Careful with Atkins. All protein and no carbs is a great way to send your body into ketosis (shuttling energy between organs as keto acids rather than glucose = not healty). You are basically starving yourself with Atkins. Also, the Atlkins diet can skew your dietary intake towards high cholesterol and fat, while lowering intake of dietary fiber.
Calories in < calories out (over many months). That's the only healthy and effective long-term way to change your body. It's hard, and it requires you thinking about every interaction with food and beverage (especially soda and fruit juice).
Exercise every day, limit empty calories (especially high-density, low value stuff) and eat a balanced diet.
Red Man Syndrome (which can lead to vascular collapse and death) is caused by IV infusion that is too fast. Impurities in the preparation also contribute to the vascular effects (probably histamine mediated). Note: this is not an allergy to vancomycin! Slow IV infusion (1000 mg per hour) with high purity vancomycin greatly reduce the incidence of adverse effects.
MRSA stands for methicillin resistant staph aureus.
There are already vancomycin resistant strains of bacteria (VRE = vancomycin resistant enterococci) which are treated with beta-lactam antibiotics like floroqunilones (Cipro). VRE is not uncommonly seen in hospitals.
It is thought that VRSA (vancomycin resistant staph aureus) received its vancomycin resistance from enterococci: a completely different species.
From a microbiology standpoint, it seems incredibly stupid to constantly expose bacteria to low levels of antibiotics (hand soaps, impregnated cutting boards). Buy bar soap! Take your antibiotics until the prescription is gone, not until you feel better!
This is not intended to be a troll in any way, but here goes anyway.
It could be just as catastrophic to allow individuals to have access to their genetic information but prevent insurance compaines from sharing in that knowledge.
Insurance is all about risk prediction and classification based on likelihood of a given outcome (death, severe illness). Imagine the case where a person discoveres they have a genetic condition (say, Huntington's to temporarily ignore the penetrance issue). She will insure herself out the wazoo, making sure she will have access to academic research centers and expensive drug coverage. Since the insurance company is ignorant of her underlying risk, they will incorrectly classify her with the rest of the population. It won't too many people to do this before they get sick and drain the resources of the group, leading to a global rise in premiums. The underlying problem will still exist as long as people can exploit this disparity in information and the cycle will continue.
The real question is, "How likely is a person to develop a condition based on their genotype? (i.e. What is the penetrance of a given genotype?) How should this information be used when classifying risk for insurance underwriting?"
It's a sticky problem, and one we'll have to confront sooner rather than later...
where exactly does the retrovirus insert it's genetic payload? 95% of our genome is non-coding. the other regions that do actually encode for something useful are under strict regulatory control. speaking of which, what happens if the retroviral payload upsets one of the control regions? you may have just activated a tumor cell line.
it sounds like the stem cells used in this case were taken from the boys' own bone marrow. the objections raised in the US are from embryonic stem cells.
with modern technology, all stem cells taken from adults can only differentiate into certain types of cells ("pluripotent"). this may change as we work some basic science out. they only need immune cells, so they could settle for precursors to that particular cell line (e.g. they don't need to grow a new pancreas for him)
fetal, or embryonic, stem cells are totipotent and have the ability to become any cell in the body. boy would scientists like to know more about how to do/that./
i am loathe to start a flood of speculative, uninformed posts, usually begining with "IANAL, but...", but one thing that came to mind is the potential liability that a kind-hearted access provider opens themselves up to. suppose i set up a free wireless access point and someone taps in to my network and begins hacking M$, or worse yet, spams me. i imagine the authorities would ultimately hold me responsible.
The OS class at Florida uses Minix. Try and get anything done on departmental harware the night before an assignment is due with 100 students recompiling the kernel at the same time.
The poster is conveniently ignoring a large body of scientific evidence that seems to contradict his/her position. To say that ecological changes caused by humans are natural since humans are animals too may be technically correct, but these changes are radically different and substantially more damaging to the environment than any impact a non-human animal will ever have. Humans are directly or indirectly responsible for the largest extinction in recorded history (we're experiencing and causing it right now). Biodiversity is at an all time low, and is continuing to drop with no end in sight. Human mortality from skin cancer (which has a demonstrable correlation with UV-B radiation increase and ozone depletion) is increasing. The list goes on.
It is true that nature can adapt, but it is far from clear that the rate at which natural processes can change to accomodate our fouling of the environment will be sufficient to sustain life. Take a trip down to the Ecology or Zoology department at your school and talk for an hour with someone who studies how the natural world works.
Try The Computer Music Tutorial by Curtis Roads. It should give you a good theoretical background for what you are talking about. Implementation is left as exercise to the reader. Welcome to the world of research.
