Of course the caveat to using mice to judge how a gene affects long-term development of cancer is that there really is no "long-term" on a human scale in mouse studies, since they only live about 3 years at most.
A very good point. I've heard that mice tend to get cancers of the blood, like leukemia rather than epithelial cancers like tumors, wheras we humans tend to get tumors more than the other types. I can't find a citation for that though, so take that for what little it's worth, but I think most people would agree that a knockout mouse not getting more cancer is not enough of a safeguard. It may be that lack of p21 doesn't increase the blood type cancers that mice normally get, but increases the risk of tumors, just not as severely as knockout of p53 or others, so we're not seeing it.
And we clearly don't know the full effects. Although p21 appears to be in most contexts in the mouse a gene that would directly promote rather than stop cancer (so by taking it away you'd be decreasing that) that's a long way from "Taking it away won't cause cancer in any tissue you wish to regenerate in humans." The fact that it causes regeneration alone suggests that deleting it has complicated effects.
However, his healing factor results in massive scar tissue causing his appearance to be severely disfigured. An unanticipated side effect of the therapy was a rapid acceleration of cancerous tumors as well, causing them to quickly spread across his entire body as soon as his powers fully activated.
Except without the funny one liners, awesome assasin skills, teleporter, or probably the rivalry with wolverine. I suppose you could wear the costume though and get in a fight with a real wolverine.
I played a lot as a kid, but mostly the RPG's and I'm pretty sure it helped my reading in the long run. My school had me pegged as reading at a college level by grade 5, and I'm pretty sure I didn't pick that up at school.
Some wiki reading on the subject took me to the other two cars that have broken, or been said to have broken the sound barrier. The ThrustSSC which definitely did, and the budweiser rocket which wasn't verified.
I had to laugh at the wiki page though for the budweiser rocket:
No independent authority sanctioned the performance, although United States Air Force radar tracked the vehicle and recorded the speed at 38 mph. This was obviously an error, and is generally considered to represent the movement of a truck in the vicinity.
Then there is people claiming that CFLs give them headaches, if I had more time I'd point out the studies where people are shown to have similar sensitivity as those who sense EM fields.
I'm very sensitive to the placebo effect, you insensitive clod! Now I'm going to have to replace all my bulbs AGAIN in addition to making a new tinfoil hat!
"These days?" More like "always". I used to do that circa 1985 in 6th grade with an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia.
I agree laziness is nothing new, nor is it increasing, but some people might lump 1985 in with "these days." Such people are less likely to be posting on this newfangled series of tubes though.
I'm pretty sure that there are objective measures that can prove whether or not someone is bad at math.
There are ways of suggesting a person is worse at math than the average person, yes. But you're using most people as the standard there. Saying "Most people are bad at math," what standard are you using there? "Most people are worse at math than..." what?
Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning.
Compared to what? The average person? That's impossible. The top 5% of people at math and logical reasoning? Well, they would be by definition. Compared with the level of math proficiency and logical reasoning -you- think they should be at? If that's the case, I'd argue you have unrealistic expectations. Compared to you?
Chargedonaygo. You've got charge, go, and chardonay, one of many alcoholic beverages you'll be able to drink and then sober up before your car is done charging since I have a hunch that our friendly oil industry lobbyist friends might make sure we're safe by limiting the amount of power that can be transferred.
Also because it will probably take much more time to charge the latest electric assault vehicle. Just because we're going to go electric doesn't mean we're going to lose our love of ridiculously huge and overpowered cars for the 20 minute commute on the freeway. After all, one of these days, we might have to drive over a mountain. We'll definitely want the eCanyonaro for that day.
And we swear, cross our hearts and hope to die, that we won't actually keep a copy of your entire genome on file.
----Signed --------Your Friendly Federal Agency
PS: In case you question our credibility, when social security numbers were being proposed, we never ever stood up and said that they would never ever be used as identification for purposes beside social security reimbursement.
PPS: Alternatively, would you believe that social security numbers are NOT actually used as identification for purposes besides social security reimbursement?
Fixing Healthcare is something that we won't know has been done or working until far beyond the date which this Bill is passed, and the 2012 elections are already concluded.
Good point. How I will judge whether or not it's been "fixed" will rely mostly on whether or not everyone now has affordable coverage for any health issue, it could do that but fail to get costs under control, with exploding costs we only realize after he's re-elected. The same could be said about absolutely every thing a politician does though.
Pretty simple really, this ever changing world in which we live in Made us give in and cry So we said, live and let die.
