Reading comprehension is EVERYONE'S friend. And for the record I have no idea what the AC was specifically talking about if anything. I have no problem with doctors giving out placebos, I have a big problem with doctors giving out antibiotics needlessly to get rid of people with viral infections.
Indeed. One 20 minute talk is not enough time to give details about how to do even the most basic of lab procedures needed to replicate results in biology. In many studies, one year of lab experience is not enough.
Hussein has already banned interviews with a TV station in Florida because the station's reporter had the gall to ask Joe "The Senator" Biden some tough questions.
What, just one station? Man, he's FAR behind the McCain/Palin campaign!
That wouldn't be a case of prescribing antibiotics for no reason, which the article isn't talking about. Giving people antibiotics when there's no sign of a secondary bacterial infection though seems dangerous and stupid.
Anyway, I went off on a tangent a bit, but I just think you should have read the article more closely. Placebos are not antibiotics.
I think YOU should have read my post a bit more carefully before responding:-P
I know antibiotics and placebos are not the same thing, that's why I suggested an ACTUAL placebo, sugar, be used as a placebo instead of antibiotics. And just in case the placebo effect didn't completely work for curing the common cold, the full week needed for it to "work" would. Problem solved without creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
I guess I should have said something about how if they absolutely have to prescribe something, it should be an anti-histamine, or saline nasal spray. I guess some doctors are prescribing sedatives, which seems a bit dangerous, but as it's only harming the people who are demanding antibiotics for the flu, it's better they put only themselves at risk than everyone.
But yeah, you basically disagreed with me to agree with me. Everyone comes down with it at some point. I'll prescribe some zithromax, should clear that shame right up.
The reverse placebo effect works, right? Clearly what we need to do is spread the myth that antibiotics make you fat. Then there will be zero demand to take them when it's not needed.
They DO NOT have to prescribe antibiotics. There is NO excuse for that. Increasing the risk of creating superbugs that endanger everyone just to stay in buisness and get idiots out of your office is criminal, to say nothing of violating the hippocratic oath on a massive scale.
It's always a valid if stupid question. What could go wrong? In this case, the 25-mark Golomb ruler may NOT be optimal, in which case you would have people using the 25-mark Golomb ruler, with... gasp... SUB optimal results. You might be asking yourself what that would look like. I really haven't the slightest idea what any of this is about, so I couldn't say.
But the tag gets onto any and all biology related articles, along with it's brother "iamlegend." Usually when it has nothing to do with curing cancer with dangerous viruses. A finding that DNA sequences prefer to associate with similar sequences? Some bright person asked whatcouldpossiblygowrong. The answer there is: nothing.
For the love of non-antibiotic resistant tuberculosis, WHO are these doctors STILL giving out antibiotics when they don't need to? Is it not illegal for a doctor to prescribe medicine when it's not needed, and WHY AREN'T WE PUTTING THEM IN JAIL when they give out antibiotics for the cold etc? I know it must get annoying to deal with idiots asking for drugs they don't need, but that's your damn job, it's even more annoying if you get infected with superbugs you're making. Tell your patients that a spoonfull of sugar will cure them in aproximately 1 week if you absolutely need to give them something.
Seriously, it should be a felony to be giving out antibiotics when they're not needed.
As already said, funding everything is sort of a bad idea. We have to make cuts where we can, and this program honestly looks like it holds little promise without other major scientific advances. Until human gene modification becomes plausible, there's no point in sinking our imaginary dollars into fruit fly programs.
So you're saying it might be time to change the way we decide who gets scientific funding, that the "Guess a number between one and ten" method we have, where if you guess the right number, your scientific proposal gets funded, might be a BAD system? Maybe we should start thinking about funding only the most important, worthwhile studies? Whoa man...
Waitafuckingminute, THAT'S ALREADY WHAT WE DO! There's this organization, called the National Institute of Health, that hands out a lot of grant money for biomedical research. Scientists spend a lot of their time filling out grant applications in the vain attempt to get them to fund their research, it's very competitive, a LOT of good studies don't get funding.
The ones that do are chosen by panels of other scientists and experts (though any scientist who has had a grant rejected will tell you, they're not perfect). They have a deeper understanding of what the benefits of research projects are than Sarah Palin, although that wouldn't be a high bar to clear. Yet they chose to fund fruit fly projects.
Hmm... a panel of biomedical experts think fruit fly research isn't a waste. Maybe they are crazy or corrupt, or maybe you don't really know as much about it as you think you do.
You can't jump right to the end in science, there is a lot of preliminary data you need to know usually before you can get a cure for X disease. For instance, with syphilis we had to first realize what bacteria were, realize it was a bacteria, realize that penicillin could kill bacteria, THEN we were able to cure it. You could have dumped all the money in the world into finding a cure for syphilis before we knew anything about that. You may have gotten lucky, but it's unlikely.
Similar with human diseases, knowing the genetics involved is ABSOLUTELY essential knowledge, even if we can't directly cure the genes yet.