For the past 50 years, most Big Science money has gone towards building higher energy and more expensive tools with which we can look at the fundamental constituents of matter. Now there seems to be a political climate that it may no be feasible (if not impossible) for a single country to finance the next great accelerator to look at smaller particles. Moreover, is it even justifiable to attempt to explore the sub-quark level? Have we reached the limit of practicality for theoretical physics? If not, are we close? I have heard some theoretical physicists lament the loss of "Golden Children" to the biological sciences. What are your views on this emerging field?
Slashdot Mirror
Calories in < calories out (over many months). That's the only healthy and effective long-term way to change your body. It's hard, and it requires you thinking about every interaction with food and beverage (especially soda and fruit juice).
Exercise every day, limit empty calories (especially high-density, low value stuff) and eat a balanced diet.
Hey timothy, you should read slashdot.org sometime. They cover a lot of the same stuff.
Red Man Syndrome (which can lead to vascular collapse and death) is caused by IV infusion that is too fast. Impurities in the preparation also contribute to the vascular effects (probably histamine mediated). Note: this is not an allergy to vancomycin! Slow IV infusion (1000 mg per hour) with high purity vancomycin greatly reduce the incidence of adverse effects.
There are already vancomycin resistant strains of bacteria (VRE = vancomycin resistant enterococci) which are treated with beta-lactam antibiotics like floroqunilones (Cipro). VRE is not uncommonly seen in hospitals.
It is thought that VRSA (vancomycin resistant staph aureus) received its vancomycin resistance from enterococci: a completely different species.
From a microbiology standpoint, it seems incredibly stupid to constantly expose bacteria to low levels of antibiotics (hand soaps, impregnated cutting boards). Buy bar soap! Take your antibiotics until the prescription is gone, not until you feel better!
It could be just as catastrophic to allow individuals to have access to their genetic information but prevent insurance compaines from sharing in that knowledge.
Insurance is all about risk prediction and classification based on likelihood of a given outcome (death, severe illness). Imagine the case where a person discoveres they have a genetic condition (say, Huntington's to temporarily ignore the penetrance issue). She will insure herself out the wazoo, making sure she will have access to academic research centers and expensive drug coverage. Since the insurance company is ignorant of her underlying risk, they will incorrectly classify her with the rest of the population. It won't too many people to do this before they get sick and drain the resources of the group, leading to a global rise in premiums. The underlying problem will still exist as long as people can exploit this disparity in information and the cycle will continue.
The real question is, "How likely is a person to develop a condition based on their genotype? (i.e. What is the penetrance of a given genotype?) How should this information be used when classifying risk for insurance underwriting?"
It's a sticky problem, and one we'll have to confront sooner rather than later...
here's the rub:
where exactly does the retrovirus insert it's genetic payload? 95% of our genome is non-coding. the other regions that do actually encode for something useful are under strict regulatory control. speaking of which, what happens if the retroviral payload upsets one of the control regions? you may have just activated a tumor cell line.
we've got a lot of work to do...
it sounds like the stem cells used in this case were taken from the boys' own bone marrow. the objections raised in the US are from embryonic stem cells.
/that./
with modern technology, all stem cells taken from adults can only differentiate into certain types of cells ("pluripotent"). this may change as we work some basic science out. they only need immune cells, so they could settle for precursors to that particular cell line (e.g. they don't need to grow a new pancreas for him)
fetal, or embryonic, stem cells are totipotent and have the ability to become any cell in the body. boy would scientists like to know more about how to do
salon has a link here
i am loathe to start a flood of speculative, uninformed posts, usually begining with "IANAL, but...", but one thing that came to mind is the potential liability that a kind-hearted access provider opens themselves up to. suppose i set up a free wireless access point and someone taps in to my network and begins hacking M$, or worse yet, spams me. i imagine the authorities would ultimately hold me responsible.
It's a typo. It's supposed to be "...smaller than the length of a human hair."
The OS class at Florida uses Minix. Try and get anything done on departmental harware the night before an assignment is due with 100 students recompiling the kernel at the same time.
It is true that nature can adapt, but it is far from clear that the rate at which natural processes can change to accomodate our fouling of the environment will be sufficient to sustain life. Take a trip down to the Ecology or Zoology department at your school and talk for an hour with someone who studies how the natural world works.
Try The Computer Music Tutorial by Curtis Roads. It should give you a good theoretical background for what you are talking about. Implementation is left as exercise to the reader. Welcome to the world of research.
For the past 50 years, most Big Science money has gone towards building higher energy and more expensive tools with which we can look at the fundamental constituents of matter. Now there seems to be a political climate that it may no be feasible (if not impossible) for a single country to finance the next great accelerator to look at smaller particles. Moreover, is it even justifiable to attempt to explore the sub-quark level? Have we reached the limit of practicality for theoretical physics? If not, are we close? I have heard some theoretical physicists lament the loss of "Golden Children" to the biological sciences. What are your views on this emerging field?