There are couple of issues with the paper. 1. effect on young patients have not been analyzed. 2. The participants received exceptional medical care and therefore there was no difference between control and experimental group in terms of mortality. 3. Protection is partial unlike other vaccines. 4. It is not clear why did they publish the partial results. The associated editorial in the issue by Nicholas J. White is thought-provoking.
This story is running over and over for quite some time. Each instance it is publicized as a new story. I have seen in in the past year at least two other times.
Funding the most elite is a dangerous idea. How would you determine who, the elite is? Most of the time being elite, means having the clout and running factory-like labs. Money should be distributed across and you will never know where the gem is! The US still has money for research, let's be optimistic. The best discoveries come in toughest of times!
The contribution of resveratrol to the apparent beneficial effect of red wine is likely to be small. Red contains a ton of antioxidants and resveratrol is only one of them. In addition, the pharmacological dose administered to the animals is several hundred fold more than what we consume in red wine. Resveratrol is rapidly metabolized and therefore there is no additive effect either. It is strange that despite a large volume of literature on the potential of resveratrol in treating several diseases, human trails have been few!
The city should try all possible ways to get the money back. This will make a precedence and might deter those who are sloppy in executing contract jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Just consider it as a flight to heaven (or hell).
Without accounting for the tissue barrier, the study may not reflect real life situation.
Attach a three atom knife to it with a suture gadget and send right into the heart for a by-pass
There are couple of issues with the paper. 1. effect on young patients have not been analyzed. 2. The participants received exceptional medical care and therefore there was no difference between control and experimental group in terms of mortality. 3. Protection is partial unlike other vaccines. 4. It is not clear why did they publish the partial results. The associated editorial in the issue by Nicholas J. White is thought-provoking.
This story is running over and over for quite some time. Each instance it is publicized as a new story. I have seen in in the past year at least two other times.
It is demand and competition based. When the demand and competition increase, we might see more universal standards coming up.
When did it get there?
Funding the most elite is a dangerous idea. How would you determine who, the elite is? Most of the time being elite, means having the clout and running factory-like labs. Money should be distributed across and you will never know where the gem is! The US still has money for research, let's be optimistic. The best discoveries come in toughest of times!
The contribution of resveratrol to the apparent beneficial effect of red wine is likely to be small. Red contains a ton of antioxidants and resveratrol is only one of them. In addition, the pharmacological dose administered to the animals is several hundred fold more than what we consume in red wine. Resveratrol is rapidly metabolized and therefore there is no additive effect either. It is strange that despite a large volume of literature on the potential of resveratrol in treating several diseases, human trails have been few!
The city should try all possible ways to get the money back. This will make a precedence and might deter those who are sloppy in executing contract jobs.