepressants.[9] A report[9] from the Cochrane Review states:
The available evidence suggests that the Hypericum extracts tested in the included trials a) are superior to placebo in patients with major depression; b) are similarly effective as standard antidepressants; and c) have fewer side-effects than standard antidepressants. [...] St John's wort is generally well tolerated, with an adverse effect profile similar to placebo.[21]

Follow through with the references at your leisure.

Except that there is a risk of illness from the measles vaccine and the measles vaccine has a risk of failure (it doesn't prevent measles, it just reduces chance of getting measles).
http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/...

Why not say people who feed their kids bacon should be sued for manslaughter and tobacco companies too. Or people who wear football shirts (which increases chance of kids seeing those shirts, playing football and subsequently getting killed).

Yes, let's redefine manslaughter to encompass all activities.

That being said, I think getting the measles vaccine is a good move for 99% of people. Unfortunately, the vaccine is not zero risk.

Considering recent studies show that cancer is more likely to be caused by genetics than smoking

Can you link to these "recent studies"?

And if so, why did lung cancer rates fall by 12% in the last 30 years in the US, does that mean we are evolving immunity?

Or perhaps it lines up with reflect changes in the nation's smoking habits - smoking less, especially by men.

The summary claims "Good For Your Health" but only considers one aspect. Shame on them...

http://www.webmd.com/hypertens...

I see no reason why a pill couldn't be made to inhibit the intake, or facilitate the evacuation of, an unhealthy level of fats and carbs in the same way we can with sugars.

That already exists: http://www.webmd.com/diet/alli... If the first time you take it and then eat a really greasy meal (fried chicken, pizza, ribs, onion rings, etc), the next trip to the toilet will be a surprise. It will look like the Exxon Valdez ran around in the toilet bowl, but with globs of orange fat floating in the water instead. Also, when one feels and hears a rumble deep in your guts, it is time to find a bathroom as quickly as possible, because as Jim Lahey would say "the express shit train is all greased up and ready to leave the station".

Hate to tell you, but most OTC cough medicines don't really work very well at all, according to some studies that have come out recently.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-...

There *is* a study that says that dark chocolate, of all things, is pretty good at suppressing coughs.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-...

I welcome it if you cite sources to refute the credibility of either of the links I gave. At least you're thinking about the subject then. Myself, I'm actually not sure that cough medicines DON'T work and I'm not sure that chocolate does. But I sure like chocolate.

--PM

Hate to tell you, but most OTC cough medicines don't really work very well at all, according to some studies that have come out recently.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-...

There *is* a study that says that dark chocolate, of all things, is pretty good at suppressing coughs.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-...

I welcome it if you cite sources to refute the credibility of either of the links I gave. At least you're thinking about the subject then. Myself, I'm actually not sure that cough medicines DON'T work and I'm not sure that chocolate does. But I sure like chocolate.

--PM

Secondly, I take it that you're an expert on developmental human biology

No, and I don't need to be.

then so you know this is CERTAINLY an anatomical thing rather than an a developmental thing?

http://www.webmd.com/balance/f...

Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.

Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.

'Nuff said. And yes, I'll keep the word dramatic.

Hey man. Here ya go.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/f...
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/A...

Not that I think it will alter your view or anything. And I don't think science or differences in genders is something to upset us- diversity has always been a strength of any species.

Well documented differences between male and female brain. Distinct differences are visible in fetus at about 26 week of pregnancy - this is driven by different hormonal levels which is again well known difference and accounts for quite a lot of physical and behavioural changes.

Statistics show that the heart attack rate shows a small but significant peak following the weekend DST is activated. You're fucking with the biorhythm of people in ways that are only rivaled by forcing them to travel from east to west coast twice a year and having to adjust the time accordingly

It's just one hour "zone time" change, remember.

Coast to coast would be three hours. USA Time Zone Map - 12 Hour Format

When researchers in Sweden examined the impact of daylight saving time on heart attack rates in that country, they discovered that people had slightly fewer heart attacks on the Monday after they set their clocks back in the fall and slightly more heart attacks in the days after they set their clocks ahead in the spring.

The effect of the spring transition to daylight saving time on heart attack rates was slightly greater for women than men, and the fall effect was more pronounced in men than in women. And the effect was consistently more pronounced in people under age 65 than for those 65 and older.

