Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize Awarded for Stomach Ulcer Discovery

gollum123 writes to tell us the BBC is reporting that the Nobel prize for medicine has been awarded to two Australian scientists for their work with ulcers. Their research has shown that the majority of ulcers are caused by bacteria and can be cured with a short-term course of drugs and antibiotics. From the article: "Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium. The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas."

227 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. 1982! by Stile+65 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Nobel Prize committee is almost as slow as Slashdot. The actual discovery, per TFA, was made in 1982.

    --
    I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    1. Re:1982! by Sad+Loser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is cool becasue Barry Marshall was a junior doctor who saw something he couldn't explain and decided to investigate and test it, in classic geeky fashion. He even tested the theory by drinking H.Pylori and got the mother of all stomach aches afterwards.
      This proves that it is still possible to do great medical research in the mould (sorry) of Fleming and Penicillin, and you don't need a $100m research budget.

      He suffered a lot of problems getting the medical establishment to believe him, and it took at least 20 years, but once it did, the Nobel was bound to happen sooner or later.

      Good on you Bazza

      --
      Humorous signatures are over-rated.
    2. Re:1982! by viscount · · Score: 1, Funny

      Good afternoon

      This is an automated reply from the Nobel Committee to thank you for submitting your discovery.

      Your submission is currently in a queue and our evaluators will endeavour to deal with it within 15-20 years.

      Thank you

    3. Re:1982! by slavemowgli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be silly. The Nobel prize is pretty much the highest award you can receive in the fields where it is awarded - so it's certainly understandable that the committee wants to make sure that those who receive the prize really *have* made a ground-breaking discovery that deserves the prize. And waiting for some time to see what influence a discovery will have is pretty much the only way to find out.

      That being said, yes, the discovery was made in 1982, but it wasn't even *confirmed* until 1987, so it's not just the Nobel prize committee, either.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:1982! by mrogers · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stop bellyaching. It's a long journey from the first the germ of an idea to publishing a tract on the subject, digesting the feedback, ruminating on the implications, eliminating any remaining doubts and finally putting your theory to the acid test. Not everyone has the stomach for it.

    5. Re:1982! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, it too real guts to go bacter the lab...

    6. Re:1982! by Phreakiture · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Nobel Prize committee is almost as slow as Slashdot. The actual discovery, per TFA, was made in 1982.

      Similar to what I was going to post. I have known this since 1996 or so, when I heard a presentation by a Dr. Barach. He was saying that the cure for ulcers is tetracycline (antibiotic) and bismuth. In short, antibiotics with a shot of Pepto-Bismol should do it.

      The trouble with Dr. Barach knowing this is that, being a veterinarian, he was forbidden to use this knowledge on people. We have this taboo, which is sometimes codified into law (as it was where he practiced) that one person cannot be licenced as both a DVM and an MD.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    7. Re:1982! by VagaStorm · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know, if it takes 20 years to get the nobel and they dont give it post mortem.... well.... this might qualify you for a darwin rather than a nobel :p

    8. Re:1982! by shbazjinkens · · Score: 1

      If only I could go back in time to '82, with all of the knowledge that I have now...

    9. Re:1982! by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I propose to conduct a study to find a link between headaches and Slashdot posts with way, way too many puns in them.

      Oy... :)
      =Smidge=

    10. Re:1982! by dirtfox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Perhaps another reason for delay in acceptance of these findings, was that up until the early 90's the * worlds biggest selling drug * was one that inhibits stomach acid production and under patent - unlike cheap as beans & generic broad spectrum antibiotics.

      Rather chilling when you consider one of the body's mechanisms of protection against bacteria is stomach acidity. Hence why European versions of this drug include the ancient antibiotic bismuth (also found in a famous pink stomach medicine)

      So treating a symptom and possibly making it worse in the long run; good business plan - almost as graceful as nicotine enlarging airways and easing breathing: early adverts recommended cigarettes as a cure for bronchitis!

    11. Re:1982! by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is cool becasue Barry Marshall was a junior doctor who saw something he couldn't explain and decided to investigate and test it, in classic geeky fashion.

      This is what religious fundamentalists/people who push intelligent design will never understand. From the article: The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas. That's the beauty of true science, it's a quest for truth regardless of what was previously "known". If you discover something that conflicts with earlier thinking, not only are you recognized, but you're celebrated. This is because truth, not of centuries of tradition, is the motivating factor behind science.

      I mean, just think about what faith is... No matter how much evidence goes against what you believe, you will still believe it anyway. Simply because it was told to you by your parents and your local wizard. It must be pretty amazing that out of the hundreds of religions all over the face of the Earth you happened to be born into the one "right" religion. Science doesn't care where you come from, or who your parents are, it's all the same search for truth. Science is much more unifying than religion.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    12. Re:1982! by kzinti · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Nobel Prize committee is almost as slow as Slashdot. The actual discovery, per TFA, was made in 1982.

      Yeah, but I bet the Nobel Committee only gives them the prize once.

    13. Re:1982! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You'd be right, except for the fact that God told me you were wrong.

    14. Re:1982! by DrHanser · · Score: 2, Informative

      What the fuck are you on about? H. pylori is treated with a combination of two drugs at a time. Usually amoxicillin and clarithromycin (Biaxin) or Amox + metronidazole (Flagyl). These aren't new or drugs specifically designed to target H. pylori. They're broad-spectrum antibiotics used for many things.

      --
      What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
    15. Re:1982! by DrHanser · · Score: 1

      Alexander Fleming was a hack who accidentally discovered penicillin, and then made the bone-headed statement that it would never be significant or medically useful. He was hardly a "great" scientist.

      --
      What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
    16. Re:1982! by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

      Dr. Lester Crawford, our FDA commissioner, is a veterinarian.

      Check this out.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    17. Re:1982! by cluckshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember this when you hear all the talk about cholestrol and the drugs to treat it.... (Just a hint)

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    18. Re:1982! by emh203 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In your statement above, replace intelligent design with macro evolution and religious fundamentalist with mainstream scientist and see how it reads. The guys fought against OTHERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for YEARS trying to show that they were right. Religious fundamentalists arent the only ones to exhibit such closed minded properties. As I have stated in other posts, scientists have funding that are dependent on 'success'. I work at a research lab in academia. People aren't always after the truth. They are after way to make the funding keep coming in. I am not saying everyone is like this, but a scientific view that goes against the mainstream tends to loose funding. Your view of science of this happy place where everyone accepts new ideas no matter your background is somewhat naive.

    19. Re:1982! by UttBuggly · · Score: 1

      Well, sportsfan, your Dr. Barach is an ass. H. Pylori is not easy to diagnose...requires an endoscopic procedure. It's not easy to treat. The regimen is TWO antibiotics and an acid blocker like Nexium or Prevacid for 30 days. The rate of recurrence is 5-20%. I was in that group and did the "triple threat" treatment all over again. After 5 years being symptom free, I just had my 5th EGD (dope and scope) and was informed that the years of damage by H. Pylori have given me Barrett's Esophagus, a tissue change that can lead to cancer. This didn't happen overnight...it took over 20 years. If some of the doctors I saw during that time had been looking for H. Pylori, I might have avoided this.

      --
      I am my own gestalt.
    20. Re:1982! by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me how this guy being ignored and downplayed for 20 years by people who claim to be searching for knowledge is any different than a group of people who may not claim to be searching for scientific truth not beleiving something which may contradict what they see with their own eyes (Galileo)? Looks like dogma rises in all classes of society, not just religion.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    21. Re:1982! by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of true science, it's a quest for truth regardless of what was previously "known". If you discover something that conflicts with earlier thinking, not only are you recognized, but you're celebrated.

      Of course being celebrated often comes long after years of being told you're an idiot, persecuted and maybe not until years after yoiur death.

      And let's not forget that its not the "religious fundamentalists" who are the naysayers/persecuters. In most cases (including Darwin's evolution) its the other scientists who have the most difficult time accepting something new.

    22. Re:1982! by Toutatis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It does have its dupes too.

    23. Re:1982! by kangman · · Score: 1

      "Science is much more unifying than religion." Please. Science gives more creedance to those who would advocate their own agendas. We're still sorting through the mess of Darwinism and people's appropriations of it for their own ends. i.e. social darwinism of the 1930's. And now with the misappropriation of Levitt's "Freakanomics" so a White House offical says on national radio that if we abort all black babies the crime rate will drop. Faith is not just some propaganda parental unit espouse to their brood. Its a personal choice. How that person grew up and what he/she has took in comes in as a factor but in the end its a decision they have to make for themselves. At the extremes of the sciences everything is in flux. Uncertainty and paradox are even accepted! Axioms fell apart with Gödel's proof. Science also has a tendency to cater to the priviledged since its expensive to run those labs and make those medicines. Science apparently, doesn't care what color or creed you are but it does care about your income.

      --
      sig here
    24. Re:1982! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, you can do two things to have proper cholesterol and blood pressure.

      OPTION 1. Excersise. Muscle fat will cause more BP problems than fat on outside. Salt buildup is the major cause of high BP. Aerobic excercise for a few hours every week (you have to sweat :) will get rid off the salt builtup.

      For proper cholesterol, well, stop eating *#$#$#* crap fats. Cholesterol is made by your liver based on the type of fat you eat.

      Polyunsaturated fat - lowers total cholesterol levels
      Unsaturated fat - increases good cholesterol
      Saturated fat - increases bad cholesteros
      Transfat - liquid plastic that'll make sure you get a quad bypass.

      So excercise and eat good fats (poly/unsat to sat ratios matter. Good is olive oil. Bad is pig lard or coconat oil) instead of crap and your cholestorol and BP will be good.

      My BP used to be 160/90. Now excercising for two years and it is 110/70. Still have to watch the salt intake and if I eat too much I'll have to go "excrete" it, but whatever.Salt retention in the evolutionary time scale was a good thing because you need it to prevent dehydration hence most people's bodies tend to store too much of it. And now they eat too much of it and you have the results we have.

      OPTION 2. Get pills and pills for pills. You will need statins that can screw you liver. These will set you back a few hundred $$$ a year. Then you will need some high BP medication. That will set you back a little too. Now the problem remains with extra fat causing all sorts of problems including cancers. You will probably need drungs for that...

      Now you are old, fat on all sorts of drugs. Probably can't move around very well. Well, you will probably get some drugs so you can stare out the window.

      But whatever. Most people WILL chose the 2nd option because it *seems* easier. It is, in the short term. Very short term.

      A human body is a machine that will break if you DO NOT use it!

    25. Re:1982! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Dr. Lester Crawford, our FDA commissioner, is a veterinarian.

      Dr. Crawford has a DVM and a PhD in pharmacology. He is not an MD.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    26. Re:1982! by BigDukeSix · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Whilst I agree that drug companies (like all companies) are money-driven, the reasons for the lengthy acceptance time for this particular discovery are complex and rooted in the medicine:

      1) H. pylori is very common in the general population (not just people with ulcers). If it's a causative agent, why do comparatively few people with H. pylori get ulcers?

      2) The inflammation that makes un ulcer hurt also destroys H. pylori. Ergo, no bacteria in the ulcer under a microscope, and no bacteria on cultures.

      The drugs you mention were so successful because they, along with the work recognized by the Nobel committee, have largely eliminated the need for ulcer surgery, which used to be among the most common operations performed. In retrospect it seems obvious to look for an infectious etiology, but that's why they've been awarded the prize, I guess.

    27. Re:1982! by JavaTHut · · Score: 1

      I mean, just think about what faith is...

      Faith is what Dr. Marshall had when he injected himself with a bacteria everyone else said had no simple cure.

      Faith is what the disciples had when the established governments ridiculed christ.

      Simply because it was told to you by your parents and your local wizard.

      There's a big difference between faith in a personal rationalization that just because we do not yet have the means to understand an entity greater than ourselves it can not exist, and the blind following of parents and wizards.

      God is bigger than our finites minds can fully comprehend, yet we accept and form our own understanding of what God is based on the limited amount we can comprehend rather than outright rejecting him (it). That is faith. It's also the basis of significance testing.

      It must be pretty amazing that out of the hundreds of religions all over the face of the Earth you happened to be born into the one "right" religion.

      There are plenty of faiths out there which do not support that notion and embrace scientific thinking.

    28. Re:1982! by JamesD_UK · · Score: 1
      Well, sportsfan, your Dr. Barach is an ass. H. Pylori is not easy to diagnose...requires an endoscopic procedure.

      It hasn't required an endoscopic procedure for some time as it can now be detected through antibodies in a blood sample. I've had one only a few months ago. I presume that an endoscopy would primaily be used to investigate the damage that it had caused and not purely as a diagnostic test.

