Slashdot Mirror


One In 100 Carry Mutation For Heart Disease

mmmscience brings us news of a new study, published in Nature Genetics by an international team of scientists, that tells a scary story: globally, 1% of the population carry a gene mutation that is almost guaranteed to lead to some form of heart problems. On the Indian subcontinent, the prevalence is 4%. The mutation is a 25-letter deletion of DNA data on the heart protein gene MYBPC3, believed to have arisen in India 30,000 years ago. The researchers say that the mutation wasn't selected out of the population because its effects don't occur until after the childbearing years. The article mentions a prediction that "by 2010 India's population will suffer approximately 60% of the world's heart disease."

203 comments

  1. Stock Market by Afforess · · Score: 0, Troll

    Looks like its time to bail on those life/health insurance stocks.

    --
    If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    1. Re:Stock Market by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is why I only invest in racist insurance companies...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Stock Market by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait until the US has some sort of universal health care, and immigration from India is outlawed as a "cost cutting measure".

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    3. Re:Stock Market by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Wait until the US has some sort of universal health care, and immigration from India is outlawed as a "cost cutting measure"."

      Well, I'm sure even today's private insurance companies rate people based on predisposition of their race towards diseases. I"m sure blacks are rated based on things like sickle cell anemia. I seem to remember there is some jewish birth defect or something that is relatively common, etc.

      I don't think it would be 'racist' to base risk scores on people due to their race, since these are risks commonly associated with their genetic makeup. It is based sole risk. I mean, it is the same aas basing risk on behaviors that are dangerous like someone that is horribly overweight and smokes. Sure, one is genetic and one is behavior, but they are both risk factors to be weighed in a business decision.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Stock Market by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure even today's private insurance companies rate people based on predisposition of their race towards diseases.

      When private insurance companies are paying for your health care, the worst they can do is jack up your rate, deny claims, or not insure you at all. But the government has the power to do anything. Look at helmet laws for motorcyclists, seatbelt laws, and the myriad of others, which serve no purpose but to reduce the socialized cost of health care. Imagine what laws will be passed when the government is picking up all of the tab for everyone's health care, all in the name of reducing costs.

      I seem to remember there is some jewish birth defect or something that is relatively common, etc.

      I think you're referring to Tay-Sachs disease.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    5. Re:Stock Market by theun4gven · · Score: 1

      private insurance companies rate people based on predisposition of their race towards diseases. . . I seem to remember there is some jewish birth defect or something that is relatively common

      Judaism is not a race, it's a religion.

    6. Re:Stock Market by Retric · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly feel the only reason to have seat belt laws is to reduce the cost of socialized medicine? Does the loss of life angle mean nothing to you?

    7. Re:Stock Market by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly feel the only reason to have seat belt laws is to reduce the cost of socialized medicine?

      Yes, the only reason we have seat belt laws (for adults), is because of the increased accident-related costs. Why else would we have them? If someone wants to do something risky and stupid, more power to them. But if I am the one picking up the tab for the consequences, why don't I have the right to restrict such behavior?

      Does the loss of life angle mean nothing to you?

      Not really. Freedom to live my life in a manner of my choosing means so much more. If people want to do things which risk their lives, that's their right. Who am I to tell anyone how much risk they can take? If I weren't paying part of your hospital bills, I wouldn't care what you did to yourself.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    8. Re:Stock Market by Retric · · Score: 1

      Ok, some people care about other humans that they don't know.

      While anti smoking campaigns increase the cost of heath care the reduction in human suffering is considered a net gain. As a sociopath you probably have problems understanding much of human behavior, but just consider people consistently act in what you might consider strange ways. Even if you don't understand peoples motivations they still exist and drive peoples behavior. With a little effort you can probably work out the logic, even if you don't have an emotional reaction to such things.

    9. Re:Stock Market by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly feel the only reason to have seat belt laws is to reduce the cost of socialized medicine? Does the loss of life angle mean nothing to you?

      I don't need the government to tell me what I will and will not do with my body.

      If I decide to jump off a cliff, technically, that's perfectly legal. So is drinking bleach.

      By extension, if I want to drive around without a seat belt, risking my life (and noone else's), then that is my perogative, not some cop's who happens to be driving past in the opposite direction with nothing better to do.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    10. Re:Stock Market by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Ok, some people care about other humans that they don't know.

      Just because I don't feel the need to boss others around and make choices for them, doesn't mean I don't care about others. I think everyone should wear their seatbelt. It is stupid not to. It really sucks when people die from preventable causes.

      But at no time, do I consider my feelings of caring, a valid reason to run peoples' lives for them. I can implore people to wear their seatbelts. But I cannot, ethically, force people to follow arbitrary safety rules, when they are hurting no one else.

      As a sociopath you probably have problems understanding much of human behavior, but just consider people consistently act in what you might consider strange ways.

      As a sociopath, you probably have problems understanding why personal freedom should be respected, but just consider people consistently act in what you might consider strange ways.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    11. Re:Stock Market by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      No...I just don't feel, as a responsible adult that I need the govt. to nanny me, and tell me what to do for safety.

      For example...the helmet law for motorcycles.

      Until a few years ago, LA had repealed the old law, and adults could decide if they wanted to wear one or not. I often did, but, when I didn't feel like it, I didn't. That should be my choice as a free adult, that is responsible for my actions.

      And before anyone goes onto how it costs us 'all' for non-helmet riders in wrecks, I for one can tell you for a fact, since that bitch of a govenor re-instated the helmet laws...not a single persons insurance rates dropped as a result of said law.

      I'm hoping at some point, we can get Jindal to get behind efforts out there to repeal the helmet law again, but, we'll have to see.

      I can appreciate your concern for your fellow man, but, I'd much rather let each person be responsible for their own actions and safety.

      Is it stupid to ride a bike without a helmet? Yep...in most cases yes. However, it should be my choice. True freedom also gives a person the freedom to be an idiot, and make mistakes.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Stock Market by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      Yes they are. We call them JEWS for a reason. THEY ARE BORN into jewsish families brainwashed from young age to marry only other jews, OF COURSE there are going to be inbreeding mutations...

    13. Re:Stock Market by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Depends... There are such people who are ethnically Jewish. I would like to refer you to the Mt Sinai Center for Jewish Genetic Diseases.

      http://www.mssm.edu/jewish_genetics/

  2. More proof of intelligent design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ...and that our designer was a racist and a dumbass.

  3. Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    India cannot support hundreds of millions of elderly pensioners. Long-term this will probably be a competitive advantage over China.

    1. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Thiez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's one way of looking at it. Then again, maybe these people will end up in hospital and get some (expensive) medical treatment rather than just dropping dead unannounced the moment they stop working, giving Indea a competitive disadvantage.

    2. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by NIckGorton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or better yet, childhood diagnosis with this particular condition would merit lifetime treatment with statins and aggressive control of other modifying factors. Prevent these kids from smoking, get them in a daily exercise habit, teach them a good diet, and monitor and aggressively treat for diabetes and hypertension if/when they appear. Except for the genetic test itself, the rest of that is cheaper than spit. Even in the US, the real cost of the blood tests and medicines would be less than $200 annually. Add two NP visits and its maybe $400 annually. The cost in India would obviously be even cheaper.

      However what is expensive is the political will to prevent smoking in children. Its also politically expensive to have cheap and effective public health prevention programs. Heaven forbid you give medicines or pap smears to people who don't have insurance or money.... why.... it.... would be an ENTITLEMENT!

      Shudder! Aiiigh! No, not that!

      Wait, did that sound bitter?

    3. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by elashish14 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      India cannot support hundreds of millions of elderly pensioners. Long-term this will probably be a competitive advantage over China.

      I don't know where you come from, but usually people in modern civilizations make an effort to help people live. Why don't we just kill everyone over 70? Or at least refuse them medical treatment? Or how about eliminating all forms of pension? That's a good competitive advantage.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    4. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by gravos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with your sentiment, but the practical side of me worries that insurance companies would do whatever they could to find out whether we carried this defect or not.

      Even if you make it illegal for them to discriminate on genetic defects, there's still a risk they'll try to get around the legislation...

    5. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      70 pfft. That's too old. Haven't you seen "Logan's Run"?

    6. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      single payer health care system. without it, this will be a HUGE issue, one i don't think will find a solution with the system we have in place.

    7. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by rhyder128k · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah but imagine get work done in an office of pastel coloured toga wearers. That's a competitive disadvantage.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    8. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Jartan · · Score: 3

      I always find posts like this vaguely disturbing. It's worded as if these people are almost lucky. As if this life threatening disease is somehow a gift so that they will have plenty of incentive to live healthy.

      Why not say: "Or better yet, someone will come up with a cheap cure that isn't some tailor made weekly supplement drug designed to make pharma corps money until the patient dies."

    9. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by philspear · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, someone will come up with a cheap cure that isn't some tailor made weekly supplement drug designed to make pharma corps money until the patient dies.

      The whole "drug companies want to keep you alive and dependant, not cured" thing sounds a lot like a bogus conspiracy theory to me. I know next to nothing about medicine, and I'm open to the possibility that I'm totally wrong.

      First of all, I never hear any concrete examples, which is a good sign.

      Second, drug companies aren't the CIA, when they do things wrong, like testing in 3rd world countries without real informed consent, it becomes public knowledge before too long. If they were sitting on an effective cure in favor of constant treatments, someone is going to let that slip.

