Slashdot Mirror

Those people would have otherwise died a week later from something else. Generally, people who die from flu are old and/or weak. But you knew this, didn't you ?

Of course many of "those people" are kids under five (according to the graphic by age group on https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Influenza ), and for pandemics there are big peaks for the 15-40 age group, on par with the "old foggey" levels. But you knew this, didn't you ?

Yes, it is true that the old and infirm are particularly hit by flu deaths, but the majority of those who die do not have a life expectancy measured in weeks independent of their flu infection. If you have information to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.

According to http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm the average life years lost from Flu: 9.5 years for pneumonia/influenza; 10.9 for pneumonia/influenza in North Carolina.

This does not take into account the financial costs associated with flu independent of deaths. Society spends a lot on flu health care and in lost productivity. When significant numbers of strong healthy wage earners visit their doctor to take care of themselves, their kids, or their parents, that adds up to a lot of lost working hours and increased doctor costs.

Also, your analysis of how 'bad' flora take over isn't terribly accurate.

Writing posts for slashdot is a fine art. Finding a balance between being concise, informative, interesting, inflammatory, etc isn't always easy. Especially when the poster can't come out and say openly that the commonly-accepted course of action is wrong.

PLEASE never recommend anyone apply yogurt to their vagina. That just seems... cruel and unusual.

Have you ever read any forum posts from women who suffer from Bacterial Vaginosis? Let me find one for you...

Wrong Diagnosis has a thread with hundreds of posts on Bacterial Vaginosis. Some say that the antibiotics worked for them, others report success with using the probiotics, and other posters report that nothing works.

Why start with an antibiotic when probiotics successfully treat for many BV sufferers?

One adequate course, taken correctly, will most certainly clear up candidiasis. In more than two thirds of women, they'll never experience another bout of vaginal candidiasis in their lifetime.

What about the other 1/3 - are they left out in the cold?

Cruel and unusual is treating a lack of beneficial symbiotic bacteria with antibiotics (which can have potent side effects of their own), when a comprehensive treatment with the right kind of bacterial preparation is what they really need.

It's not even close. An estimated 440,000 smoking-related deaths per year in the US. Drunk driving - 25,000 deaths although admittedly another 70,000 seriously injured.

Now when it comes to domestic violence, there's over 500,000 incidents per year, but only a small fraction of that are alcohol-related, or result in death (2000-4000). Not trying to excuse that in the least bit BTW, domestic violence is despicable. However, while alcohol often is a catalyst in domestic violence, the relationship is usually already seriously dysfunctional.

28,000 annual deaths for liver failure. I doubt the number of deaths from purely alcohol-related diabetes would be significantly higher.

Oh, you were trolling? Never mind, carry on. I agree with you that banning smoking is stupid - making social pariahs of smokers has worked far better than any War on X. The only thing more stupid would have to be the 2-bit satire in your post.

How many children have died in the US from the common cold in the last month and a half? If it's significantly less than 43, then H1N1 is worse than a common cold.

Not to mention that H1N1 has a much more dangerous potential to mutate into something deadlier than the common cold.

It's spreading far faster than the usual influenza, it doesn't pay much attention to whether it's flu season, and it's at least as deadly (at least to children). It isn't the end of the world (barring a really, really nasty mutation), but it's a serious threat and worth dealing with properly.

Sorry David, your assumptions are worthless. Seriously, you don't need to look far to get information these days, how come you make these kinds of assumptions without looking them up first? It's not difficult. More people have still died from the common flu, during even shorter timespans, than of H1N1. And yes, you're right in that H1N1 has a potential to mix with H5N1, upon which it could create a disease with 60%-70% deadliness, which spreads as fast as H1N1. However it could also not. A vaccine for H1N1 won't do you much good if it mutates anyway, and often agents mimicing the flu only trigger the immune system to recognize parts of the actual flu, meaning an immunity which wasn't artifically created will most likely trigger on many more characteristics, making it possible to help you fight off H5N1 as well.

I don't think anyone suggests that one intentionally infect members of the studies.

It's not like the flu is exceptionally dangerous....