    29. Re:1982! by UttBuggly · · Score: 1

      Yes, the blood test will show a likely infection, but tissue samples and visual examination are definitive; the blood test is not.

      --
      I am my own gestalt.
    30. Re:1982! by JamesD_UK · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong but I don't believe the visual examination shows the presense of helicobacter itself. It'll show ulcers which indicate a helicobacter infection. You can have a helicobacter and not show any visual signs. I guess the tissue samples are the definitive test :-)

    31. Re:1982! by yorkpaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do I need anyone to "approve" a drug for me. The FDA has no business telling me what I can and cannot put into my body. If I thought the guy had a point, why should the government tell me I can't take his medicine. Oh, thats right, I need a perscription, so someone else (a doctor) can tell me what I can and cannot put into my body. You people are quick to blame the big bad drug companies, but look at the FDA too. Big drug companies are the only ones that have the money to wade through the approval process, it is impossible for a small guy to get a drug approved and marketed on his own.

      --
      "brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'
    32. Re:1982! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Or you could just drink kefir and cure your ulcer.

      Science sucks big time especially applied to medicine. Allopathy sucks.

      The big question which was never answered is why are the bacteria there in the first place? There has been absolutely no new knowledge gained, he just discovered a better bandaid.

    33. Re:1982! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Just drink kefir.

      How dumb is our whole society? There are mechanisms in the body to take care of these things, just fix/use the mechanisms.

      Fricken allopathic crap.

    34. Re:1982! by Frangible · · Score: 1

      The world's biggest selling drug has been Premarin for many years.

    35. Re:1982! by Fishead · · Score: 2, Funny

      This shbazjinkens is brilliant, he comes from out of nowhere, with no record of any education, and publishes AMAZING papers in various fields. He is a true genius. The only thing I don't understand, is why all of his research papers are sub-titled "First post! 1 R teh 3133 h4x0r5!!11!1eleven!!one!".

    36. Re:1982! by SD_92104 · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on how willing your doctors are to accept new ideas (and probably as well how screwed up the whole healthcare system is - not allowing new treatments and ideas in order to avoid class action lawsuits and other things hindering progress...)

      When I had my first ulder in 1989 (you don't even want to know how old I was back then...), my doctor told me about the whole H.pylori thing. The problem was that another doctor (who didn't know about this yet) had already started me on antibiotics by the time I had an endoscopy done so those poor little buggers had already decided to leave...

    37. Re:1982! by n6kuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmmm..
      I'll bet what you need to make you feel better is some of Professor Smith's Patented Emulsified Snake Oil (cures all manner of discomfort and sickness, you know).

      Here, have a swig...

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    38. Re:1982! by matfud · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A ground-breaking discovery usually confers little to no "benefit to humanity" in the year it is made. Sometimes it does take decades for humanity to benefit from the discovery (and more importantly prove the discovery is valid).

      If the awards were given out in the manner you recommend then the two new Lauriates would never have received thier prizes. Thier discovery was not recognised in the year they made it. Just because it takes a long time to convince the medical comunity that your discovery is valid should not mean that you are inelegible for a prize.

      Wouldn't it be irritating if two amazing, world changing discoveries, were made in the same field in the same year (a cure for cancer and a vaccine for AIDS perhaps). Who would you pick? The way they currently allocate the awards they have a degree of flexibility

    39. Re:1982! by Retric · · Score: 1

      First off they ignored / downplayed him instead of actively harassing him. Galileo dealt with people who where unwilling to look at direct evidence, such as the fact the sun is not a perfect sphere even though you can look at his instrument and see that it's not. This guy dealt with people that where looking at evidence that seemed to contradict him and still ended up accepting what he was saying. (If you cut out an ulcer there is no living infection that you can see.)

      To have an accepted theory overturned to the point where nobody is debating him in 20 years is a fast turnover when compared with the type of people who still debate evolution.

    40. Re:1982! by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Lots of good discussion. As for Dr. Barach, he did a number of speaking tours, and someone I know had given me an audio tape of one of his presentations. I don't know when the tape was made.

      The points about the research are well taken. As a vet, Dr. Barach was able to fast-track his knowledge into practical use, because his patients weren't likely to sue him. Whether or not that makes him an ass is another matter.

      To the fellow who had the triple-threat approach, I notice that one of the items in the triple threat is an pre-emptive acid reducer; probably not a bad idea. Dr. Barach's approach pre-dates Nexium by at least a year. I'm glad you are on the mend, and thank you for the input on the process.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    41. Re:1982! by klept · · Score: 1

      Another description for it would be called having an open mind. The start of where all progress begins, whether science or otherwise.

    42. Re:1982! by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of true science, it's a quest for truth regardless of what was previously "known". If you discover something that conflicts with earlier thinking, not only are you recognized, but you're celebrated.

      Unless the previously known belief is evolution.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    43. Re:1982! by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. If God is omnipotent he has to be able to intervene in the natural universe. If every observation we make is suspect because God could have changed something then science becomes useless.

      My position is that if God has made any changes in the past they have been indistinguishable from "natural" phenomena. Such an argument allows for the existence of God, does not diminish His power (as the watch maker theory does), and is logically consistent.

      However, the argument also allows that everything could change tomorrow. God could make universal constants variable, throw a monkey wrench in physical laws, and cause people to blink out of existence. None of that is of any consequence to science today though. Today's science is about making falsifiable predictions based on past observation.

    44. Re:1982! by king-manic · · Score: 1

      In your statement above, replace intelligent design with macro evolution and religious fundamentalist with mainstream scientist and see how it reads. The guys fought against OTHERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY for YEARS trying to show that they were right. Religious fundamentalists arent the only ones to exhibit such closed minded properties. As I have stated in other posts, scientists have funding that are dependent on 'success'. I work at a research lab in academia. People aren't always after the truth. They are after way to make the funding keep coming in. I am not saying everyone is like this, but a scientific view that goes against the mainstream tends to loose funding. Your view of science of this happy place where everyone accepts new ideas no matter your background is somewhat naive.

      They are not the same. Scientific inertia is different from religious dogma. The cause is the same but one never changes (or chages orthoganally to the evidence) while another will eventually change with enoughe evidence.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    45. Re:1982! by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      Which has been a magnet for criticism for its own reasons. The manufacturer pushed really hard for legislation that generics must be identical in all manners - not just active ingredient, but inert ingredients as well.

      As an aside, I know that most drugs come from stange places, but did you know from where the name "Premarin" came? PREgnant MARe's urINe. Yep. Horse piss. MMMMM-MMM GOOD!

      --
      ± 29 dB
    46. Re:1982! by gordonb · · Score: 1

      It took even longer than that. Rokitansky first described "spiral bacilli" in the stomach in the 1870's - a finding that was ignored and forgotten for 100 years. If you've ever heard Dr. Marshall talk, he relates this as an example of how few discoveries are actually new.

    47. Re:1982! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And you demonstrate your ignorance in not understanding that it is precisely the excessive acidic response that H.Pylori stimulates that is responsible for gastritis/ulceration. IT elaborates an enzyme which creates a locally alkaline environment such that the stomach lining over-secretes HCl.

    48. Re:1982! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Why do I need anyone to "approve" a drug for me. The FDA has no business telling me what I can and cannot put into my body. If I thought the guy had a point, why should the government tell me I can't take his medicine.
      You might try reading the history of the Pure Food and Drug Act - then you'll understand why the FDA exists.
      Oh, thats right, I need a perscription, so someone else (a doctor) can tell me what I can and cannot put into my body.
      Absolutely incorrect - you are completely free to put whatever you want into your body.
    49. Re:1982! by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      3) Blacks have a higher crime rate than non-blacks. This is a fact, whether you like it or not.

      Blacks are arrested and convicted at higher rates than certain non-blacks, that is correct. Whether they actually do commit more crimes is very much up for debate however; many people consider that claim to be racist without supporting evidence, which has not been provided.

    50. Re:1982! by Frangible · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the extraction of the urine is seen by some as unethical, and premarin introduced into the water supply has been indicated in an increase in gynecomastia in males... don't flush your pills, kids.

    51. Re:1982! by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      Faith is what Dr. Marshall had when he injected himself with a bacteria everyone else said had no simple cure.

      He swallowed it, he didn't inject himself. Everyone else said the bacteria wouldn't do any harm; he believed that they would cause gastritis, which they did. The simple cure was there from the beginning: antibiotics.

    52. Re:1982! by infomorelos · · Score: 1

      I don't know what those guys promised to the jury. Their 'discovery' should be taken with care, how about that stress affects your immune system and with a weakened immune system is more likely to be infected with a virus or bacteria. This means that in the end it IS the stress which is responsible for the ulcers, not a bacteria that can be eliminated from the body under sane conditions.

    53. Re:1982! by ProfDD · · Score: 1

      The author of the NYTimes article on this was Lawrence K. Altman, author of "Who Goes First", a gooed book on medical self-experimentation.

    54. Re:1982! by burnetd · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'am a troll am I, or does someone work for a pharmaceutical company.

    55. Re:1982! by burnetd · · Score: 1

      Now yes, pre 1996 no, despite H. Pylori's connection to human ulcers being known for around ten years by then (Vet's have known about it since the 1930's). The Drug Company mantra was that 50% of People (U.K. figures) have H. Pylori infections, they don't all get ulcers therefore H. Pylori does not have anything to do with ulcers. The standard treatment back then was expensive drugs designed to reduce the release of acid in the stomach (H2 blockers IIRC).

      The twist they didn't mention was that the 50% contained something like 99% of all ulcer sufferers.

      They were also working on specific H. pylori anti-biotics. Again Drug company line was you can't just wipe out your stomach flora. This is actually fairly responsible, but doctors are so cautious with anti-biotics there days aren't they prescribing them for anything, even the old doctor stand by of "It's a virus", that the specific ones never got a look in over the cheap generic anti-biotics.

  2. Ughhh..... by segedunum · · Score: 2, Funny

    .....that's giving me indigestion.

  3. Infected himself? by Alranor · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium. The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas."

    Only in Australia would scientists prove how a medical condition occurs by deliberately infecting themselves with it.

    Nice one mates :)

    1. Re:Infected himself? by yobbo · · Score: 1

      One of the doctors is from my home town of Adelaide, so I suspect another motive for the self infection...

    2. Re:Infected himself? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny
      One of the doctors is from my home town of Adelaide, so I suspect another motive for the self infection...

      Boredom?

    3. Re:Infected himself? by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 1

      I'm from Adelaide too, but don't quite understand what you mean. Care to elaborate?

      --

      Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

    4. Re:Infected himself? by Profound · · Score: 1

      No - to make the water taste better.

    5. Re:Infected himself? by gowen · · Score: 1

      His first comment : "Tastes better than that Fosters shit we sell to the Poms."

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  4. I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by SpacePunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He actually found a cause, and proposed a cure. Most modern barbers are happy to continually treat symptoms since that's what brings in the big bucks.

    1. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised he didn't end up dead

      Come on, how many people do you know who died from ulcers?

      Common medical theory at the time was that the bacteria couldn't survive a gastral war in the stomach. Turned out that it was just very slow to grow.

    2. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by aug24 · · Score: 1

      OK, who the hell's calling a low-fives userid a Troll? I'll see you outside, now!

      Good, now he's gone, we can talk.

      I agree: there's a lot of money in palliatives, and what's more the patient will keep buying. Cures, on the other hand, tend to get just the one sale.

      I'm currently on peppermints(!) for the evil stomach cramps I've been having for a while. It's a perfect cure... provided I keep buying peppermint capsules for the rest of my life. Not only that, but (I now know) many many people are on the same treatment programme, and there's no likelihood of a cure - or even a cause. That's cos there's a cash cow sitting there, and nobody in the pharms industry will want it to go away.

      And *that's* why these two deserve a Nobel Prize. Parent is insightful, so there.

      Justin.
      PS: Can't wait to get prescribed gobstoppers for migraines ;-)

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    3. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by jone1941 · · Score: 1

      That's too funny, I read it completely differently. I was under the impression that:
      I'm surprised he didn't end up dead

      as:
      I'm surprised I they didn't find him conveniently stabbed to death

      As in people selling treatments making a lot of money don't like young doctors coming up and taking those profits away.

      --
      Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
    4. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Yes, lets look at people's user ids when judging them, not what they actually say! Remember, the earlier you signed up, the more important your opinions are!

      What a wonderful community!

    5. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Why is this modded insightful. He did not find a cause, why is the bacteria there in the first place?

      He didn't propose a cure since he doesn't know the cause. He proposed a bandaid for a symptom, that's it.