      Third, if a company comes up with a cure to a disease, especially a common one, that's a lot of money they get for it. They're going to rush it to market. Supressing that to market a costly treatment is a bad investment even aside from the ethics and scandal: you're lucky to have cured a disease, coming up with a weekly suplement form of it takes more money if it works in the end. Factor in the other stuff, and that goes from a foolish decision to one not even a large corporation would make.

      It is possible that having come up with a costly prolonged treatment they'll relax on trying to find an actual cure, but their competitors will still be.

      So let's make slashdot sound a little less tinfoil hatish. If there's an actual example of big pharma keeping patients dependant when they could cure them instead, I retract my objection, but I really think this is just a common conspiracy theory passed off as wisdom.

    10. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Yuuki+Dasu · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't have the ironclad proof you're asking for, but I feel like you may be slightly misrepresenting the anti-big-pharma crowd's speculation. I'd like to try to give it a proper defense, at least, although I, too, would love to be proven wrong.

      First of all, I never hear any concrete examples, which is a good sign.

      I, too, would love to see some good concrete examples either way - if that means info about promising cures that are being aggressively pushed through the approval process, evidence of heaps of money being thrown at the problem, or, in fact, someone sitting on a cure, the truth can do nothing but shed light.

      Second, drug companies aren't the CIA, when they do things wrong, like testing in 3rd world countries without real informed consent, it becomes public knowledge before too long. If they were sitting on an effective cure in favor of constant treatments, someone is going to let that slip.

      Granted, there are those among the anti-pharma crowd who believe that drug companies are actually sitting on effective cures - I'd say that the majority hold a slightly different opinion, though. We believe simply that there's more money in treatment, and that it can be easier to get drugs approved as treatment for a disease than as a cure. I'm sure to a certain degree it's a case of medical mystery vs. low-hanging fruit, but it's not heartening for the fight against heart disease to keep plodding on with little obvious progress in the span of time it takes for half a dozen new anti-ED drugs to hit the market.

      Third, if a company comes up with a cure to a disease, especially a common one, that's a lot of money they get for it. They're going to rush it to market. Supressing that to market a costly treatment is a bad investment even aside from the ethics and scandal: you're lucky to have cured a disease, coming up with a weekly suplement form of it takes more money if it works in the end. Factor in the other stuff, and that goes from a foolish decision to one not even a large corporation would make.

      You have a good point about the potential reward of succeeding; however, the search for cures like that is a pretty high-risk venture. I don't know enough of the particulars to say whether it's a good ROI or not.

      It is possible that having come up with a costly prolonged treatment they'll relax on trying to find an actual cure, but their competitors will still be.

      I very much hope this is true. Unfortunately, I am skeptical of there being an adequate number of players in the pharmaceuticals market to give a lot of pressure in this way.

      Again I'll say, I hope I'm wrong on this. It'd be great if we had some good evidence that there are big bucks going to cure these big problems. Without that evidence, though, some of us are skeptics on the issue.

    11. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      there are more kinds of heart disease than coronary artery disease you know. this particular gene predisposes one to cardiomyopathy, not atherosclerosis. so your treatment plan would just have the effect of making these patients miserable for 40 years before they keeled over from heart failure.

    12. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fair enough, but you need to keep in mind that the problems you describe with medical insurance companies are almost exclusively a US problem. The US medical system is quite unique.

    13. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though the higher risk in itself is a bad thing, having the higher risk than other areas can actually cause a net benefit by those effected in that area.

      People are more likely to do something when they have a higher risk to be effected.

      It's essentially 'your family has a history of X', in this case heart disease. You know it ahead of time you can act against it while all the other people in other places with a lower effected ratio probably won't do anything about it, thinking it won't happen to them, and have poorer health because it.

      Also apologies for effected as I'm sure some of those should have been affected but I always get it wrong.

    14. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      > However what is expensive is the political will to prevent smoking in childen.

      A ban on public smoking is in effect in India.

    15. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      People are more likely to do something when they have a higher risk to be effected.

      Not always. Sometimes people take a defeatist attitude. It depends on how you frame that risk to the patient and how the patient sees it. A good example of such defeatism (and general adolescent 'fuck you' attitude) is kids with CF who start smoking.

    16. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "70 pfft. That's too old. Haven't you seen "Logan's Run"?"

      yep....21 years is old enough for anybody. Just make sure and have a blast on "Last Day", before you have to turn yourself in for "Sleep"...Citizen.

      You don't want the Sandmen to come after you with a Homer.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      but it's not heartening for the fight against heart disease to keep plodding on with little obvious progress in the span of time it takes for half a dozen new anti-ED drugs to hit the market.
      You do realize that heart disease research is where the ED drugs came from right? An interesting side-effect of the heart disease treatment lead to the discovery of Viagra. So it's not like there's just a room full of scientists thinking how can I make people turgid instead of curing some real life threatening disease.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    18. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we just kill everyone over 70? Or at least refuse them medical treatment? Or how about eliminating all forms of pension? That's a good competitive advantage.

      Stop. Giving. Them. Ideas.

    19. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      The problem with India is that they have banned so many things in the past for dubious reasons and the enforcement is so corrupt that people tend to view any ban or issue with the government officials as a problem to be routed around with a bribe. The Indian people are so used to working around and over government regulations that even worthwile ones tend to be ingored at convenience in India.

    20. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      India cannot support hundreds of millions of elderly pensioners. Long-term this will probably be a competitive advantage over China.

      Except China and India probably share that same mutation, given that they are probably fairly close, genetically.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    21. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      I agree with your sentiment, but the practical side of me worries that insurance companies would do whatever they could to find out whether we carried this defect or not. Even if you make it illegal for them to discriminate on genetic defects, they will try to get around the legislation...

      Fixed it for you. Risk != certainty. If the information is somehow procurable, insurance companies will always find a way to obtain and use it, legally or not. Can't get DNA to find the mutation itself because it's illegal? Fine. They'll just look for a protein marker that is too general to tie specifically to that mutation. Their actuaries will state "Well, people with this protein marker tend to also have higher risks of heart problems, though it's a digestive enzyme." Lo and behold, your rates increase over someone without the defect. Sure, it will probably catch folks without the mutation as well, but that's the price we pay.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    22. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Holland insurances would jump at this given half the chance. And who knows maybe the financial crisis that has hit them might be that chance...
      No different in the UK I guess

    23. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not "entitled" to my money. If you don't care about yours, fine -- but don't try to get the government to mooch mine for your favorite programs!
      What is it about the collectivist mindset that everyone except the person that earns the money has an a priori right to it if enough of them vote for it?!

    24. Re:Prolly a good thing for India's stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, childhood diagnosis with this particular condition would merit lifetime treatment and denial of health care & life insurance benefits

      There, fixed that for ya.

  4. I guess I should get tested. by bchernicoff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was recently diagnosed with Giant Cell Myocarditis at age 29 and am now awaiting a heart transplant. No one knows why it hit me.

    1. Re:I guess I should get tested. by NIckGorton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can you mod parent complete utter fucking douchebag?

    2. Re:I guess I should get tested. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd log in and mod him down, but I'm too busy touching myself -- still on my first heart, too!

    3. Re:I guess I should get tested. by azav · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good luck. Wishing you the best.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    4. Re:I guess I should get tested. by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Redundant

      why is this modded funny?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:I guess I should get tested. by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      Who the hell modded this funny? I was vaguely expecting to find out that GCM was a DHMO-type gag, but nope, looks to be real.

    6. Re:I guess I should get tested. by cyfer2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I actually know one survived this problem with a heart transplant. You are really a lucky one in those unfortunate, most people with this problem died before doctors can diagnose this problem or even before seeing a doctor. I heard that there were only about 300 diagnosed cases (including those failed to get a heart transplant).

      Best wishes. I know how painful and stressful it can be, but you are really the lucky one already, just one more step and you can live a common life again.

      Contact me if you like.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    7. Re:I guess I should get tested. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why so serious?

    8. Re:I guess I should get tested. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's serious as a heart attack!

  5. hmmmm by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    MYBPC3 = MY Blood Pressure Crap Crap Crap

    1. Re:hmmmm by jd · · Score: 1

      25 letters missing? That's almost a whole alphabet!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:hmmmm by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      It's also "MySpace" in text message talk.

  6. I guess India need it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there are too many people over there ... 4% is something we should accept ... I think.
      it is better than having a younger generation than old generation hanging around ...

  7. If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 and the prevalence in all of humanity is 1 in 100 then the prevalence in all areas outside of India must be very very minute.

    1. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      India has a population of C. 1.1 billion, to a world total of 6.7 or so. If 1.1 billion have a 4% prevalence, that is ~44 million. If 6.7 billion have an overall 1% prevalence, that would be ~67 million. 67-44 gives us 23 million affected among the 5.6 billion non-indian humans. That makes for ~.4% among non-indians. This assumes, of course, that the 1% number is worldwide, rather than non-indian worldwide. 1/10th the risk is fairly dramatic; but .4% is only slightly less than 1 in 200 people, which is very much in the "somebody, probably several people, you know and or work with have it right now" territory rather than the "vague abstract risk" territory.

