I originally made my reply much harsher. Then I decided there was no good reason to be mean and that I should be accommodating instead.
There is yet another factor to consider, herd immunity. If enough people in a population are resistant to a disease, that disease cannot propagate effectively. In effect, the whole population gains immunity. I think 70% is the estimated fraction of immunization necessary for herd immunity with many diseases. Prophylaxis is not so one sided. Drugs have to get much better, to the effectiveness of vaccines, before it will see like a convincingly good idea. The benefits of herd immunity may outweigh the risks of super resistant mutants. Widespread treatment of nuisance disease potentially shields the people with weak immune systems by reducing the number of contagious people. I do not know beyond doubt which decision is better. I doubt anyone does. In any case, I do not think the answer is at all obvious.
I believe human life is a valuable, precious thing. We should not take actions that are going to kill people. Realistically, we do it anyway. Automobiles seem like a good example to me. Effectively, we kill one another just so we can get somewhere fast. Electricity kills people. It also lets us flip switches and argue about killing people. Your example of the student speaking out against the old argument is good, but it doesn't make the problem vanish. The flu vaccine kills people, and the flu kills people. We get to choose whether to take the vaccine. Both choices hold the possibility of death. Whether or not we make utilitarian calculations, the possible consequences are there. Even something like a cold can kill people when it allows a secondary infection to take hold. Even drugs made to avoid inconvenience, like ones to treat common colds, often have the potential to save lives and the potential to kill people. It should never be strictly a numbers game. However, it is an unavoidable problem in many cases, and we can try to make decisions using the numbers.
As for driving to exinction, it's the only way I know to prevent a species from evolving. After a species is gone, however, other organisms eat its food. I'm not trying to excuse biological extermination. I'm not for "give me convenience or give me death." I'm simply trying to argue that we will cope with microbial disease for as long as we are good food. Since humans are big repositories of nutrients, chances are really good that things are going to keep trying to eat us. I think there is a different,--Viruses don't eat.--but analogous--Viruses have hosts.--situation with viruses. Maybe we'll get really, really good at coping. I hope so.
For the record, I'm pretty new to this biology stuff. My college background is in physics. I have had a few undergraduate level biology courses, including micro this past fall. I learned that material well, but the course was only introductory. I am trying to become a research physician.
"Would you prefer death... or a rubber chicken?" -- The Muppets (What was that one named?)
What gave you the idea that I think the indiscriminate use of drugs is a good idea? I think you missed a few sentences in my post. I'll get to it later in this post.
As for handing out cures that end up hurting or killing some, welcome to the nasty actuarial world. Many treatments are going to have beneficiaries and victims. How much non-fatal misery is one death worth? Sadly, that question probably does not matter. About half the web links I found for ViroPharma were financial profiles. You have a good point at the end of your post. Welcome to the nasty capitalist world.
If we get very good at drug design, more prophylactic drug use may not be so unreasonable. It might become an intelligent, viable public health strategy. We do not think vaccination is ridiculous even though we are effectively helping direct the evolution of some organisms. Let's consider your example, the flu. Right now, we do a pretty good job of vaccinating for the popular strains each flu season. What is stopping us from reaching a time when we can come up with effective drugs for the strains of each flu season? We are not there now. Preventative use of drugs has its dangers, as we have recently repeatedly learned. I see nothing that makes the approach intrinsically bad, though. Right now, it's just not prudent for many diseases.
As for whether viruses are living, it was a segue into explaining that viruses do carry genetic material. Because they carry genetic material that is imperfectly replicated, resistance mutations are possible in a fashion similar to resistance mutations in undebatably living organisms. Because many viruses have sloppy polymerases, their mutation, as you pointed out, can be very rapid. The flu has the added danger of antigenic shift. Hybridization can couple with mutation in deadly ways. I'm sorry you don't like my rhetorical style. Considering the discrepancies between what you read and what I wrote, my rhetoric hit a big speed bump this time.
I do not think that multiple drug resistance is no problem. I do not understand why you thought so. I have talked at length to a healthcare professional about this issue. (I call her "Mama.") A major point of my post is how difficult a problem drug resistance is.
Please allow me to clarify. I carefully chose to use "whether" in my sentence "Good biologists laugh, cry and bang their heads in frustration when people worry about whether resistance against some deadly substance will happen." We do not need to worry about whether we see a mutation. Because mutations will happen, we need to worry about what mutations we should expect, how important they will be, how they will affect the virulence of the individual mutants and the larger population. In the first post, I wrote, "[Smart farmers and doctors] concentrate on finding methods that make their weapons as effective as possible for as long as possible." I think that is exactly the point you made. There is already a journal article about pleconaril resistant mutants. I cited the abstract in another post of this thread.
I think we agree on most points in this debate. I'm sorry I didn't make my position clearer to you two posts up the tree.
I'm not sure what you mean about the inevitability of "the Red Queen's race." I do not doubt that we can continue to make strides in public health. You might mean that we will eventually stop having to run the race. You might mean that there are some diseases we can beat. You cited good examples for the second interpretation. I think there will always be diseases for which the race will continue, at least until we have a big change in what drugs do and how we take them.
Non-human reservoirs are going to be problems for a while yet. Some diseases have hiding places where they can come up with new mutations. There are other strategies against them, though. We have seen great success with the combination of rabies vaccinations for most dogs and rabies vaccinations for humans when necessary. If we can reach a time when these diseases are the ones we really have to worry about, I think we'll have an easier battle with them. If we have good drugs that we don't give to the reservoir, the disease might not ever feel enough selective pressure for resistance mutations to become a great problem.