    6. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      The question is, why is your stomach in knots?

      I'm serious, try kefir. Lots of stomach cramps are because of tons of crap inside you that needs to be cleaned out. If it's cramps and air problems, with back pain then you need to learn proper posture. YOur body is a machine like a car, take a car out of alignment and it is NOT going to function properly.

    7. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      almost forgot. Peppermint is a relaxant. Hence, why are you tense?

    8. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by nido · · Score: 1
      But what if the "cause" is really just a symptom? And the H. pylori (which just about everyone has) is only taking over to clean up a different condition?

      Ulcers are really just a degenerative disease:
      All degenerative disease begins as a relatively acid condition in the tissues of the body. These tissues become oxidized, diseased and old.

      Pleomorphic organisms come out of this acid environment, from elements in the blood in order to clean up these old, diseased, tissues. Bacteria are being found in the diseased tissues of all chronic, degenerative diseases. The Atlantic Monthly, A New Germ Theory by Judith Hooper, February 1999.) These bacteria are there as a result, not the cause. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was wrong, these organisms are not caught from the outside, they come from within.

      -The Cause of Degenerative Disease (emphasis added)

      Most modern barbers are happy to continually treat symptoms since that's what brings in the big bucks.

      Don't be too hard on today's doctors: they do the best they can, with the training they've been through at medical schools '0wned' by the pharmaceutical industry. :)

      But if you want a real doctor, you gotta find an Osteopath who sticks to their profession's philosophical origin.

      On a related note, The Best of Steve Martin Saturday Night Live DVD has a skit called Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber...
      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    9. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      What drugs have you been taking?

      Because you seriously need to get that paranoia seen to.

      -Nano.

    10. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... do you have more sense of humour after coffee?

      If you read again, you'll note that I agreed with the OP and was expressing surprise that he had been moderated Troll. So you could say that I did judge him on what he said. If you understood.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    11. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Regular chiropractic, good posture, not 'backed up' ;-) My doctor has no idea why, but peppermints have entirely fixed the situation... for the moment. We'll see how it goes.

      I shall hit google for 'kefir' shortly. Thanks.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    12. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by Goaway · · Score: 1

      No, you expressed surprise that someone would call a person with a low user id a troll. Let me just quote that for you:

      OK, who the hell's calling a low-fives userid a Troll?

    13. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by aug24 · · Score: 1

      See line 3 in my reply to the OP, where I went on to say "I agree". Then STFU and get a life.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    14. Re:I'm surprised he didn't end up dead by Goaway · · Score: 1

      I don't give a fuck who you agree with, I'm just calling you out for being an asshole who apparently thinks being among the first tens of thousands of people to sing up for a website makes you oh so special.

  5. A likely story by aussie_a · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

    Yeah, yeah. I'm sure he was trying to find the cause of ulcers. Pffft. Why doesn't he just admit it. He wanted to become a super-hero so he infected himself. He forgot one important step. The bacteria was supposed to be radioactive first!

    1. Re:A likely story by Alranor · · Score: 1

      I can just imagine it now

      "Is it a bird? Is it a Plane?"

      "No, it's H. Pylori man and his incredible crippling stomach pain ray"

      Hmm.

      Surely if he wanted to be able to do that to people he'd be better off just selling those pie floater things my Aussie wife keeps trying to convince me are actually quite tasty?

  6. Inflammation by iamplupp · · Score: 2, Informative

    This was one of the first discovieries but today we know that inflammation is the cause, or at least plays an important role, in lots if other diseases. Heart disease, rheumatism, diabetes, etc.

    1. Re:Inflammation by chinodelosmuertos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Inflammation isn't really the CAUSE, per se. Peptic ulcer is due to a hypersecretion of stomach acid. H. pylori attacks the D cells in the stomach that normally turn off acid secretion in the parietal cells. It probably directly affects ECL cells (they release histamine, a potent mediator for the release of acid) and also directly stimulates the HCl producing parietal cells as well. The acid doesn't really cause inflammation, it erodes the mucous protective layer in the stomach, which can either perforate through into your abdominal cavity, penetrate your intestines and create a fistula, or erode your stomach wall causing bleeding. The only way you'd really get inflammation is if you get irritation of your abdominal cavity, but then it's not just an ulcer, it's peritonitis due to your ulcer. So the problem with the ulcer per se isn't the inflammation. It's the erosion of the gastric lining leading to perforation or penetration.

      As for inflammation being involved in heart disease, rheumatoid and diabetes... Yes. Sorta. Heart disease slightly, depending on what heart disease you mean. Rheumatoid for sure. Type 1 diabetes is caused by an autoimmune attack on your pancreatic beta cells. Might cause a little inflammation but the attack is specific to the beta cells. (inflammation is a non-specific response to a foreign antigen) Type 2 diabetes... the kind fat people get.... not inflammatory at all. It's due to your peripheral body no longer responding to insulin (look up GLUT4 receptors if you want)

      Hope that cleared things up.
  7. My kingom for... by xtracto · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I would love to see a similar discovery for the IBS.

    How much is can someone pay for a cure of something that can not be cured?

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:My kingom for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      look up the work of Joel V. Weinstock. I 've seen him present his data and it's astonishing. Basically the premise of his work is the hygiene hypothesis... we get things like asthma and IBS / Crohns because we are too clean. He has treated his IBS patients with a gut worm with great success.

    2. Re:My kingom for... by joshv · · Score: 1

      Try eating low carb. Do it for at least a month.

    3. Re:My kingom for... by aug24 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Peppermint oil.

      Seriously - been on them for a week, no symptoms. Not a cure, but a hell of a better life.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    4. Re:My kingom for... by war3rd · · Score: 1

      Have you tried kefir? Many folks have had success, in fact Dom's Kefir in-site has a bit more in this as well. Yoghurt is technically pro-biotic, but it's effects are only temporary while Kefir can actually repopulate the mucosal lining of your GI tract with beneficial bacteria (which people often mistake yoghurt with doing) and many people have found kefir to help them in sundry ways. The only problem is that almost all store bought kefir is not made from scratch and therefore not nearly as potent as the home-made stuff. Give it a try, it couldn't hurt!

      --
      Got sushi? The Sushi FAQ
    5. Re:My kingom for... by segedunum · · Score: 1

      It's nice to hear it's not just me suffering from IBS. I contemplated many causes of my symptoms, including colon cancer. It seems to be something you just live with, and find a diet and a way of treating it that calms it down.

      I actually had a lump that I could feel in my bowels (hence the cancer scare) but realised that it was related to my diet and how I was at any time. I've found that increasing the fibre in my diet dramatically eases the pain and discomfort, although you can feel yourself needing to go more often and wanting to let rip in many situations you don't want to!

    6. Re:My kingom for... by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
      Tried it, but it didn't help. But it sure made my shit smell nice. (And this isn't some lame attempt at humor, it really did leave the bathroom smelling like someone had sprayed the place with minty freshness.)

      I'll tell you what did help me. I had a sigmoidoscopy. A month later, after a decade of suffering, it improved dramatically (not a complete cure though). It was as if my body had decided it couldn't take that kind of abuse again!

    7. Re:My kingom for... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Well, I have been suffering this since I was in the middle of undergraduate (I was something like 20 years old). Nowadays I am 23, First I feared it was appendicitis (during the first days i started to feel the disconfort).

      Personally I have IBS-C (the constipation one), I have tried a lot of things, medication (Meveberine, pinaverium bromide) but do not like to take them for a lot of time and, they do not help 100%.

      I also tried what another poster said, Peppermint Oil, again I think it kind of helped a bit and I also take this Fybogel fiber supplement.

      I have also changed my diet a lot, you see I am from Mexico and as you may know there we use to eat a lot of chilly and spicy meat but I stop eating all that a long time ago, I usually also take poldrige for breakfast and dinner.

      As you say, I also have had the scare of cancer, but after going to different doctors they all tell me it is IBS, and I have read a lot about that on the internet and also a lot of people tend to say it is a thing about anxiety and other psychological problems.

      I am quite anxious and nervous so I think that may be. The thing I have been doing lately (just started like one week ago) is hypnotheraphy. I have been reading about it lately and it *seems* to help a lot. Personally I downloaded a bunch of mp3's from Emule (just search for 'ibs hypnosis'without the quotes ). And I will see how that works (it usually takes about a month or so they say).

      But as you say, at the end it seems to be a *thing* we have to live with, I find that frustrating as It really interferes with the normal life, but in the other side it was because of IBS that I started going to the gym regularly, so as I read one page, IBS could make me/us healthier than the normal person because we are caring more for our body... who knows.

      At the end, sometimes I would just want to have an operation and replace my bowel with a new one, hope those guys at Australia hurry up with their self organ growing cells (or whatever they are, it seemed a great finding for me).

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    8. Re:My kingom for... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      hahaha

      At least my girlfriend wont be so pissed of when I fart O_o
      Imagine "mmmm what is that smell dear? suddenly I would like to eat a Mint Lamb Kebab!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:My kingom for... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      umm, kefir? Cured me and all my autoimmune disorders.

      Look at it this way, just try it, you have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. It's freely available off the internet, or about $5 off ebay. Since it's a SCOBY you just feed it milk and it keeps producing kefir.

    10. Re:My kingom for... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Too clean is the wrong word. Too dead is more correct. Hell, advertisements actually use the words kill and destroy for cleaning products! And that's exactly what they do, they kill all living things, we're just bigger so it takes longer.

    11. Re:My kingom for... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      YOu're an animal. You NEED to let go when your body tells you to let go. Tension leads to tetnus, which leads to bad digestion and difficult bowel movements.

      You apparently haven't contemplated that YOU are the cause of your disorder. You are the deciding factor of all the inputs of your body, and the action of the outputs. You ultimately are the cause.

      I spent over 20 years trying to find a cure outside of me in the medical community. When i decided i was the problem i cured myself in a year.

    12. Re:My kingom for... by soren100 · · Score: 1

      Acutally, there is a lot of evidence that IBS is caused by parasites

      Despite "overwhelming circumstantial evidence incriminating (Dientamoeba fragilis) as a pathogen" (JJ Windsor & EH Johnson, Br.J.Biomed Sci 1999), as well as decades of published research showing Blastocystis hominis can also cause symptoms, many health professionals continue to question the validity of this research.Despite "overwhelming circumstantial evidence incriminating (Dientamoeba fragilis) as a pathogen" (JJ Windsor & EH Johnson, Br.J.Biomed Sci 1999), as well as decades of published research showing Blastocystis hominis can also cause symptoms, many health professionals continue to question the validity of this research."

      So this link is questioned, but so was the link between ulcer and the bacteria. It would probably be a good avenue to pursue. I remember seeing that IBS or a similar ailment was cured by having a person drink the eggs of some parasite that could not infect humans. The idea was that this would train an overactive immune system to not target the bowel, but it could also alert the immune system to the presence of parasite and maybe coordinate a more effective attack on them. All I remember is that it took care of the symptoms. This is for Crohn's disease, I don't know how similar that is to IBS. But here is the link:

      http://www.ucsfhealth.org/childrens/health_library /reuters/2004/12/20041214elin004.html

  8. Best way to find a cure... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Infect the researchers.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  9. willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now if only the evolutionists had someone like that working with them!
    Oops, here come the monkey police to mod me into oblivion, proving the point.

    1. Re:willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas by top_down · · Score: 2, Informative

      Willingness is not the problem. Disproving evolution would make you famous and rich. The problem is the enormous amount evidence against you:

      http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

      --
      Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
    2. Re:willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas by Vario · · Score: 1

      Seems like the mods don't recognize sarcasm ...

  10. Obvious by simong_oz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Possibly the best quote from a scientist ever (my emphasis):

    From another BBC article

    Mr Warren said he was a "little overcome" by the award.

    "It is nice to be officially recognised and it gives some sort of a stamp of approval, but we believed it within a few months because it was so bloody obvious," he told reporters.

    --
    "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
    1. Re:Obvious by sstidman · · Score: 1

      That is interesting. To me, it underscores the biases that exist in the sciences. I roll my eyes when I hear folks defend scientists and suggest that they reach all of their conclusions through empirical evidence and ration. Scientists are just human beings subject to the whims of their own biases, so even when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, the entire body of the scientific community can be very hard to make admit their mistake. I suppose that's why I'm always more cautious than everybody else in assuming that if scientists say something is true, then it must be.

      --
      Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
  11. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    IIRC veterinarians have known how to cure ulcers in pigs since the 30's. The treatment is Bismuth and an antibiotic. Bismuth is found in that wonderful pink stuff: Pepto-Bismol. Very simple treatment. Not some new super drug that has all sorts of nasty side effects.