    2. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by El+Torico · · Score: 3, Informative

      .4% is 1 in 250.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    3. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by JDevers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of the population affected outside India are probably Indian or have a significant Indian ancestry. This doesn't change your numbers, but shows that the risk is actually much higher or lower depending on your social group.

    4. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, yes... but if you think you know your genetic history, and don't have a printed gene sequence test in front of you, the odds are you're wrong.

      Talk to genetic paleontologists. Genes are a lot more mobile among populations than people admit.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by j01123 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I did a quick read of the Nature Genetics letter and, as far as I can tell, it makes no claims as to the worldwide frequency of the allele (actually a micro-deletion). Accurately measuring allele frequencies for the world's population is not something that most studies are adequately designed for, so it's not surprising that they don't provide an estimate. Here's what they have to say about the deletion's frequency outside of India.

      The presence of this deletion in many Indian populations with varied geographical and ancestral backgrounds raises the question of how geographically widespread it is outside India. We therefore also analyzed 63 world population samples, comprising 2,085 indigenous individuals from 26 countries including all five continents. The 25-bp deletion was observed in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia, (all heterozygotes) but was absent from other samples. Thus, the deletion is a common variant in individuals from South Asia, present in Southeast Asia, but undetectable elsewhere (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 5 online).

      The supplementary materials give the sample sizes for each of the ethnic groups that were sampled and the number of deletion carriers. Most of the individual samples are small, but in the aggregate they do strongly suggest that the deletion is practically non-existent outside of South Asia and a few neighboring areas.

      This does raise the question of how the media got this 1% prevalence estimate, unless I completely missed it in the article. In general, media outlets don't report the contents of peer-reviewed articles, they report the contents of press releases that accompany (or precede) the articles.

    6. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if you think you know your genetic history, and don't have a printed gene sequence test in front of you, the odds are you're wrong.

      My mother's milkman was from India, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, 10% of north americans and europeans suffer from moneyitis, the deadly disease of insurance companies paying doctors to overlook symptoms. Incurable diseases are much cheaper then curable ones.

      On the flip-side, we've got pharmaceutical companies making billions off diseases we don't necessarily have...

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    8. Re:If the prevalence in India is 4 in 100 by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "all heterozygotes"?

      The mutation is recessive, right? If so, that makes it 0.01^2=0.01% population...

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  8. Odds are... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're going to die of heart disease, and I'd imagine there are many more mutations that we haven't found yet.

    1. Re:Odds are... by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      That depends. If you're in America, your odds of getting heart disease are substantially greater than if you lived in Europe. Part of that is genetics, part is exercise, part is diet, part is that Europeans don't work themselves to death.

      Yes, there are probably lots of genetic markers that could increase your risk of one condition or another. There will be other genetic markers that reduce your risk. Until you know more than just one or two, you have no means of knowing what the overall effect will be.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Odds are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worrying about one can't control is counterproductive. i don't even want to know if i have this gene or not.

      rather, taking action to achieve wellness, regardless of one's genetic code, is time much better spent.

      here's some tips...

      1. eat lots of fruits, vegetables and a few nuts.
      2. use good quality organic extra virgin olive olive oil (buttery on tip of tongue, peppery on back of tongue) instead of veggie oil.
      3. eat lean protein.
      4. eat moderate sized meals more often.
      5. eat fish frequently or supplement with high dose EPA/DHA concentrate (high quality fish oil).
      6. elminating or moderating egg yolk consumption is also a good idea as it contains high levels of "toxic fat," arachidonic acid, that elevates silent inflammation within the body.

      for an overall program, the new nutritional guidelines (updated in 2005 based on latest research) put forth by harvard medical school's joslin diabetes center is an excellent place to start (you can google it).

      while being healthy as one ages is a nice benefit, this diet can go a long way toward making you feel better every day right now (stabilize glood sugar and reduce silent inflammation).

      my diet is exceptionally healthy - and i love it. i wouldn't go back to SAD (standard american diet) if someone paid me to do so.

      if you think diet doesn't play a role in wellness...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7426326.stm

      those results are astounding and many times greater than what any drug has been able to do... and with only positive side effects.

    3. Re:Odds are... by jd · · Score: 1

      Shhhhh! I was going to package all of that into some pills and sell them as a miracle health cure. You've gone and spoiled it now. Bah! :) Seriously, you are correct that a healthy diet is important. I'd add one more item: try to incorporate foods with a high level of flavenoids (these include red grapes, onions, and a few other foods - if I recall, blueberries are also on the list). The strongest concentration of flavenoids appears to be in the seeds of red grapes, although red grapes alone are very good for you.

      A generically good diet will indeed minimize genetic risks (by eliminating triggers, reducing molecules that the body has a harder time processing, and so on), although it should be possible to optimize the diet if you have a better idea of whether any "typically good" foods will actually be harmful in your specific case. In general, I doubt the difference will be significant.

      Knowing health risks may have other benefits. In the case of Chronic Fatigue, it turns out a medicine for one form won't help with a different form (and may even be dangerous - one close friend died from the meds she was given because of this kind of prescription error). In other cases, if the information tells you that some substance X will worsen the condition (Chemical X is another matter), then you can make sensible choices about location - well, assuming pollution is documented well enough. We know, for example, that the Willamette Valley in Oregon is horribly polluted, particularly with mercury. Dangerous levels, well above acceptable levels, can be found in the water, soil and air. From this, we can deduce that all people in Portland are as mad as a hatter - and for the same reason - but that's obvious. Many cities have horribly polluted water supplies (which explains why there are so many teenage mutant ninja cats on YouTube) but there's no reason to suppose all cities carry the same pollution. Knowing what you're likely to be sensitive to in advance would be very helpful.

      For these reasons, I would argue that even if you can't do anything about the gene, there is an enormous amount you can do by knowing if the gene is present - and an enormous amount you can do even if you have absolutely no idea and/or don't care.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. There is no way I will ever get tested for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would end up in my medical records and I could never get health insurance again.

  10. Proclivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A mutant with 60+million descendants. Perhaps there is hope for me after all.

    1. Re:Proclivity by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      A mutant with 60+million descendants. Perhaps there is hope for me after all.

      circulation issues are known to cause ED, but are also known to cause priopism.

      I suspect the latter happened in this "mutant".

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  11. Hey guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roland Piquepaille hasn't updated his blog in a while. I'm started to get worried.

    1. Re:Hey guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he died

  12. Where the moneys at yo! by pieisgood · · Score: 1

    This is why I'm going pre-med. In the hopes that within 8 to 10 years I'll be a specialist in cardiology. While my motives aren't exactly pure (money) I'll still be helping some people. But seriously, Baby boomers... you guys are so boned.

    --
    Eat sleep die
    1. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are doing it for the money, you will be living in hell. Really.

      There are much better ways to earn mucho bucks, cardiology is not the path.

    2. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by NIckGorton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me give you two bits of advice, Sport:

      1) If you are going into medicine for the money and are pre-med now, you are basically going to end up in the same situation that all those kids coming out of Harvard with MBAs expecting to make millions on Wall Street. Once you finish 4 years of med school, three of IM residency, and 2 of Cards fellowship, the well will have dried up significantly for specialists who don't do fee for service (which few people are for a cath and stent). Have you considered plastics?

      2) If you insist on persisting with your career plans, take Spanish now. You're going to be amazed how being bilingual in a useful language in the US sells on your med school and residency application. Because while you are going to be making less money, you are going to have a lot more Spanish speaking patients when you get out. Maybe if you grow a sense of moral responsibility to your fellow men (which should be a pre-rec for med school but sadly isn't) you'll be glad you took my advice and can converse with your patients in their native language in a culturally competent way.

      Or just go into plastics.

    3. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because, no one else has thought of that and hence there won't be an over supply of cardiologists in a decade...

    4. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, there are a lot of Spanish speaking doctors, because a lot of them ARE Spanish, and speak English as a second language (often extremely fluently).

      OTOH, a school here has 17 languages that it must deal with. Try Vietnamese, Laotian, Tagalog. (Lots of Philippine nurses, but I haven't met many doctors. Perhaps they stay home.) Portuguese might be a good second string, esp. if you're on the east coast. French if you're near the Canadian border. Etc. (I didn't suggest either Chinese or Japanese, as I've met too many doctors with that as their native tongue, or as the language spoken at home.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by jd · · Score: 1

      No, they'll just switch to the Mediterranean Diet in the hopes of exploiting the French Paradox and drink themselves to death first.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tagalog. (Lots of Philippine nurses, but I haven't met many doctors. Perhaps they stay home.)

      It's cultural, nurses are like the #1 export of the Philippines, in part because of the marinisma/machismo culture which inculcates the women and girls with a very strong sense of responsibility for care-giving in the family which transfers pretty well into doing it professionally too.

    7. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      in part because of the marinisma/machismo culture which inculcates the women and girls with a very strong sense of responsibility for care-giving in the family which transfers pretty well into doing it professionally too.

      Honestly, that's not been my experience with Filipino nurses in the U.S. I spent several years caring for my father: he was in and out of a number of different hospitals. There were several institutions where the Filipino staff had essentially taken over the entire nursing operation. There were few left who were white, black, Chinese or anything else. I wouldn't have minded that so much, if they hadn't proven to be among the most uncaring, hostile, and sometimes outright incompetent nurses I'd ever encountered. The language barrier alone was almost insurmountable, and don't tell me it's because I don't speak their language.