You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!
You know, you have a point. We are always committing terrible acts of violence, like suicide bombing, witch hunts, crusades, and inquisitions, and then blaming it on various religions. We're kind of dicks like that.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Honest personal opinion: If Obama gets ACTA passed, but -actually- fixes health care, I'm voting for him again.
Obviously, the two do not go hand in hand, and I'm making no statement as to the likelyhood of him actually fixing health care. If he passes ACTA, but not health care, I will be voting for someeone else and will publicly apologize for voting for him the first time. However, if saving political capital on this one means it can be spent on something that is a much bigger deal to me, then I don't at all regret voting for him.
Is there anyone here who honestly expects democrats to be the exact opposite of republicans on every issue? Especially when a small fraction of the voters care about said issue, and against that there is millions of dollars of campaign contributions to be had? I hate ACTA and its sponsors too, but come on, national politics are always about the lesser of two evils. It strikes me as pretty foolish to act like because we don't have a saint, we have the exact same sinner.
Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him. Can we just accept that he's evil yet?
Sure, but that's true for almost all politicians. I think labels like "evil" have very little value in this context, as, well, they're politicians, not saints. Most of the ones we've elected recently in the US don't attempt to silence their critics and opponents because if they do it too overtly, they know they'll get slapped down for it. I'd like to believe some of their consciences are also in favor of it.
Think of it this way, whichever side you're on of the healthcare debate, if you care strongly enough one way or the other, if you could get away with it, you wouldn't be tempted to silence the other side? Not even a little? And that's even if you don't have skin directly in the game, your future plans don't depend on it. Hopefully most of us wouldn't do it, because that's a bad precedent, you silence your critics and there's a tradition of silencing your critics, you've destroyed freedom irrevocably, the next guy might disagree with you about you being executed as a traitor, etc...
Anyway, we can accept he's evil, but we should have already realized that most politicians fit that description.
You might want to let it go. Bush was legitimately and fairly elected by the system that exists.
Wait, it was fair because the system -exists- and we should forget about it? So I suppose you'd say that because the system of "Castro is the only one on the ballot" was in existence for Cuba's recent history, Castro was the fairly and legitimately elected democratic president of Cuba, and people should "let it go?"
The article you linked said nothing about the validity to the actual studies. Just that one of the researchers was essentially stealing grant money.
That's a good point, but I was using that blog posting of an article to show that Thorsen's fraud is being taken as proof that there is a link between autism and vaccines. I didn't provide any citations to prove his studies are actually flawed. I should not have said "One study... disputing the link has been invalidated..." I mean, there are questions about his actual methods in that study, namely his claim that autism increased once thimerosal was banned was probably an artifact from the government updating their requirements for reporting cases of autism, but that wasn't my point.
That would be like saying that the Theory of DNA structure is invalid because Watson liked to fondle sheep.
Except for two major differences, one I wasn't saying the case that vaccines and autism aren't connected was wrong, and two that fondling sheep doesn't call into question one's credibility wheras fraudulently obtaining funds for research does.
I agree. The paranoid parents are going to ignore this, not get their kids immunized, and thereby put them at real risk for neurological damage from measles.
So one study and one researcher disputing the link has been invalidated, there are many more that remain, and there are plenty of studies claiming a link between vaccines and autism that have been shown false.
It's kind of like those leaked global warming e-mails. They didn't show that global climate change was a fraud, but that's what people wanted to hear, and that's what they remember, not boring things like the facts or court findings.
+1. If you sell a product and it causes a medical problem you didn't warn them of, I feel like you should at the very least pay the expenses. From what we know the manufacturer had no reason to think, and still has no reason to think, that the vaccine caused autism, so if it were actually proven later, I don't think the manufacturer should be fined as punishment, making the parents or rather their lawyers rich, but if it were causing autism, medical expenses covered would be expected.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, I should have been more clear. What I meant was that there will likely be bad side effects. Shoulda chosen a better example though.
Of course the caveat to using mice to judge how a gene affects long-term development of cancer is that there really is no "long-term" on a human scale in mouse studies, since they only live about 3 years at most.
A very good point. I've heard that mice tend to get cancers of the blood, like leukemia rather than epithelial cancers like tumors, wheras we humans tend to get tumors more than the other types. I can't find a citation for that though, so take that for what little it's worth, but I think most people would agree that a knockout mouse not getting more cancer is not enough of a safeguard. It may be that lack of p21 doesn't increase the blood type cancers that mice normally get, but increases the risk of tumors, just not as severely as knockout of p53 or others, so we're not seeing it.
And we clearly don't know the full effects. Although p21 appears to be in most contexts in the mouse a gene that would directly promote rather than stop cancer (so by taking it away you'd be decreasing that) that's a long way from "Taking it away won't cause cancer in any tissue you wish to regenerate in humans." The fact that it causes regeneration alone suggests that deleting it has complicated effects.
We can all be Wolverine now? Cool!
More like Deadpool.
However, his healing factor results in massive scar tissue causing his appearance to be severely disfigured. An unanticipated side effect of the therapy was a rapid acceleration of cancerous tumors as well, causing them to quickly spread across his entire body as soon as his powers fully activated.
Except without the funny one liners, awesome assasin skills, teleporter, or probably the rivalry with wolverine. I suppose you could wear the costume though and get in a fight with a real wolverine.
I played a lot as a kid, but mostly the RPG's and I'm pretty sure it helped my reading in the long run. My school had me pegged as reading at a college level by grade 5, and I'm pretty sure I didn't pick that up at school.
I guess "YOU SPOONY BARD!" could be considered college level...
Some wiki reading on the subject took me to the other two cars that have broken, or been said to have broken the sound barrier. The ThrustSSC which definitely did, and the budweiser rocket which wasn't verified.
I had to laugh at the wiki page though for the budweiser rocket:
No independent authority sanctioned the performance, although United States Air Force radar tracked the vehicle and recorded the speed at 38 mph. This was obviously an error, and is generally considered to represent the movement of a truck in the vicinity.
Some bias against land vehicles there I guess.
Then there is people claiming that CFLs give them headaches, if I had more time I'd point out the studies where people are shown to have similar sensitivity as those who sense EM fields.
I'm very sensitive to the placebo effect, you insensitive clod! Now I'm going to have to replace all my bulbs AGAIN in addition to making a new tinfoil hat!
"These days?" More like "always". I used to do that circa 1985 in 6th grade with an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia.
I agree laziness is nothing new, nor is it increasing, but some people might lump 1985 in with "these days." Such people are less likely to be posting on this newfangled series of tubes though.
You can be bad at math without being worse than average.
But you still have a standard there you're not admitting: your evidently unrealistic expectations.
I'm pretty sure that there are objective measures that can prove whether or not someone is bad at math.
There are ways of suggesting a person is worse at math than the average person, yes. But you're using most people as the standard there. Saying "Most people are bad at math," what standard are you using there? "Most people are worse at math than..." what?
That's what I'm saying.
Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning.
Compared to what? The average person? That's impossible. The top 5% of people at math and logical reasoning? Well, they would be by definition. Compared with the level of math proficiency and logical reasoning -you- think they should be at? If that's the case, I'd argue you have unrealistic expectations. Compared to you?
If you need a leaked document to know that spies are spying, you fail at espionage.
I think it was an overstatement to say "life" especially since, to me, facebook and other social networking sites are quite the opposite of life.
Chargedonaygo. You've got charge, go, and chardonay, one of many alcoholic beverages you'll be able to drink and then sober up before your car is done charging since I have a hunch that our friendly oil industry lobbyist friends might make sure we're safe by limiting the amount of power that can be transferred.
Also because it will probably take much more time to charge the latest electric assault vehicle. Just because we're going to go electric doesn't mean we're going to lose our love of ridiculously huge and overpowered cars for the 20 minute commute on the freeway. After all, one of these days, we might have to drive over a mountain. We'll definitely want the eCanyonaro for that day.
Comparing XML to the iPhone is like comparing a fighter jet with a celebrity cooking show on television.
I see no mention of cars in that comparison, so I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
And we swear, cross our hearts and hope to die, that we won't actually keep a copy of your entire genome on file.
----Signed
--------Your Friendly Federal Agency
PS: In case you question our credibility, when social security numbers were being proposed, we never ever stood up and said that they would never ever be used as identification for purposes beside social security reimbursement.
PPS: Alternatively, would you believe that social security numbers are NOT actually used as identification for purposes besides social security reimbursement?
Fixing Healthcare is something that we won't know has been done or working until far beyond the date which this Bill is passed, and the 2012 elections are already concluded.
Good point. How I will judge whether or not it's been "fixed" will rely mostly on whether or not everyone now has affordable coverage for any health issue, it could do that but fail to get costs under control, with exploding costs we only realize after he's re-elected. The same could be said about absolutely every thing a politician does though.
What ever happened to "live and let live"?