  12. Look at that picture! by jettoki · · Score: 1

    Stomach Ulcer or 'Brain' from Ninja Turtles?
    Dr. Marshall was aided in his research by four unnamed heroes. Says Marshall: "When the stomach ulcer attacked, those boys didn't cut it no slack."

  13. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by gtoomey · · Score: 1

    Its a simple breath test, and you as generaly given antibiotics & bismuth.

  14. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    How stringent are the doctors in testing if you have an ulcer or not before handing out the drugs?

    They're usually not too bad on testing for the ulcer itself. Unfortuately, they are quite happy to hand out powerful drugs for anything that appears to be gastritis.

    The upshot is that the drugs they will give you (primarily antibiotics) are for short term use, and aren't that different from what they tend to give people "just in case". Though I have to wonder if some of the stomach damage isn't caused by reckless use of antibiotics. The human stomach is inteded to have a variety of bacteria to aid in digestion. Using antibiotics tends to nail ALL bacteria, including the stuff you want to keep.

    Yogurt with live cultures is a good way of replacing Acidophilus, but if you've recently had antibiotics, you might want to think about a bottle of bacterial supplements. These can be had in pill form, but you *must* keep it cold and pay attention to the expiration date.

  15. About time! by ashridah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About time this happened.

    My mother was the unfortunate sufferer of a stomach ulcer for almost 30 years of her life.

    One day, her doctor finds out she has it (after all, who keeps trying to fix a 30 year old condition that hasn't killed you yet?), and gives her the newly recognised course of broad-spectrum anti-biotics & neutralisers (since the stomach is kinda hard to treat, acidic n all, tends to destroy the anti-biotics before they have an effect ;) ), and a month later, she's fine!

    It's scary how long it took for the standard opinion to get torn down, and how simple the final answer really was! In hindsight, the original theory sounds decidedly suspicious. Stress, indeed.

    ashridah

    1. Re:About time! by TGK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After his work in .au, the good doctor came to work at the University of Virginia (just up the road from me) where he treated, among other people, a fair chunk of my wife's family. It seems the bacteria in question is rampant throughout the ground water system in Natural Bridge VA.

      Re-infection can be a serious problem for people in areas like that. Apparently much of his work at UVA dealt with susceptibility studies and clustering. Fascinating guy.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:About time! by rikkards · · Score: 1

      This a common thread. People forget doctors are people too. They are trained well but at times may miss things (From reading your post it sounded like she had never mentioned it) and may trivialize things. I know a guy who went to his doctor as he had a rash on his legs. She said it was a heat rash and it ended up being shingles.

      Point is that sometimes it is best to question your doctor and get a second opinion. If it seems like your doctor is dismissing something, question them about it.

    3. Re:About time! by tephelan · · Score: 1

      I had it when I was a teenager in the late 70's and was finally cured in 92. It was very painful.
      Thanks for the cure!

  16. Ouch by Seoulstriker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's too bad that the Nobel Prize was created to reward promising new scientists and to give them enough funding to continue pursuing their research unabated. I know that the society deviates from its original purpose, but the fact still remains that the Nobel Prize selection procedure is about 10-20 years too late to make the impact it was designed for.

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
    1. Re:Ouch by Alranor · · Score: 1

      the Nobel Prize was created to reward promising new scientists and to give them enough funding to continue pursuing their research unabated

      I thought the Nobel prize was originally created because Alfred Nobel didn't want his name to be forever associated with the fact that he'd invented dynamite?

      see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize#Nobel.27s _Will

    2. Re:Ouch by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That is completely wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of the Fields Medal in mathematics? That is sometimes described as the 'mathematics equivalent of the Nobel prize', but the selection criteria is quite different; it recognizes both existsing work and future potential, and you have to be aged 40 or under to receive it.

      The Nobel prize, on the other hand, is awarded purely for groundbreaking research, usually on the basis of a single seminal piece of research but sometimes something more like a 'lifetime acheivement' award. In almost all cases, it is awarded long after the original research, when the impact can be properly judged in the historical context. For many Nobel lauriates, the work they received the prize for was an exception in an otherwise ordinary career. And in some cases, (the physics prize for the 3K microwave cosmic background comes to mind) the recipents were not actually scientists, but just stumbled upon the discovery by accident.

    3. Re:Ouch by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Informative
      From Alfred Nobel's will:
      "The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not."
      (Emphasis mine) Now, according to Nobel's will, it would appear that his original intention was for prizes to be given for discoveries made, works published, or actions taken in the previous year, more of an "MVP" award than a "Hall of Fame." Looking at the first few laureates in each category, however, it is clear that the prize foundation more or less ignored this idea and gave prizes for work that was relatively recent, but not necessarily from the previous year. Several of the earliest physics prizes, awarded at the turn of last century, for example, were awarded for discoveries made in the late 1890s. However, it's difficult to argue that Roentgen, the Curies, etc., were not deserving recipients. And delaying the prize for a few years is basically necessary if you want to award it for theoretical research of any sort- Albert Einstein won a Physics Nobel in 1921 for work he did in 1905- the committee wouldn't want to give it to him in 1906 and then find out in 1907 that his paper explaining the photoelectric effect was deeply flawed.

      For some of the other prizes, the award has been used to honor both recent and lifetime achievement. The literature prize, for example, has been given both for an outstanding career of work and largely on the strength of a single work. The peace prize is probably the one most often given within a couple years of the action worthy of honor (something that occasionally turns sour for the committee, as when a celebrated peace accord crumbles a few years later), but the peace prize has often also been given to the founders of various philanthropic and peace-promoting agencies, whose benefit to the world may only become apparent after years or decades of service.

      The parent is absolutely correct in that the work leading to a Nobel is not always representative of a laureate's entire career- an extreme example of this is the share of the 1994 Economics Nobel for John Nash, who of course was 1. not a career economist and 2. sidelined by mental illness for several decades. Sometimes a single paper is all it takes to win a Nobel, rather than some comprehensive program of research lasting years.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    4. Re:Ouch by pod · · Score: 1
      (Emphasis mine) Now, according to Nobel's will, it would appear that his original intention was for prizes to be given for discoveries made, works published, or actions taken in the previous year

      If you read your quote again, that is not what it is saying at all. It refers to [conferring] the greatest benefit on mankind, not when the discovery was made. It will often take many years or decades before theoretical research will confer any benefits on manking, usually only after it has been verified and has found a practical application.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
  17. Dr Marshall is my Hero by Herbst · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium."

    Smart thinking. You either get a Nobel Prize or a Darwin Award. A win-win situation.

  18. Well... by Seoulstriker · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are actually indeed caused by stress. When your immune system's function is severely inhibited during long-term stress, your body's ability to fight bacterial infection is weakened to the point that H. pylori can easily reside in your stomach and cause the ulcer.

    So, stress is involved, albeit indirectly.

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
    1. Re:Well... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Yes, but now they can make more money off it while whittling away the responsability for our bodies. The less people understand their bodies, the less responsability they take for it's proper functioning, the more pills for everyone, and more money for the corps!

    2. Re:Well... by throbbingbrain.com · · Score: 1
      They are actually indeed caused by stress. When your immune system's function is severely inhibited during long-term stress, your body's ability to fight bacterial infection is weakened to the point that H. pylori can easily reside in your stomach and cause the ulcer.
      Then it should have been you winning the Nobel prize.

  19. so close! by tont0r · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium

    just 1 step away from winning the darwinian award.

  20. That's the point by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    It's rather hard to know what new discoveries will stand the test of time unless you wait a while. Waiting is the whole goal for the committee - wait until the idea is proven correct, and evaluate the discovery in the context of how it ended up changing things. Both goals require significant time.

    There's also the problem of the committee unofficially rotating the prize among subdisciplines in a given field, and sometimes a glut of important work. To me, this is somewhat weak for a Nobel prize (which naturally still makes it an incredible discovery), so it isn't surprising this one waited for a while.

  21. Bacteria?!? by Talisman · · Score: 3, Funny

    And all this time I thought it was the pizza, beer, nachos and salsa I cram into my face daily. Now that I know it's bacteria, I have to make a call for some anti-biotics...and another double pepperoni!

    --

    "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    1. Re:Bacteria?!? by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you don't leave that pizza hanging around...

  22. Dr. Marshall in Perth by zaguar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dr. Marshall worked for my dad while he was in Perth. My father said that he was not especially brilliant, although competent - but he was extremely hard-working. Perhaps this is why he did get the Nobel Prize.

    --
    "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
    1. Re:Dr. Marshall in Perth by the_real_bto · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that they awarded the Nobel Prize for being smart. My uninformed guess would be that he got the Nobel Prize because he discovered and delivered some very useful information to the world.

  23. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by Secrity · · Score: 1

    The "drugs" mentioned in the article are mostly stomach acid reducers, many of which are available without a prescription. For more information concerning the US CDC suggested regimen, see http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/md.htm

  24. Bleeding ulcers, anyone? by HBI · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ever heard of a bleeding ulcer, vomiting blood and all? Yes, people have died from this.

    The only reason you don't hear about this anymore is the cause is known now. It was a very serious problem when I was a kid.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  25. Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded Also... by warmgun · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Nobel prize in Physics has been awarded also: http://nobelprize.org/

    According to the schedule on the website, chemistry gets awarded tomorrow and peace on Friday.

    1. Re:Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded Also... by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >peace on Friday.

      Bono?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  26. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by Zouden · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's the intestines that have bacteria, not the stomach, but you're otherwise correct.
    Interestingly, the cultures that people have been making yoghurt with for thousands of years do not contain the "good" bacteria (such as L. acidophilus) that modern yoghurts have. It was only last century that we realised the benefit of "probiotics" and we switched to making yoghurt with acidophilus (and bifidus and casei) rather than Streptococcus.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
  27. Right Livelyhood Award by daniil · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, on September 29th, the 2005 Right Livelyhood Awards, also known as the 'Alternative Nobel Prize', were announced. (Link to RLA homepage)

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
  28. Re:So Ulcers.. by Phreakiture · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So Ulcers . . . Are not caused by stress?

    Peeve alert: starting sentences in the subject line and finishing them in the body is annoying. Just so you know.

    Anyway, what I really am posting about, though, is that stress weakens the immune system, giving the bacteria the ability to take hold. There are other, similarly-behaved things, such as eczema (a skin affliction), which is viral, but will mostly only manifest when you are stressed badly.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  29. Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by Wills · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Years before this discovery was made, stomach ulcers like so many other health problems always used to be labelled by the doctors as a "stress" or "lifestyle" related condition, without any proof that anything more definite than that was really directly responsible. Even to this day, it is amazing that medicine still has literally thousands of loosely-defined medical "conditions" and "syndromes" which have no known specific cause but which are nonetheless given proper names for doctors to use as convenient diagnostic labels. Doctors are still trained to diagnose these "conditions", rather than to think harder about possible underlying cause(s). The two scientists in this story were brave enough to challenge the conventional wisdom of their peers that stress and lifestyle factors cause stomach ulcers. It's interesting to wonder how many other "conditions" are actually caused by undetected bacteria or viruses which are waiting to be discovered by scientists prepared to challenge the prevailing dogma.

    1. Re:Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up.

      This is a very insightful view of what is a real problem with the current practice of medicine . There are many 'syndromes' that are considered to be triggered by lifestyle when actually there are deeper root causes. All too much of medicine is based on statistical studies that show correlations - and correlations do not in any way provide causality.

      The real breakthrough in the discovery of a bacterial cause of ulcers is the spotlight it places on the worth of really finding the root cause of a problem rather than just hand waving and correlative studies. Hopefully the medical profession and medical research takes this lesson seriously because it provides a path to real progress in treatment of many debilitating serious chronic diseases. We spend too much time treating symptoms rather than auses and it drives the cost of medical care sky high.

    2. Re:Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by smooth_shave · · Score: 1

      I disagree that the bacteria is the root 'cause' of ulcers and the C-W about stress can be discarded. To me, what he seemed to prove is that by consuming a lot of this bacteria, one gets an ulcer. That's fine, ok, but I'm going to wager that most people who have ulcers don't drink quarts of this specific microbe.

      Chronic long-term stress weakens an immune system in a variety of ways. This has been shown in many studies. So, if the immune system is compromised, bad bacteria gets in & grows. If an ulcer happens and a person is stressed, is the 'cause' stress or bacteria ?

      If one was stressed out and had a compromised immune system, one starts getting infected with various things like colds, flus, ulcers, heart disease, weakened mucles & bones, etc... Financially, what would be better for that person, treating the stress or going to the Dr several times and filling a dozen prescriptions to treat individual ailments ?

      On the other side, financially, what would be better for the medical & pharmeseutical industry, a person treating their stress by themselves or going to the Dr several times and filling a dozen prescriptions to treat individual ailments ? Don't you think that a Doctor makes money by treating ailments ? Don't you think that a Doctor's motivations might be swayed a little bit by the buck ? I'm not saying Doctors are bad people, I'm just saying they need to make $ and eat too.

      I know this is a good study and the researchers are correct in their findings. The pills will work. But if the stress isn't treated, the ulcers will come back. The use of the word 'cause' is greatly misused by the media.

    3. Re:Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by Alomex · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to wonder how many other "conditions" are actually caused by undetected bacteria or viruses which are waiting to be discovered by scientists prepared to challenge the prevailing dogma.

      No need to wonder. As a consequence of the discovery of the bacterial origin of ulcers, many other "stress caused" diseases have been re-analyzed with the bacterial cause hypothesis in mind. In fact a whole line of research has been opened along these lines, and there are already some other "stress" diseases now known to be the result of bacteria.

    4. Re:Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      This is a very insightful view of what is a real problem with the current practice of medicine . There are many 'syndromes' that are considered to be triggered by lifestyle when actually there are deeper root causes.
      Do you have a cite to support this? I.E. where is the research that shows that there are deeper root causes?

      (And I should point out that the 'lifestyle syndrome' here (ulcers) turned out to have a *simple* root cause, not a deep one.)

    5. Re:Diagnosing "Conditions", not finding Causes by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1
  30. [correction] Right Livelihood Award by daniil · · Score: 1

    And to think that I managed to make the same mistake TWICE...

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
  31. Protects esophagus, harms stomach by chooks · · Score: 1, Informative

    One of the more interesting items about this bug is that while it appears to cause stomach cancer, it also seems to protect against esophageal cancer:

    http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_03/py lori.shtml

    It also seems to have some sort of effect on reducing acid reflux. Scientific American had a great article about a year ago or so about this bug and how it works. Very interesting reading.

    --
    -- The Genesis project? What's that?
  32. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by iive · · Score: 1

    Actually there is 100% accurate test for it. It requires biopsy than can be taken during endoscopy. It is fully bloodless. The endoscopy itself is not very pleasant (putting tube through your throat), so you may be sedated.
    Blood and breath test are not so accurate.

  33. I thought... by AgentPhunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    He infected /himself/? I thought that was what TA's and Post-grads were for.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Diagnosis and treatment by DarkFencer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fortunately, this is a very easy thing to diagnose and treat. I'd never had a problem with heartburn, but in the past several months it has become unbearable. The doctor gave me a blood test for H. Pylori, which came with very high levels of the bacteria

    I'm actually currently taking a treatment for it. One of the common ones is a combination of three drugs. Two antibiotics (for me Amoxicillin and Clarithromycin), and a PPI (Proton Pump Inhibitor - like Nexium, Protonix, or a few others - I'm taking Prevacid).

    The only draw back to the treatment is its a LONG 14 days of strong medicine. Makes your stomach feel horrible to say the least.

    But the point is, I'd rather a couple weeks like this, then years of popping antacids. My thanks go out to these pioneers.

    1. Re:Diagnosis and treatment by blendedmetaphor · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious to hear from you if your treatment succeeds. I've been diagnosed with mild to moderate inflammation in the stomach and esophagus. I've discussed this topic with my GP and then with a GI specialist. Neither gave much credence to the theory that the H. Pylori should be treated. I was told to take Prilosec (omeprazol) in the morning, and Zantac (ranitidine) before supper. I was also to restrict the kinds of food I eat. Well this certainly helps, if I behave and continue to take the drugs. I worry that if I alter my internal eco-system for a long period of time, that other problems will arrise. I don't feel like drugs should be a permanent solution

      --
      Existence is futile
    2. Re:Diagnosis and treatment by DarkFencer · · Score: 1

      I am not a doctor, but out of curiosity - did either doctor have an H. Pylori test done? What were the results? My doctor told me the scale that is normal is between 0.1 and 0.8 (I don't remember the units, maybe ppm?). My result was 23.8.

      If you had a very high result on your blood test, I'd consider getting an opinion of a different doctor. I'm not exactly an advocate of doctor shopping, but I can't blame you for not wanting to take a medicine indefinately either.

      Regardless, I'll post again on this topic a week after my treatment is done (I'll try to post on the week of the 17th). That will of course, be no guarantee that the problem will come back at a later time.

    3. Re:Diagnosis and treatment by blendedmetaphor · · Score: 1

      No test done on H. Pylori. Neither thought it necessary. I'm starting to ask around to see if I can find a doctor that might listen. I'd at least like to know what amount of the bacteria exists in my system. Thanks for the update!

      --
      Existence is futile
  36. Interesting book on experiments by elgatozorbas · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Be coincidence I read about this research a week ago in a book called "Das Buch der verrückten Experimente" ('The book of weird experiments'). When looking for a gift for a geek or if want to have an interesting read yourself, look no further. About ALL weird experiments you have ever heard ebout, and many more are described in there (Milgram experiment, prisoner/guard experiment, rat race, spiders on drugs, biological warfare, chances of having sex with complete strangers,...).

    I am not sure if there is an English translation, but the web site has some excerpts.

  37. Never mind the badge by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    How come the good Dr hasn't patented this method of curing stomach ulcers ? He should by rights be a very rich man by now, the fact he has been awarded a Nobel prize for his discovery proves it was certainly non obvious.

  38. Re:This was discovered in 1999?? by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

    We discovered it in 1982.

    -- Staff member from the winner's institution :)

  39. Re:relevant anymore? by casechopper · · Score: 1

    but just doesn't carry the wait it use too. 20 years isn't enough for you?

  40. What the hell is "stress"? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    What exactly is "stress", and why is is still being used as an explanation in the medical establishment. This sounds less like science and more like voodoo. (apologies to any voodoo priests in the audience)

    1. Re:What the hell is "stress"? by ProfDD · · Score: 1

      Too much cortisol. Over-stimulation of the fight-or-flight response.

  41. It sounds like 19th century medicine by deuterium · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "We propose that this condition is not precipitated by an agitated state of humors, but by tiny microbes". The stress model of disease has always been a bit too subjective and artificial for me. Stress is still generically cited as being responsible for heart disease and depression. It's not even so much that stress is blamed, but the assumed endpoint of a personal reaction. Stress is supposedly something we can control... a reaction to the events of our day. Treating as it presently is, it's almost like a supernatural power. Stress may be associated with events and feelings, but it's also a cascade of chemical messengers that are amenable to study. Why not dig deeper into what reactions and dynamics the release of glucocorticoids and norepinephrine induce? There is a medical prejudice against things brain related. If diabetes was primarily associated with a mood disorder, would it have been researched as well? I guess the special case argument for the ignorance of microbes in ulcers has to do with the assumption that bacteria don't grow well in the environment of the stomach, but still. Any identifiable condition that is currently written off as an intangible artifact of one's personality type seems ripe for rediscovery, and there are still plenty, especially in gastroenterology and physchiatry. It's no surprise to me that this discovery was in the GI field. It's this lack of basic research that keeps open a market for herbalists, homeopaths, and their ilk.

    1. Re:It sounds like 19th century medicine by justins · · Score: 1

      Paragraph.

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  42. MOD PARENT UP by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    Well said! The sooner we accept that we are no different from plants or animals (ie: just a bunch of chemical reactions), the sooner we'll start doing real science.

  43. A Cure!? by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    Do we really want that? I am looking forward for another high budget commecial telling me the side effects of taking thier drug will do to me. The treament is worst than the disease.

    Chris Rock said it best. "The last thing in this country that was cured was pollio." "thier ain't no money in the cure."

  44. Hum bug! by KarmaBlackballed · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Dude, do you have to work that contentious subject into every thread no matter how thin the connection? You are giving me an ulcer! (Maybe I'll get a Nobel citation in 20 years for discovering this ulcer causing item.)

    --

    --- -- - -
    Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
  45. And an ulcer is... by Cygnus78 · · Score: 1
  46. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by chinodelosmuertos · · Score: 5, Informative
    Hmm. You sorta opened a can of worms here. A couple of issues here.

    First: Does H. pylori eradication lead to increased incidence of Barrett's esophagitis and esophageal cancer? Maybe. The jury is still out. The Japanese have just published a pretty comprehensive review (Japanese Journal of Clinical Medicine. 63(8):1383-6, 2005 Aug)on the subject. The increase in one may be more common with the eradication of the other. Fine. Are they casually related? That's a more complex question that I think the research is sorta investigating. I dont think Scientific American really has the answer.

    But that's not the major issue. Stomach ulcer is a condition that PRIOR to the triple treatment (bismuth + antibiotics + acid inhibitors) would take months to years to heal. Some anecdotal stories as long as 6 years. More. Sometimes never. Leading to serious, serious complications that have even worse prognoses. You see what I'm getting at here. Quality of life years lost are huge, affecting huge chunks of the population. Known risk of causing stomach cancer, perforation of your guts (think your guts spilling into your abdominal cavity) and iron deficiency due to chronic bleeding just for a start. Now we're saying... OK. It MAY result in reflux, eosophageal cancer and Barrett's (cells in your eosophagus changing morphology).

    Hardly the "eliminating H. pylori is worse than the symptoms created by too much of it." If anything, what this might suggest is that there might be some unwanted complications to altering the internal milieu of the stomach, and they should be addressed. Full stop. Sky's not falling yet, pal.

  47. So much for the "purple pill" by csoto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Drug companies don't like this kind of science (i.e.. that actually gets to the science behind the illness). Antibiotics are a few bucks for an entire course. They want you on chronic meds, not "cured."

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  48. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by ethics13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Excellent points... however... I had an H. Pylori infection and no ulcer. Doc gave me strong AB's and after the regiment, my stomach WAS worse off. The key here is to add PRO-Biotics because the regiment of AB's kills ALL bacteria (bad: H. Pylori as well as good: L. Acidophilus, L.Rhamnosus,L. Plantarum, B. Longum and B. Bifidum,,etc...). After I returned and told my doc that I feel even worse than before, he just told me to get some Pro-bio's. The key here is to take the AB's alongside with PB's and you will be fine.

  49. Faith vs. Dogma by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, just think about what faith is... No matter how much evidence goes against what you believe, you will still believe it anyway.

    Faith is an essential means to remain optimistic in an uncertain world. Faith is belief in the face of doubt / the absurd. Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses.

    On the other hand, blind believe in the face of evidence strikes me more as dogmatism. And there certainly has been a lot of that in the history of science.

    --
    -Stu
    1. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by eraserewind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, certainly there is dogmatism in science. Scientists are human after all, and have concious and unconcious biases. The thing about science though is that it is able to overcome these human flaws (even if it might often take longer than one would hope). The dogma in this case was overturned after all, in spite of (m|b)millions of dollars worth of antacid industry and established scientific wisdom saying it shouldn't be.

    2. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by @madeus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Faith is an essential means to remain optimistic in an uncertain world. Faith is belief in the face of doubt / the absurd. Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses.

      Faith however, is not essential and I would argue it's not particularly desirable. I prefer to practice realism (to the best of my ability) than delude myself with a reality distortion field built on expectations that are by definition unrealistic and founded on false premises.

      You can still be a kind, generous, altruistic and forgiving person and not have faith, but because you believe it's an appropriate way to behave and has net benefits (in that it can be beneficial to you, and to society as a whole because it encourages reciprocal behaviour, as indeed it does).

      Those pushing religion tend not to be keen on that idea though, they prefer to push the notion that you need to latch on to a specific 'faith' system to support you lest you fall of the wagon. I believe that approach is misguided and potentially dangerous.

      'Faith' as a solution is at best a kludge and at worst a red herring, that can lead down a dark path with disastrous repercussions on a global scale. Addressing root causes such as inequality, injustice, and persecution are more effective approaches at dealing with the things that drive people to 'faith' based groups in the first place.

      I do not believe the world can ever be 'a perfect place' - history and logical deduction seem to suggests otherwise, as any social environment that relies on co-operation also leaves open the opportunity for another to profit by shafting others in the group, meaning there will always be an incentive not to co-operate (The Scorpion and the Frog) - and that's to say nothing of human nature, chemical imbalances and behaviour in exception circumstances.

      There is clearly room for significant improvement in the way we interact with each other, particularly on a global scale however I do not believe faith based systems are an effective means of progression to that point. The acceptance of an unfavourable circumstance and a logical extrapolation of the most effective way to resolve an issue are more helpful than any system based on sheer optimism.

      With specific regard to:

      Faith is arguably very important to scientific discovery, lest one doubt their hypotheses

      I think if you don't have any doubt about your hypotheses there is something seriously wrong with your approach. Even if your right you ought to have doubts about it and set out to prove yourself wrong until you are certain you are right, that's how hypotheses progress to being regarded as 'proven'.

    3. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't understand science if you think it is a problem to doubt your hypothesis.

      And blind belief in the face of evidence is NOT science. It is a terrible human trait we all share. But through the scientific process, this is eventually rectified.

      So you are wrong on both counts.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      I don't need a logical reason to be good.

      Don't even need to justify it.

      I just listen closely to my inner-ape and it has a pretty good track record of making the morally good decisions. (Aside from urges of vigalantism and revenge that is.) Human societies had a wide variety of culture that is built on lower-level operating societal instinct. You just gotta get back to the "roots" of the matter and religion becomes a wasteful corruption.

      It's too bad the hairy bits show through a little too much. :)

    5. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      I prefer to practice realism (to the best of my ability) than delude myself with a reality distortion field built on expectations that are by definition unrealistic and founded on false premises.

      Well you admit that that is your personal preferred way of doing things.

      People are motivated by very different things--there are some people in this world, of tremendous talent, who are motivated to do a project by being told "it's an incredible challenge and it's a lot of hard work." There are other people, with the same reservoir of talent, who need to be told the exact opposite: "it's relatively easy and it's fun."

      Neither is necessary true of false depending on the context (is multi-variable calculus hard? Yes it is compared to Spanish 101 but it's easy compared to going to the moon.)

      Faith (and I meant it in the spiritual context, which is not necessarily religious, and I feel your post equated the two of them too much) is necessary for some people to slog through what is undeniably large odds (like a project that could take decades.) I don't believe that faith is necessary anti-realistic, it's just a shifting of perspective (like my example above. Once again though, I use faith in a more spiritual context and not a religious context. Religions are undeniably anti-realistic in some manifestations.)

    6. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

      I prefer to practice realism (to the best of my ability) than delude myself with a reality distortion field built on expectations that are by definition unrealistic and founded on false premises.

      That assumes two things:

      1. That humans have access to the truth behind "reality" (which you do qualify by suggesting "to the best of my ability"). Whereas a contrary position is to say that people don't have access to reality, they merely have perception and verify their perception's correlation to reality through social relationships (aka "trust"). The scientific community, for example, requries a lot of Independent verification of experimental observations. Rationalists would end the analysis here.

      Others (post-modernists, while an overloaded term, probably is the proper one) believe that this approach, while a useful approximation to eliminate certain classes of human foibles (lying, cheating, making mistakes), doesn't guarantee greater access to reality, as reality is much more complex than our observational capabilities are. (Cue debates about the uncertainty principle)

      2. That faith based on logic. It is not. (I'm taking this definition from the "existentialist" definition of faith, mostly attributed to Kierkegaard's book Fear and Trembling.) Faith is belief on the strength of the absurd. What makes faith very interesting is it is somewhat of a paradox: to have faith, one must be aware that the belief is absurd in the first place. Otherwise it's blind.

      'Faith' as a solution is at best a kludge and at worst a red herring, that can lead down a dark path with disastrous repercussions on a global scale. Addressing root causes such as inequality, injustice, and persecution are more effective approaches at dealing with the things that drive people to 'faith' based groups in the first place.

      The same could be said for any belief system, though. For example, is "rational absolutism" really a better approach? Not that you're suggesting this, but just to provide an illustration my point, let's explore rationality as a superior means to handle social issues.

      Rationality and/or "scientifically deducted" approaches to handling social issues assume that humans, or at least a group of humans, have better access to "reality" than others, and can thus determine "the answer" to problems. Unfortunately, social experimentation tends to take decades, and observation is far from objective.

      For example, if scientific evidence, independently verified, were to incidate that certain human races were intellectually superior to others, would it not be justified to repress the inferior races in a way similar to what we've done with the more intelligent animals?Or, for another example, if a group of people objectively believes, based on sound scientific reasoning, that the root causes of inequality and injustice were based on property relations and ownership of the means of production, would it not be justified to incite violence to overthrow the existing property relations and economic system in an effort to bring about an equal and just society? Another example might be a scientific rejection of the "individual" as having any merit; since truth can only be determined through trust relationships, the order of society and civilization are all that matters, liberty and freedom do not. My point is that Western civilization's recent tragedies of Racism, Anarchist Marxism, and Totalitarianism, have all been justified through science and reason, just as much as Christian or Islamist theocratic rule is justifyable through religious dogmatism.

      I think if you don't have any doubt about your hypotheses there is something seriously wrong with your approach. Even if your right you ought to have doubts about it and set out to prove yourself wrong until you are certain you are right, that's how hypotheses progress to being regarded as 'proven'.

      I should have been clearer; what I meant was that faith becomes the source of strength to "Keep On Truckin

      --
      -Stu
    7. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

      I should have been clearer, what I meant to say was "lest you lack conviction" in pursuing your hypothesis.

      Faith is belief in the face of doubt. It is not blind, it is a choice, and it is often a necessary one. These nobel laureates had faith that stomach ulcers weren't caused by stress and were curable, even though there was little independently verified evidence for their claim. Sure, they eventually built up evidence, but... you need to start somewhere.

      --
      -Stu
    8. Re:Faith vs. Dogma by Confuzzled · · Score: 1
      You can still be a kind, generous, altruistic and forgiving person and not have faith, but because you believe it's an appropriate way to behave and has net benefits (in that it can be beneficial to you, and to society as a whole because it encourages reciprocal behaviour, as indeed it does).
      Is there any evidence that points towards the benefits? Anecdotes don't count. See? you have faith. You have faith that goodness brings more goodness, that kindness makes the world a better place. Don't let yourself be put off by the religious spouting on "the one true faith". Having faith is being hopeful, for a better future, for a better world, yadda yadda tree hugging hippie stuff.
  50. Old Discovery??? by NoSalt · · Score: 1

    Didn't we already know that a bacteria is what causes ulcers??? I could have sworn that I've been hearing this for years now. Am I wrong???

    1. Re:Old Discovery??? by syrinx · · Score: 1

      Considering TFA says this discovery took place in 1982, I suppose it is likely that you have been "hearing it for years now".

      You did read TFA, right? Surely no one on Slashdot would post something uninformed!

      (Yes they would, and don't call me Shirley?)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    2. Re:Old Discovery??? by NoSalt · · Score: 1

      Ummm ... I plead the 5th :-D

  51. mitochondria by smazzle · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's similar to Lynn Margulis' discovery that the mitochondria were originally their own organism and have since been integrated into our cells. She first made that claim in the 1980's, and only now has it started to become accepted dogma. It takes time to change minds, and she's still working on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

    1. Re:mitochondria by Phae · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, we've known all that about Midichlorians since the 80's, and we still don't have any real Jedi?

  52. Re:1982! -on CBC in 1990s by saskboy · · Score: 1

    I saw the story about this discovery about 10 years ago on CBC's The Nature of Things with David Suzuki. The ingrained medical community was very slow to pick up on this important discovery, which is a shame. Antibiotics met similar resistance [pun intended] when they were first discovered, and I think it took about 10 years for them to be finally put to widespread use, during WWII.

    After I saw the TV show, I told anyone who complained in front of me about ulcers, that it was probably treatable with antibiotics and drugs if their doctor did some research into a cure. I still meet people who don't know about H. Pylori bacteria, and I suspect that a great deal many other inflictions of our bodies could be caused by as of yet, undiscovered microbes making us sick.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  53. This is great! by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Funny

    But can someone tell me which drugs and antibiotics I should give to my PHB in order to cure my ulcers?

  54. Challenge the establishment! by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 1
    I suffer from "Adult Onset Asthma"- the first symptoms happened when I was about 27. Every doctor I've talked to about it wants me to get allergy shots, take antihisthamenes, and bronchodialators. At best, these things have just served to mask some of my symptoms. There is big business in maintainence medicines for asthma- keep treating the symptoms, and they are on your medicine for life. The only drug that was truly effective was an inhaler based medicine called Serevent. This medicine got pulled because of the "non-ozone friendly" propellant- at what looks like a time shortly before the patent was about to expire (and go generic). Right on the heels of that, came "Advair" - which is a mixture of the medicine that worked for me from Serevent, plus an anti-inflammatory (steroid- which I've taken, but don't help me much), with brand new patent protection.

    On the other hand, there is a radio Doctor that I used to listen to, Dr. Gabe Mirkin that has preached for years about treating adult onset asthma with anti-biotics. As far as I'm aware, he's not an internist- but he does read a lot of medical journals with a doctor's eye, so he was one of the early ones to pick up on the work on ulcers and infection, and preach about that on his radio show. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any doctors that were willing to try and treat my Asthma with antibiotics. I can only hope that sometime before the asthma kills me, I at least get a shot at trying to cure this disease, rather than just playing catch-up with the symptoms.

    N.B.: Dr. Mirkin was also one of the early people to preach about using Fen-Phen for weight loss. While it was effective for some, it could also be dangerous. I think this is the risk of any new treatment- but unless we take some risks, we will never have progress in medicine.

    1. Re:Challenge the establishment! by gekhond · · Score: 1

      Actually this is precisely what happened to me a couple of years ago. Even though I had childhood asthma, provoked by allergies to pets, grasses, certain trees, pollens, in short anything organic including some humans and goldfish ;-), now that I have learned to avoid the causes I seldom if ever suffer from any symptoms.

      One summer I was struck with persistent asthma symptoms so badly that my inhalers, anti-allergy medicines etc didn't work. It felt exactly like asthma, nothing like a bronchitis, except that it didn't respond to my medication. My doctor prescribed a combination of an anti-inflammitory inhaler (advair?) and antibiotics. I was puzzled by the latter, but he explained he suspected an infection may be the cause. Within 1 week the symptons disappeared never to return.

      This is of course entirely anecdotal, but it sounds like my doctor was thinking along the same lines as you outline.

    2. Re:Challenge the establishment! by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 1
      I've got some weird triggers for my asthma- like dishwasher detergent and dryer sheets- but sometimes there is no apparent cause- it happens at virtually any time of the year in varied circumstances. This makes me think that my asthma isn't 100% allergy related. The most controversial thing about the treatment that Dr. Mirkin recommends is the length of the treatment- something like 6 months to a year on a powerful antibiotic, even though symptoms may subside, to truly clear the infection, you have to maintain the dosage. It seems that the lungs are a particularly difficult area to treat.

      I would love to be truly cured of this- It does interfere with my life, and the idea of suffocating to death because of asthma is absolutely terrifying. I've only had one episode where I felt my life was at risk, but it was enough not to go through it again. But the doctors throw up their hands and say 'learn to live with it.'

    3. Re:Challenge the establishment! by gekhond · · Score: 1

      I don't know about those 1 year antibiotic treatments, but for my asthma I know it is a matter of accumulated causes. Being in a room with a dog or cat will definitely cause my asthma to flare up, but less so when I have generally been living in a clean environment, no smoking, no mould etc. It feels as if there is a threshold above which my lungs go bezerk. Like a chronic inflammation that makes the lungs sensitive to pollutants that would otherwise not be a problem (below threshold). My parents used to smoke in the house and I remember back then that the slightest exposure to mould, pets, etc would be enough for some VERY unpleasant hours of gasping for air. I now enjoy the dry, clean desert air, and never have any serious problems. BTW, those inhalers do *wonders*, what a relief, you have to have asthma to appreciate how good it feels to have your lungs open up in the span of 1-2 seconds. I always carry one, never a problem.

  55. Re:COLD FUSION research will be awarded with Nobel by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Cold fusion is far from real, at least the Pons and Fleischmann style of fusion in duterium doped palladium. If you are going to produce a meaasureable amount of heat from nuclear fusion, you are going to produce a measureable amount of neutrons. I used to work for the DOE and we spend months carefully trying to reproduce P&F's work. We noted an excess of counts in the neutron detectors only once, and that was during a thunderstorm when the electronics could be expected to be exposed to electrical noise. The BF3 detectors can produce spurious counts and they are very sensitive to changes in the discriminator threshhold, so this wasn't a surprise. We found no excess of neutrons within the limits of our detectors.

    Concerning an excess of heat. Don't forget that putting interstitial hydrogen into a metal is an exothermic process. We could generate heat, in fact we scared the h*ll out of ourselves with one of the 'deuterium gas in titanium' experiments. It generated so much heat that we were afraid about the strenght of the container. Pure hydrogen exploding into air could really ruin your day. This also produced counts in a neutron detector, but these were consistent with the known temperature sensitivity of the detectors. So, we did see heat, but only heat that could be understood in terms of basic chemistry.

    I will state that I was rather skeptical of the whole topic, but I did work for the DOE and I would have been happy to be proven wrong. Free, clean energy is worth more than my pride. So, even if the odds were a million to one against success, the DOE is justified in studying this topic. There just were not results that could be reproduced. As Fermi noted, 'Anything worth doing once is worth doing twice.' If you can't do it twice, it isn't science.

    Please, prove that this works. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Finding a way to overcome nuclear forces (potential barriers of millions of electron volts) with electrostatic forces at THERMAL energies (tens of milli electron-Volts)is an extraordinary. Perhaps something like sonoluminescence can produce very high localised temperatures in a jar of water, but this produces light with a few electron volts. The probability of particles tunneling across a barrier varies as exp( -E/kT) as long as E is millions of electron volts and kT is around 60 meV, you have a number like exp(-10^7). These basic considerations make CF an extraordinary claim. Where is the extraordinary evidence?

    --
    Think global, act loco
  56. are heart disease and cancer infections too? by peter303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This Nobel-winning research open up some people's minds that other chronic diseases might be due to infectious agents also. Some people have suggested that artery plaques and inflamation- the precursors of heart attacks and strokes- might be caused by germs such as a variant of the clymadia bacteria. Some people suspect a role in cancer too. Only a couple of cancers are known for sure such as Karposis and Hep-C liver cancer, but others are suspected. Considering that decades of low-level research havent firmly resolved the issue one way or the other, its still somewhatof an open question. Should the answer be "yes, some", then other kinds of phrophlactic treatments could be suggested.

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. Re:Are Most Medical Doctors - Illiterate? by rjstanford · · Score: 1
    By the way I am tired of getting a troll designation ...

    Fair enough, fair enough. And you've made some reasonable (although unsubstantiated) points that, while unconventional, are certainly not trollish. I don't necessarily agree with them, but that's just fine.

    ... because some of you are illiterates (like most medical doctors)

    Oh, and there you go. Now since that's pretty much the textbook definition of a comment deserving, "-1 Troll," being both innacurate and inflamatory, you'll probably get dinged for this one too, as well you should. Just not by me. But if and when it happens, it's not for the main body of your views - or at least it shouldn't be.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  59. Short term course of antibiotics by MythoBeast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think that this label is a little misleading. If memory serves, the "short term" course of drugs and antibiotics involves four different antibiotics used in pairs over several months. Heliobacter are some truly resilient critters. You have to use them in pairs partially because the heliobacter become resistant, and partially to avoid completely ruining your intenstinal ecology.

    Admittedly, this is short term compared to the years of antibiotics that some people wind up using, and it's better than living with an ulcer for the rest of your life.

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
    1. Re:Short term course of antibiotics by wk633 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are several that they can use, but it was only two weeks with one antibiotic for my wife. It was a strong antibiotic to be sure, and in some rare cases you have to do a second treatement, but normally one works. They also give prevacid or something similar at the same time, but that's just for the symptoms.

    2. Re:Short term course of antibiotics by weston · · Score: 1

      "the "short term" course of drugs and antibiotics involves four different antibiotics used in pairs over several months"

      Not sure about several months, but I was diagnosed with an H. Pylori infection last week and am currently taking 2000mg of one antibiotic and 1000mg of another daily, plus a proton-pump inhibitor style antacid. It looks like the course of treatment should only be weeks, though.

  60. Re:Are Most Medical Doctors - Illiterate? by Tourney3p0 · · Score: 1
    This would have been a great troll if it wasn't for this:

    Nor is there one scientific research piece published in a scholarly scientific journal with peer review that states that "HIV is the probale cause of AIDS"!

    I doubt there's a scholarly scientific journal with peer review that states that the sky is blue, either. I'd better go outside and check.

  61. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by davids-world.com · · Score: 1

    Actually, very few people survive the acidy environment of the stomach. That's why people didn't believe in H.P. in the beginning.
    Further down, in the colon, you'll find a variety of bacteria that take care of most of the digestion, and yes, a lot of them get destroyed during long-term treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics (my own experience). This is well-known.
    The symptoms of (chronic) gastritis on the one hand and various forms of dyspepsia related to the problems you are describing differ, however, so the problems seem distinguishable to me.

    Greetings from a long-term H.P. patient :-(

  62. It doesn't annoy me. by Cigarra · · Score: 1

    "...starting sentences in the subject line and finishing them in the body is annoying. Just so you know."

    Just because you think so?

    --
    I don't have a sig.
    1. Re:It doesn't annoy me. by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Just because you think so?

      By definition, if it annoys me, it is therefore annoying. If something annoys you, then it is annoying. If it annoys someone else, then it is annoying. Does that make sense?

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  63. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by eraserewind · · Score: 1

    Actually, very few people survive the acidy environment of the stomach.

    *Ahem* :)

  64. Can you imagine... by neuroking · · Score: 1

    The anticipation... waiting by the phone for a Nobel. Man, would have given me an... oh, nevermind.

  65. Great science on the cheap by euthman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, it took two decades, but Robin Warren and Barry Marshall are finally being honored for making sense of something we pathologists had all seen right in front of our noses but ignored.

    What I really love about their work is that it was done with the conventional clinical tools that had been available to pathologists and gastroenterologists for decades, even in non-academic venues. Their example illustrates that great work can still be done without employing multimillion-dollar labs, big grants, and multi-institutional cooperative groups.

    --
    Ed Uthman, MD
    Pathologist, Houston/Richmond, TX, USA
  66. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by davids-world.com · · Score: 1

    :-) True, indeed. Ever spent the night in a whale's stomach? Must be deadly! People --> bacteria, obviously...

  67. There is a similar theory about IBD by randalny · · Score: 1

    No one is really sure about the differences between IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrom) and IBD (Inflamatory Bowel Disease), but they very likely may be either related or different stages of the same disease.

    Crohn's Disease, which is a subset of IBD, has been show relatively conclusively to be primarily caused by a bacterium -- Mycobacterium Paratuberculosis (PARA -- see http://www.crohns.org/) and can be treated relatively effectively by antibiotics.

    Unfortunately there is little drug company money available for research for using antibiotics to cure diseases. Drug companies were the source of much of the resistance to the Helicobacter theory of ulcers, for ulcer medications used to be a huge source of profit for them which was largely wiped out by the simple, effective cures developed by these researchers.

    Similarly, in Crohn's research, there are millions of dollars being poured into monoclonal antibody researched based on the autoimmune theory, while very little into finding effective antibiotic regimens -- or into preventing the contamination of our food supply with PARA which is a primary cause in the first place.

    IBS in particular may or may not be bacterially related, but there is another theory that one of the primary causes of IBS in particular is actually simple lactose intolerance, but few doctors will warn you about how harmful drinking milk can be.

  68. Only in Australia? by DoctoRoR · · Score: 1

    Score one for the aussies. In best American fashion, Dr Marshall was snatched up quite some time ago and has been a professor at Univ of Virginia for the last fifteen years, where he's been proving and developing techniques out of his discovery.

    http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/10_04_2005/marshal l_barry.html

    Many of us who went through med school there figured he'd win it eventually. It was interesting that I'd never know Marshall was at UVa from the BBC article.

  69. Its not about who thought about this first,,,, by vmaxxxed · · Score: 1

    Hello Phreak

    I bet Dr. Barach was not alone when he thought ulcers were caused by bacteria. Then again, that's not enough to make a discovery. Surely, just like him, there were hundreds others who though it was bacteria, or something else.

    There is confusion in general, about who is recognized as the inventor or discoverer of something. You might think that the first person to have the idea shall be the one prized with the discovery. It normally is not like that. The reason is that, along we having the idea, you must do the research and publications that comes with an idea. Its easy to say, ulcers are caused by bacteria, or the world is round or planets move around the sun... but to prove it beyond doubt, that's the difficult, and, now days, expensive part.

    This is why Columbus is credited with discovering America, not the Vikings or Chinese, that are known to have been here first, or, why Copernicus is credited with discovering that planets move around the sun, though Greeks and others knew it before, and this is why the guys who risked their life eating bacteria are the ones credited with this.

    What do you think ?

  70. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    He suffered a lot of problems getting the medical establishment to believe him

    Do "a lot of problems" include stomach aches? :P

  71. Fashion vs. Science by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    In hindsight, the original theory sounds decidedly suspicious.

    I've heard that, after Hans Selye's work on stress, there was a period of sloppily using "stress" as a default "diagnosis" to explain away the unknown disease processes, such as gastric ulcer.

    I remember discussing this with my graduate advisor in chemistry around 1992; he was glad to see someone persist in the face of criticism to understand what was really going on.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  72. Reminds me of Dr. Pasteur. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    He was willing to inoculate himself to prove his theories.

    From the link:

    Apparently Pasteur himself was among those awed by his stunning demonstrations of power over life and death. He developed a remarkably robust faith that he could do no harm. When, in an incident that Geison omits, Dr. Grancher, one of his assistants, accidentally stuck himself with a syringe filled with a virulent emulsion, Pasteur proposed that Grancher inoculate himself with the rabies vaccine and then, as if to conjure away any possible doubt about the wisdom of this procedure, offered to receive the first injection himself. Grancher, while more than willing to risk his own life, refused to jeopardize Pasteur's. Pasteur then ordered his nephew, Adrien Loir, to inoculate him. Loir refused but offered to submit to inoculation himself. Finally, Loir inoculated Grancher, whereupon Grancher treated Loir and a third assistant, while Pasteur looked on. It is hard to read this episode as anything other than a ritual of expiation: for all their profession of faith in science, these were men anxious at tampering with the deepest mysteries.

    (Later, in the same link: )

    one veterinarian had gone so far as to agitate the tubes containing the lethal serum (lest Pasteur inject some sheep from the top of the liquid and others from the bottom) forswore his doubts once the results were in and even proposed to inoculate himself with the most virulent strain of anthrax--after immunization, of course, with Pasteur's vaccine.

    This is both amazing and interesting, since both scientifical discoveries (vaccines, ulcers) were related to bacteria.

  73. Aloe Vera by dindi · · Score: 1

    My father in law has gastritis - he usually picks a piece of aloe leaf and simply puts it into water for overnight and drinks it the next morning.

    It really works. Also with wounds, scratches, whatever else, we just pick a leaf (it is a thick meaty leaf that has a gel inside) and rub it on the wound. It is the same idea with gastro problems, it helps to heal wounds.

    Damn I even use it on my dogs (big rotweilers that like to play rough and have bleeding ears and stuff sometimes).

    O.K. it's about gastritis ,and according to wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastritis/
    is not necessary an ulcer or cancer, but I thought that might be interesting and relevant here.....

  74. Fat Science trumps Fat PROPAGANDA! by nido · · Score: 3, Informative
    ... I was looking for comments to spend my mod points on, but they'll have to wait.

    For proper cholesterol, well, stop eating *#$#$#* crap fats. Cholesterol is made by your liver based on the type of fat you eat.

    Polyunsaturated fat - lowers total cholesterol levels
    Unsaturated fat - increases good cholesterol
    Saturated fat - increases bad cholesteros
    Transfat - liquid plastic that'll make sure you get a quad bypass.


    Much more important is to stop eating ALL polyunsaturated oils (hydrogenated oils/transfats are usually made from polyunsaturated oils), and replace them with saturated oils.

    Fats that are less-than-fully-saturated quickly go rancid when exposed to oxygen.

    The saturated fat in beef has been slandered in recent years as being unhealthy. It's not that the beef itself is unhealthy, but that most beef cattle are raised with an unatural diet that includes a great deal of polyunsaturated fats, in the form of grains/soybeans in feedlot animal feed.

    Coconut Oil and its Virtues
    The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy That Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease. (intro chapter in PDF form)
    The Tragic Legacy of CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest - instigated the anti-saturated fat campaign of the 1980's)
    Also see the rest of the articles on fat at the Weston A. Price foundation site.
    One reason the polyunsaturates cause so many health problems is that they tend to become oxidized or rancid when subjected to heat, oxygen and moisture as in cooking and processing. Rancid oils are characterized by free radicals--that is, single atoms or clusters with an unpaired electron in an outer orbit. These compounds are extremely reactive chemically. They have been characterized as "marauders" in the body for they attack cell membranes and red blood cells and cause damage in DNA/RNA strands, thus triggering mutations in tissue, blood vessels and skin. Free radical damage to the skin causes wrinkles and premature aging; free radical damage to the tissues and organs sets the stage for tumors; free radical damage in the blood vessels initiates the buildup of plaque. Is it any wonder that tests and studies have repeatedly shown a high correlation between cancer and heart disease with the consumption of polyunsaturates New evidence links exposure to free radicals with premature aging, with autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and with Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's and cataracts.
    -The Skinny on Fats
    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  75. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

    Yogurt is NOT a good way of REPLACING bacteria into the gut. It's good at fighting bad bacteria. Look to kefir for recolonization and faster action. SOOOOOO much cheaper than probiotics and it's much easier to make.