      Your mileage may, of course, vary. I'm not trying to speak for everyone, or say that all Filipino nurses are horrible. It's just what I personally experienced.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by pieisgood · · Score: 1

      According to this article I should be learning Hindi, first of all. Second, Heart disease is the largest killer on this planet. I seriously doubt that by the time I would be done with my fellowship that there will be an over abundance of cardiologists. I'm not in it for seven figures, six figures is the goal. Plus, I'd rather be private practice than in the cath lab. It's also a disease that is pretty much supported by our lifestyle here in the US and abroad in first world countries. I see little evidence to suggest that I won't be making bank by the time I'm out. Thanks for the condescending "sport" though.

      --
      Eat sleep die
    9. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bad management can fuck up any staff. Filipino nurses are regularly abused by management - false promises, unpaid work, unrealistic expectations. That stuff ultimately trickles down to the patients, no matter how dedicated the nurses may have started off as. A small group even went on strike over such treatment recently, made headlines because their agency tried real hard to blame them for the entire situation.

    10. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by mkaushik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately for you, Indians aren't exactly flocking to the US for treatment. It's actually the other way round, since quality medical care is available for a fraction of the US price here (for those above the poverty line), which has spawned a whole "medical tourism" industry. The doctors here are as good as anywhere else in the world, and make very good money. Most successful doctors I have known have been very compassionate people. Good luck to you, kid.

    11. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you grow a sense of moral responsibility to your fellow men (which should be a pre-rec for med school but sadly isn't)...

      Could you either a) list the jobs not requiring "moral responsibility" or b) get off your high horse? I conside myself to be moral but moralizers - almost without exception - promote their own agenda and philosophy. You might be better off advocating education in concepts of morality or various philosophies. Advocating "moral responsibility" is typically advociting one - and thus, statistically, the wrong or at least limited - way of approaching things. When these things are applied professionally, you get either relatively tame "codes of conduct" or absurd religous "oaths of office" (see POTUS and the revisionist history about the oath of office).

    12. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, they'll just switch to the Mediterranean Diet in the hopes of exploiting the French Paradox and drink themselves to death first.

      You gotta admit, it sure beats dying sober.

      /salud!
      //guzzles the last swig of wine in the bottle, and calls it a night...

    13. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by robot_lords_of_tokyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thanks for the sanity check. Globalization doesn't just affect people that work on assembly lines.

      Now that the quality of care is becoming on par, and often better than that in the US, I think it's only a matter of time before the big daddy of medical care in the US, insurance, starts moving towards cost cutting via treatment overseas. A number of insurance companies in Europe are already doing this, and NHS in the UK has a pilot voucher program going for overseas care... Only a matter of time.

    14. Re:Where the moneys at yo! by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that by the time I would be done with my fellowship that there will be an over abundance of cardiologists.

      Well, you'd be wrong. There is a strong and increasing trend for medical students to avoid primary care. The lifestyle and affluent specialties are ballooning. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/health/11doctors.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

      You can't seriously believe that there aren't scads of premeds thinking exactly what you are? And unless cardiology practices some serious birth control like Anesthesia did, there will be a glut. Though if they do practice serious birth control to avoid a glut, a cards fellowship will be harder to come by than an ENT spot.

      I'm not in it for seven figures, six figures is the goal.

      Good. You'll probably make well over 100,000 by the time you graduate. However as I said, that's not a ton if you are entering it for the money (given that you'll first spend 8 years going into debt unless you've got rich parents) followed by 5 years making around minimum wage (you'll make a small salary as a resident, but because of the hours you work it ends up being for crap hourly.) And with debts in the 200-300k range common, you won't break even with your friends who entered a career after undergrad till you are a decade out from finishing your training.

      Plus, I'd rather be private practice than in the cath lab. It's also a disease that is pretty much supported by our lifestyle here in the US and abroad in first world countries.

      Ah, that's almost cute in its naivete. If you spend a day in the cath lab (now) doing procedures you'll make $5000. If you spend the day in clinic (which is I think what you mean by 'private practice') you will be lucky to clear $1000. The whole reason that people enter fields like cardiology to make money is that they are procedure heavy. Seeing grandma in clinic gets you squat (except the chance that grandma might need a cath or a pacer from you.)

      As an example from my own practice, if I spend 60 minutes with you assessing and diagnosing your abdominal pain, doing a big work-up, and admitting you to the hospital for appendicitis, I make less than if I pull a bean out of a toddlers nose. Procedures are the cash cow of medicine and you will be a pretty poor cardiologist indeed if you keep the attitude that you'd rather be in clinic than the cath lab.

      Of course those figures are today, and the well will be drier when you come out. Insurers and the government are seriously putting the clamps on high ticket procedure-monkeys. For example, CA just recently enacted a rule that says hospital based physicians can't bill HMO patients the balance of what their insurer doesn't pay for. So if you do a cath at a hospital in CA and bill Ms Smith's HMO $2000, they can pay you $500 and your only real recourse is a lawsuit against the insurer. And that's just one example. Making money from procedures is going to be far less guaranteed than it is now.

      I see little evidence to suggest that I won't be making bank by the time I'm out. Thanks for the condescending "sport" though.

      Well as Carl Sagan said: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is especially the case when you don't seem to have looked at the abundance of evidence out there suggesting you're projected income will be significantly less than you seem to think. But at least you were a nice young man and demonstrated that my use of 'Sport' was in fact, appropriate.

  13. yet another argument for universal health care. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Watch health insurers start demanding blood samples.

    They already rifle through our health records freely thanks to holes they bought in our so called medical "privacy" standards.

    As the genome gets further and further mapped, expect more and more people to be "uninsurable at any price".

    I welcome another 1-4% of the world to my hell.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I welcome another 1-4% of the world to my hell.

      Yeah, those bloodsuckers will happily take your premiums year after year, until you actually start to cost them money. Then they find ways to get rid of you. Now, Federal Law in the U.S. says they can't just drop you arbitrarily, but they can jack your premiums up to the point where you can no longer pay. That happened to my Dad: he paid Aetna for decades and hardly used them ... then when he became seriously ill they ramped up his premiums to about $20,000 a year, so we had give them up, and of course nobody else would insure him for less. Fortunately (and I use the term loosely) he suffered total renal failure and ended up on dialysis. That's one of the few medical conditions that will automatically give you Medicare at any age (he was 62 when he died.) If you're in any kind of a similar situation, man, I feel for you.

      What truly torques me into a preztel are the routine conflicts-of-interest and general corruption/collusion between insurance companies and medical suppliers. It's really obscene ... and billions could be saved (along with many lives) if insurance carriers would spend a little money trying to reduce waste and outright fraud. For example, I had a girlfriend whose father had to go in for an MRI at one point. Fairly routine, except that the hospital billed their insurance for two MRIs, both listed as being on the same day at the same time. One could say, well, hell, it's not your own money at stake, but when you have a lifetime cap and are getting old ... well. So her mother calls the insurance company (repeatedly) to complain about this fraudulent billing (at the time an MRI was very expensive.) She was told (repeatedly!) that "we have to go by what the hospital says."

      Unbe-fucking-leivable.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by j01123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As the genome gets further and further mapped, expect more and more people to be "uninsurable at any price".

      Discrimination based on genetics is already outlawed by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

    3. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      As the genome gets further and further mapped, expect more and more people to be "uninsurable at any price".

      Discrimination based on genetics is already outlawed by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

      How about a better one.. what about the fact men pay about 25% more than women for health, life, and auto?

      Funny how some forms of discrimination are allowed, but not based on genetic tests.. OH WAIT, IT IS ALLOWED, they can examine your records, determine tests showed genetic predisposition, deny coverage.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by j01123 · · Score: 1

      Funny how some forms of discrimination are allowed, but not based on genetic tests.. OH WAIT, IT IS ALLOWED, they can examine your records, determine tests showed genetic predisposition, deny coverage.

      No, that is not allowed, unless GINA completely fails to do what essentially every description of the law describes it as doing.

    5. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's your loophole:

      The Act prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to developing a disease in the future.

      "we noticed you paid for a few more tests recently, and have been sick more often"

      there go your rates, or "im sorry your coverage is denied"

      WOW.. I haven't seen a loophole this big for abuse since the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    6. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discrimination based on genetics is already outlawed [genome.gov] by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act [wikipedia.org].

      And that means it won't happen?

    7. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by eth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how about this one:

      My mom needs a hearing aid. When she recently had to get a new one, this is what the hearing aid vendor told her. The MSRP is $12k (each!). If you have insurance, they bill them at $8k each. But, if you don't have insurance, they'll give you a "discount" and sell them to you directly at $3k each. They probably still make money on them at $3k, but they get to bilk an extra $5k out of the insurance company if they can... Since they never actually charge the "MSRP," I can only surmise that it's that high because they have to "discount" it for the insurance companies by a certain percent.

    8. Re:yet another argument for universal health care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is most people don't understand that universal != ubiquitous. universal == rationed.

  14. Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It always amazes me how science-leaning people such as those on slashdot seem to think all disease should be made to go away. Anybody who has any sense of reality knows that our species is FAR BEYOND overpopulated. I find it sickening that those who claim to have logical minds think that unnatural population levels can "be made to work".