Cancer treatments have improved greatly because of genetic work often done in flies. We can identify genes involved, then find out what they're doing in human cancers, then make treatments based on that.
One current hot prospect in cancer research is knocking out members of the kinesin family, a protein that moves along the cytoskeleton and is involved in cell division. Cell division goes haywire in cancer, if we could affect only one time of kinesin, it would stop cancer pretty well.
Know how we discovered kinesin? By studying squids and fruit flies.
To sum up: unless you're out there reading whole grant applications, don't say a study is worthless or scientists are lying about the outcomes of their research, because you really have no earthly idea and are maligning people who DO know what they are talking about.
(PS. don't quote me on the squids, I could be mistaken on that)
I much prefer the idea of get in, work hard, get out after 8 hours, don't put in more than 40 if you can help it.
Maybe it's one of those rare companies that realizes that one guy can be on the job for 40 hours and still not accomplish as much as another guy who is only there 20 hours. IE you do X work by the end of the month, we don't care how many hours you're in or how many hours you're actually productive.
Crazy that in some jobs, people could be more concerned with output rather than not goofing off!
I like it how everyone assumes they know the corporate structure and atmosphere of this anonymous company which appears to have at least one manager thinking outside of the box. No, you're right, it's 100 percent sure that his boss is an idiot who is going to lay him off because of this. And there's absolutely no way he ran this past anyone else first who signed off on it.
I'm a bit uncertain as to what exactly you're referring to. My point was that the government-funded space race drove development of the technology to where you can be using a PC right now.
As far as technology making it so that you have to pay for your new car... uh, I guess that could be a downside for you if you for some reason feel justified in not paying it. Again, I feel like I'm missing something here.
Slashdot Mirror
..there is no distinction between islam and islamic law...
You always have to be careful when blaming a larger group for the actions of a few.
Islamic "law" ... on the other hand has AT LEAST a billion deaths on it's conscience. If it had a conscience.
As opposed to all the other religions, which have never been used to kill anyone?
Reading comprehension is EVERYONE'S friend. And for the record I have no idea what the AC was specifically talking about if anything. I have no problem with doctors giving out placebos, I have a big problem with doctors giving out antibiotics needlessly to get rid of people with viral infections.
Indeed. One 20 minute talk is not enough time to give details about how to do even the most basic of lab procedures needed to replicate results in biology. In many studies, one year of lab experience is not enough.
Hussein has already banned interviews with a TV station in Florida because the station's reporter had the gall to ask Joe "The Senator" Biden some tough questions.
What, just one station? Man, he's FAR behind the McCain/Palin campaign!
Let's face it, Muslims. It's time to grow up, leave your 12th century beliefs behind, and join the rest of the adult world.
Well, I'm sure your post will convince them, oh brave and enlightened AC.
They weren't saying that made it better, just that it's a fault of Turkey, not Islamic law.
All religions are dogmatic , and extremly dangerous if they becomes to powerfull.
Sounds pretty dogmatic there. Lets hope kdemetter never gets his own army.
That wouldn't be a case of prescribing antibiotics for no reason, which the article isn't talking about. Giving people antibiotics when there's no sign of a secondary bacterial infection though seems dangerous and stupid.
Anyway, I went off on a tangent a bit, but I just think you should have read the article more closely. Placebos are not antibiotics.
I think YOU should have read my post a bit more carefully before responding :-P
I know antibiotics and placebos are not the same thing, that's why I suggested an ACTUAL placebo, sugar, be used as a placebo instead of antibiotics. And just in case the placebo effect didn't completely work for curing the common cold, the full week needed for it to "work" would. Problem solved without creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
I guess I should have said something about how if they absolutely have to prescribe something, it should be an anti-histamine, or saline nasal spray. I guess some doctors are prescribing sedatives, which seems a bit dangerous, but as it's only harming the people who are demanding antibiotics for the flu, it's better they put only themselves at risk than everyone.
But yeah, you basically disagreed with me to agree with me. Everyone comes down with it at some point. I'll prescribe some zithromax, should clear that shame right up.
Not going to take the political bait, but I have to say I would be Joe Dead before I was Joe Colt 45.
You're idea is interesting but people might actually become obese when they truly need the pills :P
Obvious solution: sell them sugar pills and tell them THOSE pills will help them lose antibiotics-related weight.
Oh crap, I've started thinking like a doctor!
Umm... 6 * 12oz > 40oz
That's true not only in terms of volume, but also price (it's an economy joke).
The reverse placebo effect works, right? Clearly what we need to do is spread the myth that antibiotics make you fat. Then there will be zero demand to take them when it's not needed.
They DO NOT have to prescribe antibiotics. There is NO excuse for that. Increasing the risk of creating superbugs that endanger everyone just to stay in buisness and get idiots out of your office is criminal, to say nothing of violating the hippocratic oath on a massive scale.
It occurs to me that killing half of all doctors might have unpleasant consequences for society.
It's always a valid if stupid question. What could go wrong? In this case, the 25-mark Golomb ruler may NOT be optimal, in which case you would have people using the 25-mark Golomb ruler, with... gasp... SUB optimal results. You might be asking yourself what that would look like. I really haven't the slightest idea what any of this is about, so I couldn't say.