Pretty simple really, this ever changing world in which we live in
Made us give in and cry
So we said, live and let die.
You atheists seem to be a very hostile and angry group yourselves!
You know, you have a point. We are always committing terrible acts of violence, like suicide bombing, witch hunts, crusades, and inquisitions, and then blaming it on various religions. We're kind of dicks like that.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Honest personal opinion: If Obama gets ACTA passed, but -actually- fixes health care, I'm voting for him again.
Obviously, the two do not go hand in hand, and I'm making no statement as to the likelyhood of him actually fixing health care. If he passes ACTA, but not health care, I will be voting for someeone else and will publicly apologize for voting for him the first time. However, if saving political capital on this one means it can be spent on something that is a much bigger deal to me, then I don't at all regret voting for him.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Is there anyone here who honestly expects democrats to be the exact opposite of republicans on every issue? Especially when a small fraction of the voters care about said issue, and against that there is millions of dollars of campaign contributions to be had? I hate ACTA and its sponsors too, but come on, national politics are always about the lesser of two evils. It strikes me as pretty foolish to act like because we don't have a saint, we have the exact same sinner.
Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Can we just accept that he's evil yet?
Sure, but that's true for almost all politicians. I think labels like "evil" have very little value in this context, as, well, they're politicians, not saints. Most of the ones we've elected recently in the US don't attempt to silence their critics and opponents because if they do it too overtly, they know they'll get slapped down for it. I'd like to believe some of their consciences are also in favor of it.
Think of it this way, whichever side you're on of the healthcare debate, if you care strongly enough one way or the other, if you could get away with it, you wouldn't be tempted to silence the other side? Not even a little? And that's even if you don't have skin directly in the game, your future plans don't depend on it. Hopefully most of us wouldn't do it, because that's a bad precedent, you silence your critics and there's a tradition of silencing your critics, you've destroyed freedom irrevocably, the next guy might disagree with you about you being executed as a traitor, etc...
Anyway, we can accept he's evil, but we should have already realized that most politicians fit that description.
You might want to let it go. Bush was legitimately and fairly elected by the system that exists.
Wait, it was fair because the system -exists- and we should forget about it? So I suppose you'd say that because the system of "Castro is the only one on the ballot" was in existence for Cuba's recent history, Castro was the fairly and legitimately elected democratic president of Cuba, and people should "let it go?"
Chavez is not a dictator. He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election, unlike George W Bush (for example).
Good point, he should have said "Chavez is a dictator who is very good at PR."
Judging by the big hunk of meat in my 'fridge, today is Steak and BJ Day
Please tell me the "big hunk of meat" in your fridge is for the steak part of that day. You're doing it wrong if not.
The article you linked said nothing about the validity to the actual studies. Just that one of the researchers was essentially stealing grant money.
That's a good point, but I was using that blog posting of an article to show that Thorsen's fraud is being taken as proof that there is a link between autism and vaccines. I didn't provide any citations to prove his studies are actually flawed. I should not have said "One study... disputing the link has been invalidated..." I mean, there are questions about his actual methods in that study, namely his claim that autism increased once thimerosal was banned was probably an artifact from the government updating their requirements for reporting cases of autism, but that wasn't my point.
That would be like saying that the Theory of DNA structure is invalid because Watson liked to fondle sheep.
Except for two major differences, one I wasn't saying the case that vaccines and autism aren't connected was wrong, and two that fondling sheep doesn't call into question one's credibility wheras fraudulently obtaining funds for research does.
I agree. The paranoid parents are going to ignore this, not get their kids immunized, and thereby put them at real risk for neurological damage from measles.
Sadly, this won't even balance out the recent discovery that Poul Thorsen, one of many scientists disputing the link between autism and vaccines, was a fraud. Figure one: a random blog post on the subject reheadlined "The vaccine autism link is real".
So one study and one researcher disputing the link has been invalidated, there are many more that remain, and there are plenty of studies claiming a link between vaccines and autism that have been shown false.
It's kind of like those leaked global warming e-mails. They didn't show that global climate change was a fraud, but that's what people wanted to hear, and that's what they remember, not boring things like the facts or court findings.
+1. If you sell a product and it causes a medical problem you didn't warn them of, I feel like you should at the very least pay the expenses. From what we know the manufacturer had no reason to think, and still has no reason to think, that the vaccine caused autism, so if it were actually proven later, I don't think the manufacturer should be fined as punishment, making the parents or rather their lawyers rich, but if it were causing autism, medical expenses covered would be expected.