    The fact is that we need BILLIONS of people to die if the planet and its inhabitants (all living species, not just human) are ever going to have a chance. Call me sadistic, but for the sake of every other species of life on this planet... I wish the rate of heart disease was 30-60%, not 1%.

    1. Re:Really... by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet, if you were in that 30-60% I'm sure you'd be seeing things much differently.

    2. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or we can just cut down on reproducing and wait a generation, rather than resorting to the idea that some people need to die ASAP.

    3. Re:Really... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      "for the sake of every other species of life on this planet... I wish the rate of heart disease was 30-60%, not 1%"

      feel free to start with yourself moron.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Really... by epine · · Score: 1

      It always amazes me how science-leaning people such as those on slashdot seem to think all disease should be made to go away.

      I think you're the guy who missed the boat. It's a generally accepted convention to treat human health as a universal good. This point came up many times in the Economist when banning tobacco in pubs was a hot button issue. There were always people pointing out that tobacco deaths saved money in the health care system. As the Economist said a number of times, we aren't in the business of evaluating human life on that premise. Almost everyone regards their own health as a positive good, so it requires a considerable amount of double-think to enter into a debate with the position that aggregate human health is a net liability.

      Any argument about the carrying capacity of the planet involves unreliable extrapolations. The confident arguments are inevitably circular. For example, you can eliminate speculation about where human technology will be in 100 years by claiming that the problems are already so large we'll never get there, when actually the present magnitude of our challenge is very much under debate.

      Looking at it from another side, "most of us are better off dead" is a loser perspective. Not exactly energizing in the pursuit of a good outcome. What society ever had a good outcome coping with daunting challenges from that emotional foundation?

      The one outcome I truly fear is the one where all the billionaires are living 200 year life spans, and everyone else is dead in under a century. I can only visualize this as degenerating into some kind of dog-eat-dog feudalism. The cream of the human race will become so preoccupied with making the immortality cut, there won't be a lot of cycles spared on externalities, such as the rest of the planet.

      How many countries already have governments that would rather be the shiny big fish in a shit box than actually do something constructive?

    5. Re:Really... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Almost everyone regards their own health as a positive good, so it requires a considerable amount of double-think to enter into a debate with the position that aggregate human health is a net liability.

      But you don't talk about aggregate statistics like that in terms of individuals. Aggregate human health isn't the issue, it's the amount of it - and the needs of that amount that is the issue.

      Any argument about the carrying capacity of the planet involves unreliable extrapolations.

      Okay, let me make it nice and simple without any unreliable extrapolations as you put it. Right now we are producing MUCH more greenhouse gasses than the planet is tucking away. Greenhouse gasses inevitably lead to a greenhouse effect. Please see Venus for a runaway example. Surface temperature? Cloud system? Atmospheric content? All rather unpleasant - not in the "this tea is a little cold and unpleasant" but more in the "this planet will melt your face unpleasant".

      The one outcome I truly fear is the one where all the billionaires are living 200 year life spans, and everyone else is dead in under a century.

      This one I wouldn't be so worried about. Given the relatively few people of vast wealth, it's not going to make that much difference. If I were you, I would be MUCH MUCH more worried about all the people living below the current western lifestle level of cars, air conditioning and fancy shopping malls - who want in on that lifestyle.

      Look at China for example. In a rush to provide their new class of citizen with some spare money with the services that they want, China is building more coal powered power stations than any other country. As these kick over and start kicking up more air pollution, you think it is only the Chinese that will suffer? Not to pick on the Chinese, it's all the third world that is starting to want to live like the rich western world - and the rich western world is happily setting a horrid example of how to do it.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    6. Re:Really... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't, and I'm 15. People should take a more open attitude with life, and subsequently - death. It's natural, and right about now this shithole ain't any fun at all. Not that I'm suicidal, just saying, if I'm destined to die, so be it, I'm SOL, so what?

      And before you ask, no I'm not off my meds, because I'm not taking any. Then again, maybe I should... Just my $0.02.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    7. Re:Really... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I'm as big a predestination fan as anyone, but personally I believe I'm destined to do everything I can to live. You know, short of exercise, eating right, getting regular checkups, etc. But as soon as we get the tech to upload our minds into immortal robot bodies, I'm so there!

    8. Re:Really... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Me too. Cheers!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  15. Misleading headline, as usual. by NereusRen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oooh, 1 in 100! Sounds scary! I'm at risk! Wait... lets apply some critical thinking to that number, shall we?

    globally, 1% of the population carry a gene mutation that is almost guaranteed to lead to some form of heart problems.

    World population is about 6.7B. Total number of people with this mutation in the world:
    1% * 6.7B = 67M.

    On the Indian subcontinent, the prevalence is 4%.

    According to Wikipedia, the subcontinent "accounts for about 40 percent of Asia's population," which is 4B. Total number of people there with this mutation:
    4% * 40% * 4B = 64M

    So, the percentage of people NOT on the Indian subcontinent that carry this mutation is:
    (67M - 64M) / (6.7B - 40%*4B) = 0.06%.

    With such a great geographical disparity in incidence, using the global 1% figure to generate the headline of "1 in 100 carry mutation" is incredibly misleading.

    The linked article is quite a bit better. It's titled "The heart disease mutation carried by 60 million," and focuses on this as being primarily an Indian problem. Somehow I'm not surprised to see kdawson as the editor on this one.

    1. Re:Misleading headline, as usual. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Percentage of people with no Indian ancestors at all: 0%

      Well, OK whatever the percent chance of that non-beneficial mutation arising elsewhere for which 0% is a pretty good estimate...

    2. Re:Misleading headline, as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You nailed it. KDawson is, at best, a hack. I'm beginning to wonder if Keith can actually read. It's a given he cannot read with any competence. And certainly is unable to post with a less than .06% accuracy in his summaries.

    3. Re:Misleading headline, as usual. by Rasta_the_far_Ian · · Score: 1

      Your analysis assumes that this is the only gene that leads to heart disease.

      As there are a number of genes that affect cardiac function, and as the incidence / prevalence of mutations in each of those genes in each race is unknown, this analysis is - while technically correct - of little value.

      Unfortunately, health insurance companies will probably raise premiums for all people of South Asian origin (Indians, Pakistanis, etc.) due to this finding, even though the overall risk of heart disease is likely to be highest for some other race once all genes affecting heart disease are considered.

    4. Re:Misleading headline, as usual. by l00sr · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, let's not forget that this is a *huge* deal for the 1.6B people who happen to be Indian. If 4% of the 300 million Americans had this gene, this would be front page news on every newspaper, and there would no doubt be a space-race-like effort to develop a cure. Sadly, I doubt this will be the case for the people actually affected by this gene.

    5. Re:Misleading headline, as usual. by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

      Yup. Pretty bad. Especially if you read the title or the abstract of the article in Nature Genetics.

      A common MYBPC3 (cardiac myosin binding protein C) variant associated with cardiomyopathies in South Asia

      Heart failure is a leading cause of mortality in South Asians. However, its genetic etiology remains largely unknown...Here, we describe a deletion of 25 bp in the gene encoding cardiac myosin binding protein C (MYBPC3) that is associated with heritable cardiomyopathies and an increased risk of heart failure in Indian populations...Its prevalence was found to be high (~4%) in populations of Indian subcontinental ancestry. The finding of a common risk factor implicated in South Asian subjects with cardiomyopathy will help in identifying and counseling individuals predisposed to cardiac diseases in this region.

      Emphasis is mine.

      From the looks of it, non-Indian populations were not even considered.

    6. Re:Misleading headline, as usual. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but one day, you're gonna die. Whether or not you have this genetic mutation.

    7. Re:Misleading headline, as usual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no, it's not misleading. 1 in 100 DO carry this mutation (assuming that the story's true, anyway). If you read that as "*I* have got a 1 in 100 chance to be affected", then that's your own fault, really - on a site like Slashdot, at least, that arguably caters to the slightly more intelligent crowd, you're expected to know that this is not an a priori valid conclusion to draw.

  16. "by 2010" - e.g. Next year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "by 2010 India's population will suffer approximately 60% of the world's heart disease."

    In other words, NEXT YEAR.

    1. Re:"by 2010" - e.g. Next year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG!! YOU HAVE A CALENDAR!!!

  17. Ah! by Sapdot · · Score: 1

    I'm glad I wasn't the 1st one.

  18. something is going to get you eventually by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the thing i hate about these nonsense genetic claims, is that there is a 100% probability you are going to die of something. so claiming 60% of people will die of heart disease (because heart failure and cancer are what take out most of our population) is like pronouncing you have discovered people grow old and die. what would be more accurate, but you will never see them do it, is to tell us who will die a PREMATURE death due to heart disease. the reason they won't do it is there is far more to what kills you than genetics and admitting as much might see grant money going else where.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:something is going to get you eventually by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, like they used to say when I was a kid, "Eat right, get plenty of rest, exercise, DIE ANYWAYS". You just can't get away from it.

      Statistically speaking, somebody ought to have the capacity to live forever, but they haven't popped their head up to have it shot off yet by us mere mortals...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:something is going to get you eventually by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

      well if you approached it using statistics rather than reality, yes.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:something is going to get you eventually by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      what would be more accurate, but you will never see them do it, is to tell us who will die a PREMATURE death due to heart disease.