I am not so sure. According to http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm the 7th leading cause of death in 1999 and 2000 was "pneumonia/influenza" (CDC), 63,730 annual deaths for influenza and pneumonia (NVSR Sep 2001); estimated 20,000 deaths from flu (NIAID) An estimated 100,000 hospitalizations and about 20,000 deaths occur each year from the flu or its complications. (Source: excerpt from Focus On The Flu: NIAID) ... average of 20,000 to 40,000 deaths per year. (Source: excerpt from Microbes in Sickness and in Health - Publications, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: NIAID) ... in the United States more than 100,000 people are hospitalized and more than 20,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year. (Source: excerpt from The Flu, NIAID Fact Sheet: NIAID) ... In an average year, flu leads to about 20,000 deaths nationwide and many more hospitalizations. (Source: excerpt from What to Do About the Flu - Age Page - Health Information: NIA)

The regular flue kills off a lot of people, and puts a lot of people in the hospital each year.

Here's a link for the 2%...

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/anti_social_personality_disorder/stats.htm

This reference shows 46-48% of the sample having ASPD. Not quite the same 70% that my past reference shows, but still quite large and understandable in the context to which I had presented the information.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673602077401 .... now lick that spoon and thank your daddy.

Interesting points.

The BBC article linked in the Slashdot story says, "Rember, or methylthioninium chloride, is the first treatment specifically designed to target the Tau tangles."

Note that, apparently:

1) They don't know what causes Alzheimer's disease. They have only found a chemical that modifies the course of the disease.

2) The smack-you-in-the-face marketing has already begun? They are calling the drug, "Rember"?

The "drug" is only a well-known synthetic dye. "Rember" is Methylene blue. The Free Dictionary says it is, "A basic aniline dye that forms a deep blue solution when dissolved in water and is used as a bacteriological stain and as an antidote for cyanide poisoning."

3) This is apparently just an example of trying every known chemical to see if it modifies every known disease. If it works, fine, but it is not an example of science; it is apparently only an example of somewhat blindly trying everything. How is that a "treatment specifically designed"?

My understanding is that it is common to have temporary remissions of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. In any short clinical trial, there will be some people who have improved.

4) "... the trial was funded by a pharmaceutical company..." according to the BBC article.

For tetanus, which is found in soil bacteria, this is bad reasoning, as you aren't protected by your neighbor having all her boosters of tetanus toxoid. For pertussis, probably a bad idea as there are significant people's whose immunity has waned and thus can carry it to and infect your children. I think the same applies to measles among college-age kids. For hepatitis B (HBV) there is a prevalence of 1/2% in the USA http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hepatitis_b/prevalence.htm. If your child wants to go into healthcare or is going to be sexually active, they should get it. There is a risk of hepatocellular carcinoma from HBV that probably exceeds the risk of untoward effects from the vaccine. For H. influenzae and S. pneumoniae vaccines, I think most of the population has not had these vaccines. Probably better to get them for your children. Does that mean your child will die if they don't? Probably not, but the odds of mortality or morbidity are much likely lower if they get it than if they don't.

It still is a cost-benefit problem, but the benefit is lowered at constant cost whenever the prevalence decreases, which can happen either through other people being vaccinated or otherwise. Also, just FYI, some of the live-attenuated vaccines may vaccinate your children second hand. They may very well "catch the vaccine" from someone else that was vaccinated. That is one "advantage" of using live-attenuated vaccines. I'm not saying I'm a proponent of live vaccines for this reason, but this argument has been made as to why to use them, though I think it is mostly made for developing nations where not everyone has the opportunity to be vaccinated.

increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."

...is that violent video games kill 440,000 Americans every year?

Because wow, I'd have quit playing video games long ago if I knew that they had a 1 in 2 chance of killing me.

I suppose the other (albeit less likely) possibility is that this respectable and unbiased researcher may have accidentally used hyperbole in an accidental attempt to drum up fear in support of his findings... And in all fairness, he technically says that smoking is a "slightly larger" danger, so maybe violent media only turns 45% of its viewers into murderers.

...is that violent video games kill 440,000 Americans every year?

Because wow, I'd have quit playing video games long ago if I knew that they had a 1 in 2 chance of killing me.

I suppose the other (albeit less likely) possibility is that this respectable and unbiased researcher may have accidentally used hyperbole in an accidental attempt to drum up fear in support of his findings... And in all fairness, he technically says that smoking is a "slightly larger" danger, so maybe violent media only turns 45% of its viewers into murderers.

Foux News sez (and note they are perhaps the most sensational "news" outlet there is) 17,011 deaths from the superbug. Wrong diagnosis dot com says 15,245 Americans died of AIDS in 2000.