  76. Still many unknowns regarding ulcers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I can speak from experience that there are still many unknowns regarding why ulcers occur, even though H. Pylori is the main culprit. Before my freshman year of college I had never had any history of ulcers, but one day I started feeling a slight pain in my stomach. Two days later I woke up in the middle of the night in the most horrible pain I have ever been in and started throwing up everywhere. The pain was so terrible I couldn't even move out of my bed, but fortunately my room mate was there to call 911. It turns out I had somehow developed an ucler that caused a perforation in my stomach. A hole had been literally eaten into my stomach and it wound me up in the hospital for over a week.

    The scary part about this was none of the doctors I went to had any idea what could have caused it. The H. Pylori tests came up negative, I was too young to have an ulcer that severe from stress, and I didn't have any family history of it. How can you develop a hole in your stomach over such a short period of time and not be able to explain it? Very scary.

  77. Please rate parent up by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

    They must have improved on the technique since I read about it (like seven years ago, I think). I'm curious, was it tetracycline? That was the major one on the original list.

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
  78. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by PantsWearer · · Score: 1

    Nobels aren't generally rewarded for utility; I've seen that they're awarded for major turnovers in science. This may not be the greatest treatment in the world, but realizing that ulcers were caused by bacteria after several decades of the medical community saying that it was stress is pretty impressive.

    --
    Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
  79. *Ahem* by Stormbringer · · Score: 1

    Well, according to Kimball Atwood IV of Skeptical Inquirer (here [csicop.org]),

    Ahem. Why are you dragging religion into this?

  80. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by Alomex · · Score: 1


    Mod parent down. Nobel prize is not about utility. It is about the depth of the discovery, and while the discovery might have not been "against all odds" (whatever that means) it was most definitely against the (overwhelming) prevailing consensus. This is why the discovery is scientifically so remarkable, these guys were able to go against the current and find the explanation for ulcers. All the power to them, and well deserved Nobel. By the by, it also speaks well of the scientific community that they can recognize the error in their ways and so honor those who did so.

  81. Re:So Ulcers.. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Peeve alert: starting sentences in the subject line and finishing them in the body is annoying. Just so you know.

    And, so is whining about it on /. and forgetting to use proper punctuation. There are many things here to be bothered with, from 133lt speak, to gOoFy CaPitALiZaTIonS, to dupe posts & moderators that give points because they're fanboys of Apple/Google/Linux. So, if it really bothers you, I'd suggest that you head to the doctors office for a shot of antibiotics...wouldn't want a nasty ulcer now, would we?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  82. 1982? How did it take so long? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

    I thought there was a phase back in the 30's or so of trying penicillin as a treatment for everything? I'm amazed this connection wasn't made until 1982. How long have we been treating open sores with antibiotic ointment? I know since at least 1982, since that's the year I was born, and my mom's always had a tube handy to smear into my wounds, exacerbating the pain.

  83. Re:1982! - and yet... by StonyCreekBare · · Score: 1

    This whole story becomes even more interesting when you understand that vets and farmers have known that ulcers in pigs were caused by the same bacteria since the 1940's. Suggestions that the same mechanism might apply to humans have been made since long before 1982 and were soundly rejected by mainstream medicine until this "breakthru"

    Yet this very year, 2005, my mother's GP refused to give her antibiotics for her ulcers. When I asked about it, I was told not to interfere in the dr-patient relationship. When I finally got her to another Dr., she immediately issued antibiotics. I have been heard to wonder aloud how many people have suffered needlessly, or even died because mainstream medicine refused to look at this "discovery".

    My hat is off to Dr. Marshall for his tenacity. We need more like him.

  84. Doctors don't profit from drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Perhaps another reason for delay in acceptance of these findings, was that up until the early 90's the * worlds biggest selling drug * was one that inhibits stomach acid production and under patent - unlike cheap as beans & generic broad spectrum antibiotics.

    I don't see why this is relevant. Doctors who prescribe medications see not a penny of profit from their sale.

    I am a physician, and I have received the occasional pen, note pad, or (once in a long while) a meal from drug reps. Put together, the value of all the freebies I have received from drug companies in my entire career is certainly less than I make from my practice in a week. I have not asked for lavish junkets or cash payments, nor have I ever been offered them.

    I prescribe what will work best for my patients, without regard for who profits. Not only do I not take orders from the drug companies, but much of the time (to the drug reps' immense frustration) I can't even remember which company makes which drug. Nor do I care.

    The same goes for the AMA, which the conspiracy mongers seem to think controls the brain waves of every doctor in the country. I'm not a member of the AMA, and if someone turned up in my office saying he was from the AMA and intended to tell me how to practice, I'd call the sheriff to throw him out.

    Barry Marshall has the respect of every physician, and deserves it. To say that his ideas were intentionally suppressed to protect drug company profits is beyond ludicrous.

    The whole affair is just a manifestation of Occam's Razor: extraordinary claims (which his indeed were at the time) require extraordinary proof.

  85. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  86. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by pianophile · · Score: 1

    Look to kefir for recolonization and faster action.

    Any recommendations re: brands, sites, home-made vs. bought, etc?

    --

    'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
  87. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by Alomex · · Score: 1

    I did follow the SI link and the article is garbage. It uses numbers in an attempt to argue that the discovery was received warmly, while if he had read the actual articles that cite it, or attended the meetings where it was discussed, he would have seen that the result was received rather harshly.

  88. Re:Now that's my kinda medicine by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
    Homemade definitely. Way cheaper, even if you buy organic milk. Though once you try it with organic you won't want to have it non-organic. There are networks where you can obtain the SCOBY for free, but i just bought some off ebay for under $10. Well worth it considering it constantly multiplies.

    If you make it at home you can have it as milky, creamy, alcoholy as you want. Dom's kefir site is a good reference, link is somewhere in these posts.

    Bananas are an excellent way to cut the tartness if you've left it too long and there's no more lactose. I used to be highly lactose intolerant, i'm so happy to be bloat free now :)

    Ah yes, also good for making sourdough like bread, or in place of buttermilk in recipes.

  89. Re:COLD FUSION research will be awarded with Nobel by renoX · · Score: 1

    >We noted an excess of counts in the neutron detectors only once, and that was during a thunderstorm when the electronics could be expected to be exposed to electrical noise.

    Or due to the thunder? I've read that some have measured that thunder create fusion which release neutrons..

    Take it with a *large* pint of salt: I'm not a scientist and don't remember where I've read it (maybe on an article linked by /.), maybe they have confused noise with the real stuff, but maybe you have dismissed something interesting (thunder producing neutrons) as 'electrical noise', funny no?

  90. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by Alomex · · Score: 1

    And of the many meetings where it was discussed, in what context were these meetings and how many did you attend?

    You don't need to attend a meeting to know what happened. There is such a thing as minutes and/or witness accounts. I read about the controversy very early on, perhaps around 1987 or so. The article had direct quotes of some rather harsh attacks on the original proponent including IIRC pointing out the fact that he was a doctor (not a researcher) employed in a not so well known institution, while on the other hand, many famous researchers at very famous places had systematically searched for evidence of bacterial infections as cause for ulcers and had found none.

    Now, one can argue that skepticism about a result that contradicts previous research is a healthy thing, but this does not make the reception to the original research any less harsh than what it was, and many people expressed such skepticism in rather impolite language.

    Or does it merely involve routine research in which nothing contentious happens?

    Most science involves routine research. Only a few privileged minds ever get to make breakthroughs. Those lucky few are usually awarded prizes, just as in this case.

  91. Re:Nobel awarded on merit of utility or tenacity?? by mholt108 · · Score: 1

    Well, the benefits have to be weighed up next the side effects. In this case it is an elegant solution. It is relativly easy to isolate helicobacta infection as the cause of the ulcer or stenosis (either gastrocopy-biopsy or or a simple urease breath test) and treat it through tripple drug therapy : amoxicillin plus clarithromycin plus omeprazole(proton pump inhibitor).
    One might ask why some people are effected worse than others (for example in poor countries childhood infection seems to lead to greater adult ulcer and cancer rates) but these guys found an important solution to a real life problem.

  92. Actually, yeah. by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    Instead of "knowledge management", I've often wondered if it's more appropriate to talk about "ignorance management". What can I responsibly not know....

    --
    -Stu
    1. Re:Actually, yeah. by @madeus · · Score: 1

      Instead of "knowledge management", I've often wondered if it's more appropriate to talk about "ignorance management"

      ROFL. That's an awesome phrase, you don't mind if I steal that do you? :-)

  93. injected himself? by POds · · Score: 1

    Could one be more correct in saying he drank it? Which is what he said on news reports here in Australia. Unless i'm totaly off my tree :|

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
  94. worthless doctors by nido · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's kind of funny - I've just be going along, living my life.. Then a couple years ago I "develop" a typing injury. Bump from one incompetent M.D. to another. I didn't think they were incompetent at the time, they just didn't know how to help me.

    Finally I end up going to an Doctor of Osteopathy who specializes in Osteopathic Manipulation. He's like, "yeah, you're fucked up. I can fix you, no problem." And he does his ten-fingered medicine, and I slowly but magically start to feel better. Neat.

    And over the course of the treatments, I realize that my being "fucked up" didn't start with the typing injury, or the head injury which preceded it by a year. My mom reminded me constantly last fall of what a "difficult baby" I was, as I was always crying for not provocation. Especially compared to my younger brother, who "would just coo...". I was crying because I hurt - "mom, please help". Mom takes me to my M.D. pediatrician, "nothing's wrong with him, he'll grow out of it." It's kind of weird to realize that I've been "fucked up" for my entire life - I have no idea what it means to be normal.

    While it's true that some osteopaths go to D.O. school because they're somewhat easier to get into, more and more students are CHOOSING D.O. colleges because they believe in the philosophy. My Osteopath discovered the benefits of Osteopathy when a D.O. took away back pains that he'd had since injuring his back in a martial arts class 7 years earlier. 3 visits. Now he has the occasional patient who's been dealing with a health problem for TEN YEARS, and he's able to fix them in a single visit.

    My D.O. isn't cheap. Unless you consider what I would go through with an M.D. - expensive tests, expensive drugs, expensive surgery. So, when I look at how I could be throwing money at not getting any better (at worthless tests, worthless drugs, and worthless surgery), I'm perfectly happy with his payment policy (cash or check, $175/20 minute visit, bill your own insurance).

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  95. Acid does not really harm h.pylori by ringm000 · · Score: 1
    It's a bit late to post here but I'd like to correct you.

    These bacteria thrive in a highly acidic environment. Acid does not protect us agains them, that's the point why they are in our stomaches in the first place. They are (1) very acid resistant and (2) generate ammonia to neutraize the acid down to acceptable levels.

    H.pylori is eradicated with a combination of an antibiotic[s] (e.g. amoxicillin) and a proton pump inhibitor (e.g. omeprazole). The latter one radically lowers stomach acid levels, to allow the stomach lining to heal. If low (vs. normal) acid levels would help the bacteria to survive, this scheme would never be used.

  96. Re:COLD FUSION research will be awarded with Nobel by krysith · · Score: 1

    The lightning neutrons that RenoX referred to are here: http://www.physorg.com/news6674.html

    I have also worked with BF3 neutron detectors around high electrical fields, and I have also seen noise effects on the detector. In my experience, the counts which were caused by electrical disturbance only occurred during nearby spark-out incidents. If you were working indoors without high electrical fields present, it is most likely that your spikes were caused by the lightning neutrons, and not by the electrical effects. This of course, presumes that the neutron events that DYAIZA saw were not actually broadband noise events. My Russian is rusty, so I haven't checked out the original paper to see if that might be the case.

    With regards to cold fusion, I used to hang out on sci.physics.fusion back in the day, when cold fusion was still fairly controversial and Jones, Blue, Mallove, and others would discuss their experiments. I have always thought that the interstitial energy explanation was the correct one, and I think it should be brought up whenever cold fusion is discussed. The claims of excess energy never seemed to take into account the energy of putting the hydrogen into the interstices, and the process of doing this was always the bugaboo when discussions of "If it works, why don't you build an engine" came up.

    I do think that using the so-called "cold fusion" process as an energy storage mechanism could be interesting.