      They sorta do. From TFA:

      Scientists express this genetic risk as an odds ratio, where 1.2 would be a small effect and 2.0 a large one. For the MYBPC3 mutation, the odds ratio is almost off-scale, a staggering 7.0. Carriers usually show few symptoms until middle age, but after that age most are symptomatic and suffer from a range of effects, at worst sudden cardiac death.

    4. Re:something is going to get you eventually by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Even the Howards know better than to do that, and they *don't* live forever. ... Except, perhaps, one of them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:something is going to get you eventually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, actually, there isn't a 100% probability at all. In fact, if you walk around and talk to anyone you meet, 100% of them (modulo the crazies) will tell you that they have never died. Think about that for a second: huge numbers of people, even if small compared to the total number of people ever, have never died at all. Based on that, a conclusion of 100% probability of death seems like a remarkably poor one.

    6. Re:something is going to get you eventually by jrumney · · Score: 1

      huge numbers of people, even if small compared to the total number of people ever

      It isn't as small as you might think. I don't remember the exact figures, but explosive population growth during the 20th and 21st centuries have led to a situation where the proportion of people still alive to those who have ever lived is surprisingly high.

    7. Re:something is going to get you eventually by sznupi · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Number_of_humans_who_have_ever_lived

      Apparently current estimates place total number of people who have ever lived at around 100 billion. (out of which 6 billion is still quite high, though nowhere near popular myth "there are currently more poeple alive than have lived in the past" :p )

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:something is going to get you eventually by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      We should stop caring about medical problems specific only to people above 40 years old (I am above 40, btw). Sometimes it seems like our general healthcare politics is dominated by old rich selfish men and women.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    9. Re:something is going to get you eventually by gknoy · · Score: 1

      There is a 100% probability you are going to die of something. so claiming 60% of people will die of heart disease (because heart failure and cancer are what take out most of our population) is like pronouncing you have discovered people grow old and die

      The difference is, our goal is not merely to study WHY we die, but to find ways to PREVENT (or deter, or delay) death. Now that medical science has progressed enough that genetic disorders, failing organs, or other things that kill you in "old age" are what kill us (rather than diseases, infections, accidents, etc), we have even better targets. If we can work on treatments for heart disease (or other things that kill us when we're old), that will (we hope) allow us to live a little bit longer.

      Sure, in a sense it's pushing back the inevitable. But, small advances are how we get most of our progress. A couple hundred years ago, people often died in their thirties or forties. Now, we live twice that, long enough that it's considered prudent to plan for financial support to be long-lasting. As we narrow down the list of Things That Can Kill Us, and mitigate their effect on the populace, it enables us to live longer. ... now if only we had a way to prevent dementia. :( That scares me more, I think, than the prospect of a failing body.

    10. Re:something is going to get you eventually by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but The Senior lived about 250 years and then rejuvination therapies started getting developed. Then all he had to do was show up at his doctor appointments and not put his feet on anything slippery in the meantime.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  19. So by tyrione · · Score: 1, Interesting

    With over 6 billion 1% possibly looks like a natural population control mechanism.

    1. Re:So by Soulshift · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With over 6 billion 1% possibly looks like a natural population control mechanism.

      Which part of "[The mutation's] effects don't occur until after the childbearing years." did you fail to grasp?

      --
      node-def: a tactical hacking sim. Now in open beta.
    2. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which part of "[The mutation's] effects don't occur until after the childbearing years." did you fail to grasp?

      Which part of "so then obviously the population control mechanism is passed on to their children" do you fail to grasp?

    3. Re:So by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Which part of "[The mutation's] effects don't occur until after the childbearing years." did you fail to grasp?

      Ok, so it's a population control mechanism, not a natural selection one.

  20. Sucks for them. by john.picard · · Score: 3, Funny
    To those who have this mutation, I say sucks for you, suckers!! Hah hah!!

    Why the hell is my left arm hurting?

    1. Re:Sucks for them. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is my left arm hurting?

      Start, uh, "clicking the mouse" with the right one. If your left arm goes numb without getting tingly when you move it, worry.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. I have an alternative line of thought for you.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    It always amazes me how science-leaning people such as those on slashdot seem to think all disease should be made to go away. Anybody who has any sense of reality knows that our species is FAR BEYOND overpopulated. I find it sickening that those who claim to have logical minds think that unnatural population levels can "be made to work".

    The fact is that we need BILLIONS of people to die if the planet and its inhabitants (all living species, not just human) are ever going to have a chance. Call me sadistic, but for the sake of every other species of life on this planet... I wish the rate of heart disease was 30-60%, not 1%.

    Or we could look at it from the other perspective.

    Our evolutionary specialty is technology. Crisies place pressure on us to create new technology, we lose part of our species, then create the new technology and move on.

    The dramatic increase in population is necessary to compel the colonization of nearby celestial bodies.

    I applaud it, and hope it continues. We either adapt or die, and if we can't exercise our evolutionary niche, then it was truly limited and its time for us to go.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  22. America doesn't need this gene by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't worry about carrying a 1% gene. Carrying a BigMac bag is far more likely to lead to heart attacks than genetics.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:America doesn't need this gene by Fluffeh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Holy cow (pun somewhat intended).

      That's the most insightful comment on slashdot in a long time. Mod parent up please.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:America doesn't need this gene by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

      Source?

      Because last I heard, having genes predisposing one to a heart attack pretty much guarantees it while many people live lengthy lives on extremely high fat and sodium diets (see the south).

    3. Re:America doesn't need this gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BigMac?? I only visit Heart Attack Grill!

      http://heartattackgrill.com/

  23. ...and yet prior to the 1920s... by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 1
    Prior to the 1920s heart disease as we know it now was almost unknown. Find a graph of its rise and it begins in the early 20th century, peaking in the 50s.

    As President Rossevelt's doctor is quoted as saying, words to the effect of "A physician could expect to see one or two cases in a whole career."

    ..and in 50 years its not animal fat that has had a causal link demonstrated, but vegetable oils and hydrogenated byproducts (margarine etc).

    Genetics is just another red-herring.

    1. Re:...and yet prior to the 1920s... by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Prior to the 1920s heart disease as we know it now was almost unknown. Find a graph of its rise and it begins in the early 20th century, peaking in the 50s.

      You could say much the same thing about longevity, only that seems to be peaking about now - the whole point here is that it becomes a problem later in life, which a hundred years ago wasn't such a big issue, given low life expectancy.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    2. Re:...and yet prior to the 1920s... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      ...plus most cases were probably simply not diagnosed correctly.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  24. Re:There is no way I will ever get tested for this by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For all you know, the last time you were given a drugs test at work, you were screened by the company for such risks. It's not like you'll ever know if they know. They're not going to tell you, all you'll know is that your premiums seem higher than normal.

    So go ahead. Take the test anonymously. You can buy a "gift kit" to be delivered to a PO Box, the company doing the testing won't care. Then you will know the answer and be able to take sensible precautions (when they're known).

    It won't help the insurance companies, but they're rich enough and manipulative enough that they don't need your help and there's nothing you can do to stop them. You can reject all the testing companies you like, but if they wanted to know that badly, they'd know.

    Isn't it smarter to know at least as much as your insurance company about your health? Paranoia won't save you now.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  25. How long 'til this is treatable? by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now that they've identified the problem, there's a reasonable chance that it can be treated. It might well require a weekly pill or some such, or even a shot, as RNA is too delicate to trust to the gut. But many such things are treatable already.

    India has a flourishing medical community, including many pharmaceutical companies. I would expect them to jump on this quickly.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:How long 'til this is treatable? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now that they've identified the problem, there's a reasonable chance that it can be treated. It might well require a weekly pill or some such, or even a shot, as RNA is too delicate to trust to the gut. But many such things are treatable already.

      FTFA: Carriers could be identified at a young age by genetic screening and adopt a healthier lifestyle.

      IMO, that is some pie in the sky thinking.
      One of the top problems in the medical field is patient non-compliance.
      It's hard enough for a doctor to get their patients to finish taking a regimen of antibiotics, much less change to a healthier lifestyle.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:How long 'til this is treatable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India has a flourishing medical community, including many pharmaceutical companies. I would expect them to jump on this quickly.

      That will solve the problem for the 1% of that 1% that will be able to afford it.

    3. Re:How long 'til this is treatable? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Especially since heart failure due to cardiomyopathy won't be avoided by avoiding the risk factors for coronary artery disease (which still doesn't guarantee disease or lack thereof).

      Plenty of people get full blown congestive heart failure with an EF of under 20%, severe shortness of breath, etc with perfectly clean arteries and a great diet (and exercise right up until they got sick).

      Too bad the media is too stupid to differentiate between different forms of "heart disease".

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  26. Mutation was discovered in Fred Sanford's junk DNA by vandelais · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing." --Redd Foxx

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  27. I'll go die in a corner now worrying some more! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Reading this ... gives .. me .. a .. heart.. attack ... worrying ... too .. much ...

    (and if I didn't get one, anti-William Shattner folks would sure have a fit ;))

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:I'll go die in a corner now worrying some more! by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      NYRGHRHGHGHHGHGHHHH

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
  28. Unable to Google! WORRYSOME! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    That's one worrysome reply! You guys are a menace for people with a weak heart!

    NYRGHRHGHGHHGHGHHHH

    Did you mean: NYGHRHGHGHGHGHHHH

    No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

    Your search - NYRGHRHGHGHHGHGHHHH - did not match any documents.