Meanwhile, in 1997, 41,967 people died on the American highways. So you SHOULD fear the terrorists; the blonde ones in their SUVs.

Note that I'm tired of googling so find your own link, half a million die from cancer and another half million die from heart disease. The two biggest terrorists aren't germs, Muslims or SUVs, but R. J. Reynolds and Ronald McDonald.

-mcgrew

I'm pretty sure the Feds care about illegal drug use, given that according to wikipedia 57% of the federal prison population are there for drug offences.

... well, the feds could start with the current occupant of the White House ... except that guy's white and well-connected.

Most other countries don't care about use, they care about drug dealing. A few elections ago, a pot activist political candidate in Canada lit up in front of a cop and said, "Aren't you going to arrest me for smoking a joint?" The cop looked around, then said to him, "I'm sorry sir, but nobody's lodged a formal complaint."

People don't care.Personally, I can't stand the smell of it, or of tobacco, but if I had to decide which of the two to ban, it would be cigarettes, not joints, based on long-term health problems. Then again, while I'm against the death penalty, I'd have no problem throwing the switch on tobacco manufacturing executives for mass murder.

The CDC puts it at 440,000 deaths per year from smoking. Tobacco use is the most preventable cause of death. other links.

There's little to no evidence that asthma is primarily linked to genetics. Pesticides, herbicides, tobacco smoke, paints, carpet fumes, colds and bronchitis early in life, lack of exposure to certain infections, bird droppings, and lots of other possible causes are being looked at as environmental causes or triggers of asthma.

http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Causes_of_As thma
http://www.lungdiseasefocus.com/articles/about-ast hma/asthma-causes.php
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/asthma_caus es.htm
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/asthma/causes.htm
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Asthm a/Asthma_Causes.html

It's terribly cold-hearted and factually wrong to blame the guy for his son having asthma.

Listen, I smoke pot every day. I have a job. I pay my bills. I did well in college. I have a nice home. I'm friendly with the neighbors. I'm good with kids. I love my family. Who is the victim here? If you believe I should go to jail for this, you're a far more dangerous man than I will ever be.

Do you drive your car while under the influence of pot? With the effects lasting up to 24 hours, it would be hard not to.

Hey, kids! Come ride in the car while daddy endangers the lives of everyone.

I was looking at your sig's website and found some hilarious things. Do you suffer from "Death and Buttock Numbness?" "Death and Inattention?" "Death and Limping?"

I only expressed my opinion

whereas you attempted to force your viewpoint upon me

That doesn't make me believe that you come from a dissimilar culture to the one that you show such disdain for.

As far as the Freudian slip you mention, well you caught me. I do consider myself to have a high standard of living.

I really wonder wherever you had a shitty day you feel to get defensive, that wasn't my intention.

What the blurb doesn't say, how much of the 58% google gets right overlaps with the 20% doctors get wrong, if at all.

But, but, it's still vital we all give up our essential liberties for a little temporary freedom, right?

Because the world's so dangerous, what with terrorists, rogue states, the completely proportionate concern about avian 'flu, nuclear proliferation and the tidalwave of violent crime that's sweeping the US, UK and entire western world... and not forgetting, of course, all those evil video games turning our kids into gun-toting killers.

Of course it's important - we're in so much danger it's amazing we make it through each day without being shot, stabbed, infected, exploded or bum-raped to death in an alleyway somewhere, and anyone who says differently is a loony liberal, terrorist sympathiser or against our boys in Iraq.

Right?

It used to be that abortions were legal in the U.S. up until 'quickening' or fetal movement. Now groups want to say that life begins before an embryo has even implanted or differentaited.

RU-486 results in 1 death in 200,000 making it twice as safe as penicillian. Those people who have suffered the worst side effects were those who took it despite being having contra-indicating factors warning against its use.
(from religioustolerance.org)

RU-486 still has complications in 8-10% of cases requiring surgical follow up, which I think is what you're alluding to.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/>

But I thought these folks were ALL ABOUT women's health!

I used to think doctors were all about health too, but most of them don't seem to care.
I'm saying this as a guy who has met a fair number of doctors who were simply unable or unwilling to do simple diagnostic work. Apathy and negligence are problems throughout the medical profession. The number of unreported incidences of malpractice is high. A significant accident occurs in one out of three major operations, if memory serves. I could be off on this, I don't have time to google it. All I know is that I've had one friend injected with so much insulin that they went into a coma, and my mom had her teeth filed down by the dentist when she specifically asked for them not to be.