Daylight Saving Time May Affect Heart

So more time that I have to deal with screen glare, yeah, that's what I want!

It sounds like you're suffering from separation anxiety whenever you are away from your desktop, smartphone or tablet. You might want to cut back on the caffeine and spend more time outdoors.

I know several people who get barometric migraines, or migraine headaches that are triggered when the pressure changes suddenly (usually when it drops). Some of them have told me that migraine medications like rizatriptan and sumatriptan can be effective, but often come with unpleasant side-effects like a racing pulse or grogginess.

This leads to a dilemma: do you take the medication and deal with the side effects, or do you try to ride out the headache? It's especially frustrating for people who get headaches that aren't always migraines, because the migraine medication doesn't necessarily work on a normal, non-migraine headache.

This is where a personal barometric pressure monitor that's been with you for the last few hours can be very helpful. If you are trying to decide whether or not to take migraine medication, you can consult your phone and see if you personally experienced a large pressure drop prior to the onset of the migraine. If so, that helps with the decision of whether or not to take the medicine.

That is interesting, Thank you.

I have to say it annoys me that all the alarmists who used to claim that soda emphatically did cause diabetes are correct. Not because they are correct, but because they used to insist upon it with no actual data to back it up.

See, the American Diabetes Association has it on their page as a myth that Sugar causes Type 2 diabetes, indicating it can lead to obesity which can cause Type 2 diabetes. WebMD has a similar passage.

That article is light on details. Previous research indicated that a high calorie diet has a link to Type 2 diabetes - Nothing specific to sugar.

There may now be research indicating something unique to sugar does in fact have at least a casual link to type 2 diabetes, but it's far from conclusive.

At this point, people insisting sugar causes T2 diabetes are still spreading FUD.

There are numerous reasons to limit sugar intake, and that shouldn't even be high on the list.

This is spoken as someone who for about 12 years chugged down at least a liter of soda a day and lived an otherwise healthy lifestyle. I was always annoyed at people who would insist that I was going to get Diabetes, when there was no evidence of that being likely.

If it turns out there is in fact a link, then that changes things. At the moment though that single press article about a study isn't conclusive, and until the FDA, ADA etc change their stance and the prevailing theory that it is a high caloric intake and weight gain that are linked, I don't see how it is responsible to claim sugar causes T2 diabetes.

Of cause, exercising caution is a whole different thing.

Saying paypal has anything to do with this is like saying you like chocolate because your brothers, wifes, uncles dog does.

Whoah, it's like saying there's a dog that can eat chocolate without getting sick or dying. I know that's not the point you were trying to make; but it's important for people to understand this. Cue "the more you know" music...

You are an Idiot!
If a LOT of people start dying from bacterial infections you'll see new antibiotics developed.
How do you think that should/could work? Oh, it is like software development: requiremt, a stuff that kills bacteria. Solution: take this. Done.
Moron!
The problem today is that there isn't much public funding for antibiotics, and there isn't much demand for new ones.
The demand is huge, but finding one that "works different" than all the ones before, hence the bacteria are not immune is nearly impossible.
Sure, the few who need them REALLY need them, but stuff like MRSA is still fairly rare.
Rare compared to what? Death by car accidents? MRSA is the next big killer to man kind, it is just waiting to happen. You really have no clue at all, you annoy me, you make me angry!

http://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/tracki...
Ten year old news: http://www.webmd.com/skin-prob...

Now for the sake of argument, let's say a significant portion of cases are "socially founded in the parent", who the fuck is supplying the parent with ritalin on the basis of the parent's ammature diagnosis?

As an American that question seems silly. First, the parents - unless doctors - can't prescribe and aren't strongly motivated to spend time or money on the non-issue.

The allegations are that schools not only get more money per ADHD student (diagnosed) they are also pushing for higher test scores (likely without concern for why test scores matter and the known limitations, pitfalls of over-reliance, etc). Kindergartners are losing playtime, (naptime?), blocktime, etc, and being pushed to read instead of simply learning the alphabet. That's not a bad thing unless it means your are pressing the child too hard in a direction they're not ready for. More so, the pressing is not likely productive or for some great goal (Olympic Gold!) but rather a slight improvement in the school's stats. Maybe there is a gold star in it for the child or "D- you cost me my raise, asshole".

http://www.webmd.com/parenting...
http://www.vanguardnews.com/20...

It looks like they coaxed embryonic stem cells into becoming heart muscle cells, instead of just going right to the source.

You have to be very careful attributing things to genes rather than environment. Testosterone level, since you mentioned it, rises and drop in response to winning or losing in competitions, and increases in response to exercise. The nature of our encounters with others (dominance) and exercise (which depends on job function) are both clearly culturally influenced.

your understanding of the role testosterone plays in female sex drive is clearly lacking.

http://www.webmd.com/women/tes...

This is part of the extreme hostility toward men in the U.S. culture.

The body is extremely complicated. There are maybe a million chemicals? Choosing one supposedly connected with men but actually present in both men and women, testosterone, and talking about its importance is thinly veiled hostility.

The current wave of hostility of women toward men began with the book The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir, a woman who was very confused about life. The book mentioned negative things men do, and avoided mentioning the negative things women do. Part of her viewpoint was influenced by the fact that she was trying to get women to have sex with her.

There is a movie that shows Simone de Beauvoir was treated as an equal by Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher and friend. She was not second.

Both Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre had terrible childhoods and both did things in their adult lives that demonstrated their confusion.

The Washington Post article linked in the Slashdot summary says, "No, this isnâ(TM)t some jab at dudes." Yes it is, and extremely stupid about biochemistry and civilization, also.

Well you can use Heroin and not be addicted also, yes the chance or probably magnitudes higher but still. Also according to some studies, once addicted, alcohol seams to be one really ugly mother: http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

actually, they're finding game addiction (computer & gambling) are quite similar to substance addiction
  http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

and china & korea, i believe, have started to crack down (no pun intended;-) on online & gaming addiction
  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01...

Actually if you look at the study, AAD (alcohol-attributable deaths - including car accidents) were the minority. The majority were YPLL (years potential life lost) mostly death due to liver damage. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/...

This does not factor in the alcohol is a leading cause of cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... and strokes http://www.webmd.com/stroke/ne...

We all know prohibition doesn't work, but more progressive measures like education and increasing taxes on cheap booze as well as promoting alternative stress reduction programs might help to reduce heavy drinking.

You cannot sleep all day - unless you have been up all night - which is the point of this study and quite a few others, I might add.

You know, if I looked closely at your life, I would - without a doubt - find self defeating things that YOU do.

I don't care if you are Amish - that would be hard, but I am sure I would find something.

If we would stop bitching at one another and just say, "Dude! When I went to bed at 10 and stopped staying up all night playing video games, my life improved!" - I think things would improve.

And ask to give feedback because just giving it sounds patronizing.

I doubt that.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

There are probably reasons but it will not be as obvious as that. Some of these countries have real reasons to be depressed or suffer anxiety disorders and yet score low in a survey by the WHO. Japan for instance has numbers so low the research said it is unbelievable and it is highly capitalist.

Call me unconvinced:

http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

The Saccharin Saga

Safety, particularly as it relates to cancer risk, is on many people's mind as a result of the saccharine saga, which began in the 1970s. In 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration tried to ban this sweetener as animal studies showed that it caused cancer of the bladder, uterus, ovaries, skin, and other organs. But the food industry intervened, urging Congress to keep it on the market with a warning label that (until recently) read: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."

In the late 1990s, the Calorie Control Council stated that the main health concern about saccharin was bladder cancer in male rats -- not people.

It seems to me the the artificial sweetener industry has done a very good job of getting a lot of people to ignore all of the studies showing problems.

"animal studies showed that it caused cancer of the bladder, uterus, ovaries, skin, and other organs."

But hey, let's just forget about those studies??????????????

If I were to see a well made study done by someone not affiliated with the sweetener industry that showed no increase of ill effects amongst sweetener users as compared to non-sweetener users then I'd accept that. But I haven't seen that.

What? Don't throw junk into the environment? What is this madness?!

On a serious note, that's what it should really come down to. Don't toss junk into the environment, whatever it is. We should always be trying to reduce the amount of pollutants we produce. You can even find trace amounts of antidepressants and other prescription drugs in our water supply.

There's reasonable steps that society can - and does - take to reduce pollutants, but there's still a lot of things we could be doing more about. Plastics, for example. So much is packaged in giant wads of hard plastic or shrink wrapped plastic. Is it really necessary to keep piling this crap into our landfills? What is wrong with packaging something in paper or paperboard with a bit of natural glue to hold it shut?