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:Unable to Google! WORRYSOME! by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      Google it again. This thread is the single result.

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    2. Re:Unable to Google! WORRYSOME! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I should feel better already now I'm feeling attacked at my privacy side ;)

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  29. I have this disease by cat_jesus · · Score: 3, Informative

    The gene is responsible for Hypertrophic Cardio Myopathy. HCM causes a thickening of the heart muscle and is often treated with medication, installation of an ICD to mitigate the chance of sudden cardiac death and for those with obstructions, a myectomy can be done. Something like 5% of HCM cases will require a heart transplant.

    Gene testing is something I'll be doing soon to identify exactly which mutation I have, several are responsible for HCM. Once that's done I'll have my kids tested so they don't have to go through the annual testing that they are beginning this year.

    HCM is the number one cause of sudden cardiac death in people under the age of 30. You may have heard of professional or college level athletes dying on the court/field/ whatever. This is usually the cause.

    I am in otherwise excellent condition. I have had a "healthy lifestyle" my whole life but now I can't walk up a flight of stairs without experiencing shortness of breath. I will likely have a myectomy this year.

    The good news is that this operation has a very high success rate. Another piece of good news is that if you have HCM and are treated by a specialist your life expectancy jumps back up to that of the general population.

    1. Re:I have this disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gene is responsible for Hypertrophic Cardio Myopathy. HCM causes a thickening of the heart muscle and is often treated with medication, installation of an ICD to mitigate the chance of sudden cardiac death and for those with obstructions, a myectomy can be done. Something like 5% of HCM cases will require a heart transplant.

      Gene testing is something I'll be doing soon to identify exactly which mutation I have, several are responsible for HCM. Once that's done I'll have my kids tested so they don't have to go through the annual testing that they are beginning this year.

      HCM is the number one cause of sudden cardiac death in people under the age of 30. You may have heard of professional or college level athletes dying on the court/field/ whatever. This is usually the cause.

      I am in otherwise excellent condition. I have had a "healthy lifestyle" my whole life but now I can't walk up a flight of stairs without experiencing shortness of breath. I will likely have a myectomy this year.

        I take it you're under a group plan.

      Anyone in an individual plan will be paying for their own myectomy by the time they got to that point.

      The good news is that this operation has a very high success rate. Another piece of good news is that if you have HCM and are treated by a specialist your life expectancy jumps back up to that of the general population.

    2. Re:I have this disease by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that it's surgically treatable. What I'm hoping for, and suggesting, however, is a treatment for youngsters that will prevent the disease from developing. Clearly for adults it's too late for treatments that only take effect while you are growing up, i.e., while the organs are still building themselves and naturally increasing in size.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:I have this disease by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      I will likely have a myectomy this year.

      The good news is that this operation has a very high success rate. Another piece of good news is that if you have HCM and are treated by a specialist your life expectancy jumps back up to that of the general population.

      That's great. I wish the best of luck to ya and a speedy recovery.

    4. Re:I have this disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In time the gene will be eradicated. At this point the mechanism that causes the heart cells to grow in disarray is not understood. It seems to me that with this new finding about the Indians, more attention will be focused on treating HCM.

      This disease would be an excellent candidate for gene therapy for those with the gene who are asymptomatic. You can be asymptomatic for decades and then within years or even months your heart can negatively remodel, creating a myriad of problems including outflow obstructions and arythmias.

      Another line of research that would benefit those with HCM greatly(and anyone else with heart disease) is research into autoimmune rejection of transplants. Some new and promising research indicates that in a decade or so we will be able to teach our immune system to accept transplants without having to take immune suppression drugs. This would mean that you could get a new heart from a pig when you need it.

      Pork, it's a food source and an organ donor. :)

  30. My Cardiologist by Abuzar · · Score: 0

    I'm of Indian descent, and have had some heart abnormalities since I was 17. I suppose I should be worried about this. On the other hand, they'll be needing more cardiologists in India soon, so I guess that could be a good career path.

    Anyhow, I once got a letter from my cardiologist's office informing me that my cardiologist had died of a heart attack. My file has been transferred over to another cardiologist.

    1. Re:My Cardiologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laugh or cry... I can't decide. I have massive blood pressure that will surely destroy my organs, almost uncontrollable, yet you would not necessarily see this looking at me(a little heavier than some). Best wishes; being informed at least allows you to do whatever humanly possible to minimize the risk.

  31. One day we'll know, maybe a virus by spineboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Giant cells seem to be a function of the body to fight off infections. I have a feeling, that in the future, we will find out that many diseases are caused/triggered by viral infections, along with some failure of a tumor suppressor gene.

    One of my patients had a heart transplant 20+ years ago and is doing great, so things look really good for you, once ya do the engine change.

    Best of luck to ya.

    Please donate organs - worms have no use for them.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:One day we'll know, maybe a virus by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Sure they do! Just not as good of one.

    2. Re:One day we'll know, maybe a virus by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:One day we'll know, maybe a virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please donate organs - worms have no use for them.

      Worms don't, but God does.

  32. Do it for the money = be a crappy doctor by spineboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, even as a very specialized surgeon, if I wanted to make money, I could have done much better on Wall St. My brother who is an economist, has done quite well, and works much less than I.

    The job has sooo many hassles, and stress that if you don't love what you're doing, then it's not worth it.

    Seriously.

    Honestly, I love my fucking job, and would still do it, even if I won the lottery. Just would work less than 50 hours a week, instead of 80.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Do it for the money = be a crappy doctor by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I love my fucking job, and would still do it, even if I won the lottery. Just would work less than 50 hours a week, instead of 80.

      Exactly. I would soooo be a hobbydoc if I won the lottery. I would still do 10-15 hours a week at the ER because its fun (for the most part), but I would open a private general practice out of my house. I would see people who don't otherwise have access to care and see them the way I want to: 60 minute visits over a cup of tea, maybe even sitting in the garden if its a nice day. And I would even make a house call when its really needed. I wouldn't take money or insurance (in fact I wouldn't see insured people unless we get universal access and everyone is insured). Though I would take a pie or some fried chicken, or a bird feeder, or a nice plant for my garden.

      I may just jizz in my pants thinking about that.

    2. Re:Do it for the money = be a crappy doctor by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Your brother hit the lotto. The average pay for a physician is much higher than that of an economist.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:Do it for the money = be a crappy doctor by spineboy · · Score: 1

      True, but I have a feeling that most economists know how to invest their money better than most doctors do.

      Case in point is my brother. I just found out that he turned 50k into 1.2 million, and then cashed out when it dropped to 900k( bought a condo before the bubble, sold at peak, then shorted the market). He also saved me several hundred thousand, by telling me not to buy at the peak of the housing bubble. I now run everything by him first, 'cause I'm not a dummy.

      --
      ..........FULL STOP.
    4. Re:Do it for the money = be a crappy doctor by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      For every economist who times the market correctly, there is one who buys and sells at the worst possible time. Congrats to him on recognizing a bubble, but keep in mind that the vast majority of economists did NOT see the housing bubble coming.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  33. Cardiology fellowship = lots o' time by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Let's see
    4 years med school (100k debt)
    3 years medicine residency (some more debt)
    4 years cardiology fellowship (50k/year)

    That's 11 years, and only 7 of those will you be making any money at all (start at 30k and work your way up to 50k for 80 hrs/week).

    If money is your goal, then you'd be better off working now, placing some in the bank, and let the magic of compounded interest make it for you.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Cardiology fellowship = lots o' time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Median salary for a cardiologist is $290k a year. Even if he starts at only $200k, and you take 60% for taxes, malpractice insurance, and other bills, that still leaves $80k a year to pay off school loans and live off of. Unless you of know some investments nobody else does, I'm pretty sure he's better off becoming a cardiologist.

      That said, if he really just wants money, he should become an attorney, or start a successful business.

  34. Is that "the HEART Problem" by Sadahari · · Score: 1

    Feeling it to be the ohh ! What a gal! .. Gotta crush on you... Gal - Looks like u r an Indian ..and seems like u r mutated. [Its not the heart disease ... Its the HEART Problem], Scribed from - Intercepts of Yoga and Kamasutra.

  35. This will solve the outsourcing problem by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    See, a silver lining in the outsourcing of I.T. conundrum.

    1. Re:This will solve the outsourcing problem by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      a) Prick

      b) Empirical studies show that outsourcing isn't really a big deal.

      c) No, if they outsource, they just outsource to China/WTFistan instead.

      And for political reasons I'd prefer that if they do outsource, they outsource to India.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  36. Massive loophole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the genome gets further and further mapped, expect more and more people to be "uninsurable at any price".

    Discrimination based on genetics is already outlawed by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

    Prove that's the reason they turned you down?

  37. childbearing years by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The researchers say that the mutation wasn't selected out of the population because its effects don't occur until after the childbearing years.

    It's not that simple though. One's roll in the gene pool does not (indirectly) end when you lose fertility. The grandparents care for the children, and in doing so, their children's (related) DNA is encouraged. Also, unlike women, men don't have menopause, and are also affected by heart disease etc and a man's DNA is just as genetically useful at 60 as it was at 25.

    I'd question that researcher's conclusion..