Vaginal administration of RU-486 isn't contra-indicated, however. It's an off-label use, which is different. You haven't really supported the notion that it should be banned (though from what I've googled on the NIH research, oral administration is far more effective.), or even supported the notion that that was in fact the cause of these women dying.

Bacterial infections are treatable, though some strains of S. Aureus are now resistant even to vancomycin, and starting to become resistant to the various fluroquinolones. But considering that they don't know the facts related to these women's cases, and that the infections weren't treated properly, it would seem that these women simply weren't receiving proper medical care to begin with in terms of follow up visits. That, rather than a pill, was the cause of their death. The "human at conception" camp opposes RU-486 for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting women's health.

When it comes down to it, abortion is still far safer than pregnancy. There were 399 deaths from pregnancy in 2001 alone.

Up until the late 1800s, 'quickening' or the time when fetal movements could be felt, was the point of no return for a pregnancy. The notion that 'life has always begun at conception' according to religious doctrine is simply not true. If you ask someone to show you a biblical passage that makes the claim that life begins at conception, I promise you they'll show you a passage that says somthing else entirely. Without fail. The notion that "people are fully human at conception" is literally the belief that undifferentiated cells are people.

But when even Bill Frist tried to argue that it should be slightly later, he was essentially shouted down by his own party who didn't want to hear it.

"42,443 deaths in USA 2001 (CDC); 42,401 deaths reported in USA 1999 for "motor vehicle accidents" (NVSR Sep 2001); 41,804 deaths in 2000 (CDC)" Deaths from Automobile Accidents

Clearly, your chances of being killed by a car are enormously larger than your chances of being killed by a terrorist. Bush would do a better job of protecting americans by removing automobiles than countering terrorism.

Technically, I live in the Bible Belt. I don't own a gun. Never have. Never shot anyone, never been shot. Don't know anyone who has been killed by a gun. Therefore, I can be certain that your statement about the Bible Belt is not only inaccurate but wildly so.

Can you perhaps point us to the statistics which show the percentage of those violent gun deaths committed with legally-registered weapons? How many were violent attacks, how many were self-defense? How many of the triggers were pulled by police, and how many by ne'er-do-wells bent on havoc and mischief?

The story you cited also showed that (e.g.) Great Britain experienced a significantly non-zero number of gun deaths, even though guns are outlawed there. Could you explain that for me?

This is a very complex subject, with many more factors involved than you've covered. Making blanket statements based on a few convenient facts and factoids weakens your argument rather than strengthening it.

I think you're thinking of beta-carotene.

How many people die of brain failure? I would think that death by natural causes is predominantly other organs failing / terminal diseases.

Crispin

I agree. Every day in the US, about 110 people die from auto 'accidents'.

The fact that we refer to them as 'accidents' and accept them as the norm is the true tragedy.

cars-r-coffins

I have to agree with the previous poster. Anything that affects the better part of 20% of the world's population isn't properly classified as a disorder.

The prevalence of myopia is about 25% among the adult population in the USA.

Does that mean it's not a disorder, that instead of wearing glasses we should have the other 75% be restricted to a minimum font size of 48pt (or preferably 96pt given my own ability to read my CRT from inches)?

Sure, one can argue whether it's better to view the ADHD or myopic population as falling inside one tail of a bell curve rather than having a qualitatively different 'disorder', but either way -- if there are treatments to improve the quality of life for those people, where's the problem in that?

Urine color is not an accurate measure of your fluid levels. One example you can find many more on google.

You may be surprised that 1 in 76 Americans are fully colorblind. 1 in 20, or fully 13.6 million people, are estimated to have red-green colorblindness. About 10% of Males: it does not typically affect females, since the gene responsible is tied to the Y chromosome.

That is a huge slice of the population, and I know there are some developers who don't pay attention, but a large number of them think about it at some point during product development, though it may not make as big a difference as it should.

People who are Red-Green colorblind can still do very well in life, but it makes many things more time consuming. It's not impossible to tell the difference between two colors - they are still a shade off in areas we can detect. It simply takes more time and staring to figure it out. Usually this is fine, but in games you don't get that kind of time.

I got the stats from here.

-Adam

In a country where thousands die annually in automobile accidents. here three billionaires are deliberately crashing cars just so they can have overpriced playthings to go joyriding in.

This whole fiasco is a metaphor for everything that's wrong with Microsoft, and by extension, America.