FTA:
There are two basic kinds of vaccines. The first uses attenuated viruses. This common and relatively simple method uses “dead” or inactive viruses. As far as the body is concerned, it’s the proteins that encase the virus that are important, not whether or not the virus is “alive.”
Wrong! Attenuated viruses are not "dead." They have been modified so as to cause much less-severe disease than the wild-type, but are still infectious. You might want to read the actual paper if you want to understand this topic.
From the paper:
"A randomised clinical trial of sufficient duration and
size could provide definitive evidence for or against the
disturbing mortality hazards suggested by our study.
Some American NIH reviewers have opined that a randomised
trial of hypnotic lethality would be unethical. No
such trial has ever been mounted, perhaps for reasons
similar to the absence of randomised trials of cigarettes
and of skydiving without parachutes."
It is absolutely unethical to give persons with no history of sleeping problems a potentially-lethal drug. This is as good as it gets.
As a motorcycist, I would encourage people to not talk or text on their phones while driving. Whenever someone tries to kill me, it's always the same: a woman fiddling with her phone.
However, I'm sure this ban would be enforced sporadically, with no reduction in traffic accidents caused by distracted driving...it will just become another excuse for the cops to pull you over and smell your breath.
Ahem:
"used a genetically altered adenovirus to infect muscle cells and deliver DNA that codes for antibodies isolated from the blood of people infected with HIV." -From the article
This experiment will probably not produce an actual human drug, as it suffers from the same drawback as most previous gene-therapy studies: the Adenovirus transduction system will kill a significant number of patients.
However, the results do seem to indicate that a monoclonal antibody has protective effects. The gene therapy vaccine may not work, but you could inject purified antibody into someone who had a known exposure, or is going to be in a high-risk situation, and prevent infection. Unfortunately, these types of therapies will never be able to cure an established infection, as HIV integrates its genome into host T-cells.
Agreed. This is the classic example of solving a problem that doesn't exist. Want to limit contamination of flasks during growth? How about a filtered cap on the flask, or a HEPA filter in the incubator, or antibiotics in the media...oh wait, we already do that.
While I agree that the lack of significance does not show that the hypotheses of the papers are false, it also does not show that the hypotheses are valid. Neither supposition can be made, and public policy should certianly not be made based on either erroneous conclusion.
Oh, so we get to decide the significance after we collect the data. Let me just submit a paper with "trust me, it's significant" in the discussion and see what happens.
Slashdot Mirror
Vortex Mini centrifuge Heat block Rocker table Pipettors and tips PCR Thermocycler Microwave oven
FTA: There are two basic kinds of vaccines. The first uses attenuated viruses. This common and relatively simple method uses “dead” or inactive viruses. As far as the body is concerned, it’s the proteins that encase the virus that are important, not whether or not the virus is “alive.” Wrong! Attenuated viruses are not "dead." They have been modified so as to cause much less-severe disease than the wild-type, but are still infectious. You might want to read the actual paper if you want to understand this topic.
More Dawkins spam!
"Irregardless," huh? I'm out.
Thanks! I can't believe I couldn't find it :(
From the paper: "A randomised clinical trial of sufficient duration and size could provide definitive evidence for or against the disturbing mortality hazards suggested by our study. Some American NIH reviewers have opined that a randomised trial of hypnotic lethality would be unethical. No such trial has ever been mounted, perhaps for reasons similar to the absence of randomised trials of cigarettes and of skydiving without parachutes." It is absolutely unethical to give persons with no history of sleeping problems a potentially-lethal drug. This is as good as it gets.
"We cured the infection by treating the patient in an autoclave. Unfortunately, he did not survive."
I'm reminded of when they tried to ban Chlorine. It turns out that chlorine is actually quite useful in synthetic organic chemistry. http://www.freedom.org/reports/srchlorine.html
Man, I wish I had mod points... So does the UK pay the Swedegeld every year now?
That's not a bad idea...maybe they make on that sounds like a fog horn.
As a motorcycist, I would encourage people to not talk or text on their phones while driving. Whenever someone tries to kill me, it's always the same: a woman fiddling with her phone. However, I'm sure this ban would be enforced sporadically, with no reduction in traffic accidents caused by distracted driving...it will just become another excuse for the cops to pull you over and smell your breath.
Ahem: "used a genetically altered adenovirus to infect muscle cells and deliver DNA that codes for antibodies isolated from the blood of people infected with HIV." -From the article
This experiment will probably not produce an actual human drug, as it suffers from the same drawback as most previous gene-therapy studies: the Adenovirus transduction system will kill a significant number of patients. However, the results do seem to indicate that a monoclonal antibody has protective effects. The gene therapy vaccine may not work, but you could inject purified antibody into someone who had a known exposure, or is going to be in a high-risk situation, and prevent infection. Unfortunately, these types of therapies will never be able to cure an established infection, as HIV integrates its genome into host T-cells.
Agreed. This is the classic example of solving a problem that doesn't exist. Want to limit contamination of flasks during growth? How about a filtered cap on the flask, or a HEPA filter in the incubator, or antibiotics in the media...oh wait, we already do that.
I'm thinking that this has less to do with trying to catch "criminals," and more to do with the state missing out on all that sales tax.
I am jelly donuts?
Does this mean that it is unethical to pay for music?
While I agree that the lack of significance does not show that the hypotheses of the papers are false, it also does not show that the hypotheses are valid. Neither supposition can be made, and public policy should certianly not be made based on either erroneous conclusion.
Oh, so we get to decide the significance after we collect the data. Let me just submit a paper with "trust me, it's significant" in the discussion and see what happens.