But the tag gets onto any and all biology related articles, along with it's brother "iamlegend." Usually when it has nothing to do with curing cancer with dangerous viruses. A finding that DNA sequences prefer to associate with similar sequences? Some bright person asked whatcouldpossiblygowrong. The answer there is: nothing.
But you can't prove that, which proves his point.
The type of OCD that makes one check /.
For the love of non-antibiotic resistant tuberculosis, WHO are these doctors STILL giving out antibiotics when they don't need to? Is it not illegal for a doctor to prescribe medicine when it's not needed, and WHY AREN'T WE PUTTING THEM IN JAIL when they give out antibiotics for the cold etc? I know it must get annoying to deal with idiots asking for drugs they don't need, but that's your damn job, it's even more annoying if you get infected with superbugs you're making. Tell your patients that a spoonfull of sugar will cure them in aproximately 1 week if you absolutely need to give them something.
Seriously, it should be a felony to be giving out antibiotics when they're not needed.
As already said, funding everything is sort of a bad idea. We have to make cuts where we can, and this program honestly looks like it holds little promise without other major scientific advances. Until human gene modification becomes plausible, there's no point in sinking our imaginary dollars into fruit fly programs.
So you're saying it might be time to change the way we decide who gets scientific funding, that the "Guess a number between one and ten" method we have, where if you guess the right number, your scientific proposal gets funded, might be a BAD system? Maybe we should start thinking about funding only the most important, worthwhile studies? Whoa man...
Waitafuckingminute, THAT'S ALREADY WHAT WE DO! There's this organization, called the National Institute of Health, that hands out a lot of grant money for biomedical research. Scientists spend a lot of their time filling out grant applications in the vain attempt to get them to fund their research, it's very competitive, a LOT of good studies don't get funding.
The ones that do are chosen by panels of other scientists and experts (though any scientist who has had a grant rejected will tell you, they're not perfect). They have a deeper understanding of what the benefits of research projects are than Sarah Palin, although that wouldn't be a high bar to clear. Yet they chose to fund fruit fly projects.
Hmm... a panel of biomedical experts think fruit fly research isn't a waste. Maybe they are crazy or corrupt, or maybe you don't really know as much about it as you think you do.
You can't jump right to the end in science, there is a lot of preliminary data you need to know usually before you can get a cure for X disease. For instance, with syphilis we had to first realize what bacteria were, realize it was a bacteria, realize that penicillin could kill bacteria, THEN we were able to cure it. You could have dumped all the money in the world into finding a cure for syphilis before we knew anything about that. You may have gotten lucky, but it's unlikely.
Similar with human diseases, knowing the genetics involved is ABSOLUTELY essential knowledge, even if we can't directly cure the genes yet.
Cancer treatments have improved greatly because of genetic work often done in flies. We can identify genes involved, then find out what they're doing in human cancers, then make treatments based on that.
One current hot prospect in cancer research is knocking out members of the kinesin family, a protein that moves along the cytoskeleton and is involved in cell division. Cell division goes haywire in cancer, if we could affect only one time of kinesin, it would stop cancer pretty well.
Know how we discovered kinesin? By studying squids and fruit flies.
To sum up: unless you're out there reading whole grant applications, don't say a study is worthless or scientists are lying about the outcomes of their research, because you really have no earthly idea and are maligning people who DO know what they are talking about.
(PS. don't quote me on the squids, I could be mistaken on that)
I much prefer the idea of get in, work hard, get out after 8 hours, don't put in more than 40 if you can help it.
Maybe it's one of those rare companies that realizes that one guy can be on the job for 40 hours and still not accomplish as much as another guy who is only there 20 hours. IE you do X work by the end of the month, we don't care how many hours you're in or how many hours you're actually productive.
Crazy that in some jobs, people could be more concerned with output rather than not goofing off!
I like it how everyone assumes they know the corporate structure and atmosphere of this anonymous company which appears to have at least one manager thinking outside of the box. No, you're right, it's 100 percent sure that his boss is an idiot who is going to lay him off because of this. And there's absolutely no way he ran this past anyone else first who signed off on it.
I'm a bit uncertain as to what exactly you're referring to. My point was that the government-funded space race drove development of the technology to where you can be using a PC right now.
As far as technology making it so that you have to pay for your new car... uh, I guess that could be a downside for you if you for some reason feel justified in not paying it. Again, I feel like I'm missing something here.
You have to wonder if whoever marked our posts "insighful" was maybe a robot/cyborg trying to warn us. Possibly from the future.
Not sure if I hope this gets modded insightful. On the one hand, I am a whore for the mod points. On the other, it would confirm my darkest fears.
So now you can vote the way the TV/Radio/Movies/College Profs want you to vote, or you can vote for freedom.
"But a TV professor just told me to vote for freedom... error... error... -explodes-"
It worked! We destroyed those packs of conservative-hunting robots with sheer dislogic! America is once again saved!!!