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:childbearing years by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I can honestly say my grandparents have never really helped me get laid.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:childbearing years by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      It is also because in most of human history, the average person died before reaching the age when diseases like this hit their full effect. If 90% of people die at before 50, and 90% of the rest die before 60, a gene that kills at 55 is going to have a pretty weak effect from an evolutionary standpoint even with secondary effects like the positive benefits on descendants with grandparents around.

      In most of human history, a man's DNA at 60 was likely moldering in a grave somewhere.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    3. Re:childbearing years by v1 · · Score: 1

      I can honestly say my grandparents have never really helped me get laid.

      They conceived your mother or father. I'd say that was pretty useful to your being around to get laid...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:childbearing years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a strong selector. If you can have kids, you pass on the DNA mutation. End of discussion.

      The reason why it is only at 4% of the population may prove your point, or it may be completely unrelated.

    5. Re:childbearing years by jonathankpa · · Score: 1

      I question the researcher's conclusion also, but for a different reason.

      He says:
      "The researchers say that the mutation wasn't selected out of the population because its effects don't occur until after the childbearing years."

      Thus one concludes that mutations which affect populations before childbearing years should not exist - they should all be selected out of populations (especially over millions of years).

      Why do childhood diseases exist, if the population has been around for millions of years, and if natural selection weans out pre-childbearing diseases?

       

      --
      I Thess. 5:16-18. "Elephants are the only mammal not known to jump."
  38. We honor their sacrifice by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I'd like to thank India for taking on this burden.

  39. more genetic discoveries by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    Now if we can find the who carries the gene for being a moron. I suspect its more than 1 in a 100.

  40. MYPBC3 is one of my favorite proteins by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's an interesting development in a well-known genetic heart defect. Myosin binding protein C is well known, and mutations in MYPBC3 are one of the most common causes of heart defects in humans (and cats).

    If parents are comfortable with prenatal testing and abortion, this genetic defect could be effectively eliminated, in the same way that Down's syndrome has declined dramatically. In principle, the MYPBC3 defect would eventually be eliminated from the population.

    MYPBC3 is a pretty cool protein, BTW. It connects the light chains and the heavy chains that make up muscle fibers. Obviously if the proteins that make up muscle fibers come apart you're going to have problems.

    Here's a beautiful illustration http://pawpeds.com/pawacademy/health/mybpc3/figure1.jpg which shows how MYPBC3 comes out of the thick filament and holds onto the thin filament, sort of like this:
    ____________
    ====/==/====

    (That illustration comes from an article here http://pawpeds.com/pawacademy/health/mybpc3/ about how Dr. Kittleson, in a stroke of nominative determinism, studied the defect in kittens.)

    Another common cause of heart defects is protein called beta-myosin heavy chain (MYH7). MYH7 also comes out of the heavy chain. It's the one that looks like a bean pod. It looks a little like this:
    ____________
    ====P==P====

    Here's a kewl animation of how it works http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/movies/actin_myosin.html with myosin walking along actin filaments. If you don't think this animation is funny, then molecular biology is not one of your aptitudes.

    Or just do a Google image search for actin and myosin http://images.google.com/images?rls=ig&hl=en&q=actin+and+myosin

    I'm sorry to say that the Wikipedia entries on this subject are not too user-friendly right now. Somebody should work on that.

    1. Re:MYPBC3 is one of my favorite proteins by kms2061 · · Score: 1

      I once made an animation that shows the structure and function of muscle fibers. You can check it out here

  41. Re:There is no way I will ever get tested for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all you know, the last time you were given a drugs test at work, you were screened by the company for such risks. It's not like you'll ever know if they know. They're not going to tell you, all you'll know is that your premiums seem higher than normal.

    Prior to taking a drug test, you will be given a form. Read the form. List any objections (in writing) on your copy of the form or a copy of the copy. Sign and date and such forth. There are many reasons to object to any such test. These include:

    a) How will the information be used?
    b) Who is responsible for an inaccurate test?
    c) What EXACTLY will be tested?
    d) What are your options to appeal the results?
    e) How will the test be conducted? are they using the most accurate techniques or the cheapest? Clean people want an accurate test. Users would rather not take an accurate test.

  42. Selection Pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The researchers say that the mutation wasn't selected out of the population because its effects don't occur until after the childbearing years"

    That doesn't make sense. Surviving beyond childbearing years would have a large impact on your offspring's reproductive capacity.

    Unless perhaps the effect of the gene kicks in just as you're getting old enough to require support rather than give it. In which case, the gene might even be selected *for*.

    Posting as AC because 1. no account 2. cold-hearted analysis.

    1. Re:Selection Pressure by ekhben · · Score: 1

      If the gene arose 30k years ago, it did most of its spreading during the Upper Paleolithic era (up to ~10k BC, or 12k years ago). The life expectancy of a human (from birth) during the Upper Paleolithic was 33 years -- young enough that heart disease was probably not a leading cause of death. The advent of agriculture is associated with a sharp drop in life expectancy; the Neolithic era had an average of 20 years, and the Bronze Age only 18.

      Average life expectancy has remained below 40 right up until the 20th century. Current global life expectancies vary widely in accordance with regional health care, diet, and infrastructure -- most of the African continent still has an expectancy below 50, for example, and the US has an expectancy of around 80 years. Australia, Canada, and some parts of Europe have an expectancy of over 80 years, likely due to excellent public health care systems.

      Heart disease is a modern condition, exposed by an increased life expectancy. It would have had very little bearing on life even 3,000 years ago, let alone 30,000 years ago.

  43. That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just hit me like a flying manhole cover (whose nation of origin need not be revealed).Now I understand the need for vegetarianism.

  44. A Modern Day Scene at the Quickie Mart... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "Thank you! Come agai.....AARRUUUUGGGGGHHH!"

    [clunk, falls on floor grasping chest]

    Ha Ha!! [Nelson]

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  45. bad genes often not expressed by peter303 · · Score: 1

    James Watson has 20 genes in the 5000 disease gene database according to an article in Nature last year. In last week's Sunday's New York Times Steve Pinker, one of the first 13 people to have their genomes fully sequenced, said he had several unexpressed bad genes, including a gene for baldness.

    I believe Congress is planning a law that says insurance companies cant deny on basis of genome, due to the current lack of understanding.

  46. Re:There is no way I will ever get tested for this by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "For all you know, the last time you were given a drugs test at work, you were screened by the company for such risks. It's not like you'll ever know if they know. They're not going to tell you, all you'll know is that your premiums seem higher than normal."

    Companies still drug test?

    Man...I've not come across that since one of my first "real jobs" back in like '93 or so...none since then, and these are even on high security jobs.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  47. Re:There is no way I will ever get tested for this by jd · · Score: 1

    And since the results are kept in secret, and since any "extras" ordered via back-handers will be doubly-secret, I don't see how anyone could ever hope to discover if the objections were honoured. There will always be plausible denial. Businesses have had thousands more years than Government to develop the perfect mix of corruption, stealth and finesse. This doesn't mean such things will happen on any given screening, what it means is that you can't ever know.

    The only consequence to that I can see is that you should protect yourself as if they know nothing, but learn as much as you can about your genetics as if they knew everything. Maybe the reason insurance companies charge such fantastically high rates is because they already know far more than the rest of us. (I doubt it, because health-care in the US is double that of the next-closest industrialized nation for the same standard of care per capita, and Americans can't be that unhealthy. Well, given the number of Blobs I've seen crunching the street, maybe they can.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  48. re: fraud in medical insurance by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Absolutely!

    I've been lucky enough to be pretty healthy, but every time I can remember seeing a doctor for something relatively minor, they found ways to use "creative wording" to bill my insurance the maximum amount possible.

    EG. One time, I had a wax build-up in my left ear. I woke up one morning and could barely hear out of it. The clinic I went to charged me for the nurse who tried to remove it, but wasn't very skilled at using the rinsing tool that's used to clean out the ear. So she went to ask for help from one of the doctors who was more skilled at it. (He spent a whole 45 seconds to a minute, and got my ear situation fixed.) When my insurance statement came back in the mail later, I saw I was billed the regular fee for the service, but a second fee for "Level 2 care" was added, because the doctor got involved, and that bill was over 3x the first fee.

    I mean, technically, I guess this wasn't "fraudulent" -- but I think it's borderline dishonest at the very least. I'm pretty sure if I was paying out of pocket as an uninsured patient, they would never have billed it the same way.

  49. good by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    here comes the solution for medicare problem

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  50. Hey -- I'm an Indian Subcontinent Guy by PunditGuy · · Score: 1

    And I had a heart attack last month. At 39. If I'd known about this, I wouldn't have chosen to be from the Indian subcontinent!

  51. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two markers, for most diseases, are turning out the be a good prediction mechanism.

    1. Re:Nope by jd · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced. They've found seven markers where the permutation you have indicates whether you are likely to get Chronic Fatigue and how severely. They expect to find more. And that's for what is officially considered a single condition. Autism is connected to at three different markers they know about, two more they suspect and again, probably others besides, where again the permutation determines the form and severity. You need a minimum of ten markers to explain the different subclasses of Bipolar Disorder. One or two markers per condition might tell you if you have the most common form, but as even a common condition is still relatively rare, the benefit in absolute terms of just testing that one form doesn't seem terribly great.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  52. Newest memeber of the X-Men by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Heart-attack Boy!

  53. Re:There is no way I will ever get tested for this by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

    Thats because you sit in front of a computer screen not the controls of a 747.

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused