Do you have any idea how much DNA analysis costs?
About $350, the last time I checked. For about 500,000 genotypes per individual.
There is also a very major technology push for the "thousand-dollar genome", i.e. an ability to get a complete genome for $1000.
The core of the finding, by the way, is that the pooled data that everyone thought was completely safe for privacy point of view, is now no longer so. It is a problem for people who have agreed to take part in these studies (and that's a lot of people: a typical large scale study can involve 20,000 patients or more).
spent two years working on DNA analysis techniques... We, by which I mean the DNA analysis crowd
For what's it's worth, I've spent the last 15 years working on various DNA analysis techniques. I don't know about your "crowd", but the general genetics community takes issues of privacy quite seriously.
There is a fair number of studies showing the existence of (average) differences, e.g. girls are better at word recall, boys are better at mental object rotation. See Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for further reading. The existence of the differences != discrimination, by the way.
Say that again after you've dragged your kicking and screaming toddler...
I'll see your sarcasm and raise you the fact that I have actually brought my kid for vaccinations. Mind you, the vaccinations were more numerous than the standard US regimen and they were much more spread in time. And still, I'm standing by my statement that it was a better idea, since combining and increasing doses leads to the increase in the peak concentration of mercury, etc. And the peak (rather than cumulative dose) might well be what matters.
At least as far as suspected vaccination-autism connection is concerned, iirc the autism rates in Europe are lower than in the States. One often offered explanation is the lower pace of vaccination on the other side of the pond.
There is a hot debate on the issue, but from the common sense perspective: the only reason to combine multiple immunizations is cost-saving. Do you often see cost-saving measures that don't involve any tradeoffs?
Just in case: my day job is in evolutionary biology:)
I submit that you don't know what you are talking about. Diabetes? - You probably have heard of insulin? People used to die of advanced diabetes. Now it is a manageable condition. Cancer? What do you mean, "nope"?? One of the first things anyone learns is that "cancer" is not a single disease. The second thing is that the past thirty years have seen miraculous progress: any type of cancer used to be a death sentence. Nowadays, most types of non-solid tumors are eminently treatable, with very good prognosis. Fer chrissakes, they are now promoting vaccine against cervical cancer -- just watch some TV to catch an ad. AIDS - in 20 years went from certain death to manageable condition (at least, in rich countries). etc, etc, etc.
There is plenty wrong with big pharma and with medical reearch, but let's not make uneducated claims.
It all depends on delivery system. If its precision is low (e.g. high altitude bomber) then the only good deterrent is to hit a large, high-value target with a big blast -- that's why initial targets were big cities. If you have a precision delivery system, it makes sense to target things like missile silos. Interestingly, when the Navy got in the game -- with the submarine-based missiled that were very low precision in the beginning, the strategy shifted back to targeting big cities. (I cannot recommend Fred Kaplan's book "The Wizards of Armageddon" highly enough; it deals with all these questions).
Slashdot Mirror
About $350, the last time I checked. For about 500,000 genotypes per individual.
There is also a very major technology push for the "thousand-dollar genome", i.e. an ability to get a complete genome for $1000.
The core of the finding, by the way, is that the pooled data that everyone thought was completely safe for privacy point of view, is now no longer so. It is a problem for people who have agreed to take part in these studies (and that's a lot of people: a typical large scale study can involve 20,000 patients or more).
spent two years working on DNA analysis techniques... We, by which I mean the DNA analysis crowd
For what's it's worth, I've spent the last 15 years working on various DNA analysis techniques. I don't know about your "crowd", but the general genetics community takes issues of privacy quite seriously.
There is a fair number of studies showing the existence of (average) differences, e.g. girls are better at word recall, boys are better at mental object rotation. See Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for further reading. The existence of the differences != discrimination, by the way.
Say that again after you've dragged your kicking and screaming toddler... I'll see your sarcasm and raise you the fact that I have actually brought my kid for vaccinations. Mind you, the vaccinations were more numerous than the standard US regimen and they were much more spread in time. And still, I'm standing by my statement that it was a better idea, since combining and increasing doses leads to the increase in the peak concentration of mercury, etc. And the peak (rather than cumulative dose) might well be what matters.
No, those aren't reasons. Those are rationalizations. And, formaldehyde??
At least as far as suspected vaccination-autism connection is concerned, iirc the autism rates in Europe are lower than in the States. One often offered explanation is the lower pace of vaccination on the other side of the pond. There is a hot debate on the issue, but from the common sense perspective: the only reason to combine multiple immunizations is cost-saving. Do you often see cost-saving measures that don't involve any tradeoffs? Just in case: my day job is in evolutionary biology :)
I submit that you don't know what you are talking about.
Diabetes? - You probably have heard of insulin? People used to die of advanced diabetes. Now it is a manageable condition.
Cancer? What do you mean, "nope"?? One of the first things anyone learns is that "cancer" is not a single disease. The second thing is that the past thirty years have seen miraculous progress: any type of cancer used to be a death sentence. Nowadays, most types of non-solid tumors are eminently treatable, with very good prognosis. Fer chrissakes, they are now promoting vaccine against cervical cancer -- just watch some TV to catch an ad.
AIDS - in 20 years went from certain death to manageable condition (at least, in rich countries).
etc, etc, etc.
There is plenty wrong with big pharma and with medical reearch, but let's not make uneducated claims.
It all depends on delivery system. If its precision is low (e.g. high altitude bomber) then the only good deterrent is to hit a large, high-value target with a big blast -- that's why initial targets were big cities. If you have a precision delivery system, it makes sense to target things like missile silos. Interestingly, when the Navy got in the game -- with the submarine-based missiled that were very low precision in the beginning, the strategy shifted back to targeting big cities. (I cannot recommend Fred Kaplan's book "The Wizards of Armageddon" highly enough; it deals with all these questions).