Smallpox eradication, the example you cited, was so successful because humans were its only hosts. AIDS might be specific enough to humans to allow for its elimination through multiple drug therapy and better public health.
As with AIDS multiple drug therapy, we can force the mutations necessary for resistance to be extremely unlikely, maybe impossible. It is going to take some big steps in drug development, drug prescription practices and patient cooperation.
My mother the pharmacist told me about the 30-30-30-10 problem of medication. 30% of the people will be helped by a drug. 10% will react adversely. 30% will experience neither significant benefit nor harm. The other 30% won't take the drugs.
Allow me to quote myself. "Even if they drive one species to extinction, another one can take its place." I recognize that extinction is always a possibility. I wrote so the first time.
As for resistance mutations against pleconaril, the researchers at ViroPharma have already seen resistant coxsackievirus B3 variants (whatever those bugs are). They claim that, as you guessed they might be, they are less virulent. See J Infect Dis 1999 Jun;179(6):1538-41. You can look for PMID 10228078 at PubMed and read the abstract just as I did.
I'm not so sure that the size of the virus would increase. Viruses (always?) self-assemble. The capsids have specific geometric shapes. Many viruses are icosahedral, for example hepatitis B. The subunits must be shaped and charged the right way for capsid assembly to happen. The geometric constraints make a size change in particle size seem very unlikely to me. It happens, though, that the proteins can change enough to foil the drugs and the immune system without the virus particle or its genome significantly increasing in size. There may be protein that is different to the drugs and immune system and still functional for the virus without being bigger.
As for a change in genome size, your reasoning seems good to me. A smaller genome that can do the job has its advantages.
The reasoning is not perfect. We do see some viruses that are larger than others. It appears that the size of the largest genome is bigger now than it was a few billion years ago. As you note, the balance of evolutionary factors is a delicate one. Nature always has its surprises.
They try to speak another language that they do not know. It is not a sin; it is just an error of convention. I do it, too. With the diversity of sources for English words, it is difficult or impossible not to. Calm down, Beavis.
According to the estimates I read, the flu of 1918 killed more people that World War I. I got my shot for this flu season. The microbiology course I was taking helped convince me to get it. They are not just for hospital workers and the elderly. The vaccine, like Relenza, always kills a few people, but it is less deadly than the flu.
Don't try to outsmart yourself with Latin. The correct plural is "viruses".
Natural selection happens. It will happen with this drug. It will happen without this drug. It will happen on a train. It will happen on a plane. It is impossible (or nearly so) to stop. Unless biology changes drastically, evolution will keep going until every strain of every organism is obliterated.
Good biologists laugh, cry and bang their heads in frustration when people worry about whether resistance against some deadly substance will happen. The evolution of many organisms is hard to track because we do not notice great survival pressures bearing down on them. Provide enough pressure, and the organisms will evolve. If a drug, pesticide or herbicide is good enough, it will provide selective pressure. Evolution will happen. It happened against superpesticides that farmers thought would work forever. It happened against our miracle drugs.
The smart doctors and farmers have stopped thinking ridiculous thoughts such as, "Will evolution happen this time?" They know that, somehow, it will. Even if they drive one species to extinction, another one can take its place. They concentrate on finding methods that make their weapons as effective as possible for as long as possible.
Viruses are not living according to the biologists I know. They probably would not call them organisms. Many viruses carry DNA, just as living organisms do. Some carry RNA, and it functions similarly. All DNA and RNA molecules are subject to damage and to errors in base pairing. Mutation is going to happen. When mutation happens, evolution can and will happen.
The promise of carefully designed drugs is that we can keep pace with evolution better. Much drug development is still done with a shotgun. Researchers expose the bugs to chemicals and pick out the effective ones. We do not understand how many antimicrobials work. We just know that they do work and that they are not too toxic. By understanding disease mechanisms, more drugs can be designed and not just discovered. Even when a new bug appears, researchers will be able to discover how it works and to design chemicals that interfere.
Animals fall into two broad classes, deuterostomes and protostomes. For protostomes, the mouth forms before the anus. Starfish, jellyfish and insects and protostomes. In deuterostome development, the anus forms first. Vertebrates are among the deuterostomes. The early cleavage of protostomes is spiral. For deuterostomes, it is radial.
If one removes cells from a protostome blastula after the first few divisions, a deformed, partial organism will develop. Cell differentiation starts early. Deuterostomes differentiate later. An animal can develop normally after removing a few cells from a blastula even after the first few divisions.
Once cells begin differentiating, it is hard to clone them. Dolly was such a feat because the managed to reset that cell differentiation clock removing the DNA from a zygote, putting in the parent's DNA and doing some chemical magic.
This feat was accomplished with a mouse a long time ago. I saw it on Nova. Those researchers also fused two separate, very tiny embryos. One embryo was from a line of white mice; the other from a line of black mice. They got a mouse with patches of both colors.
Splitting a tiny embryo to make several embryos is an accomplishment. The work is difficult and delicate. Even though cell differentiation begins later in deuterostomes, I imagine it is still challenging to get the cells to survive and then to grow normally.
Cloning usually means making a genetically identical copy. It comes from the Greek word for twig in reference to the horticultural practice of cutting and grafting small twigs to make clones. Most pecan trees in the USA actually have the roots of another species. Pecan trees do not have sturdy roots. Grafting them onto strong roots solves that problem. These scientists, however, did not make copies of an adult. They cannibalized an embryo. Cloning is still good enough, I think.
The bacteria under Bacillus are Gram-positive rods. Clostridium is another genus of endospore-forming bacteria. I wonder why they picked one over the other. I think Desulfomaculum is the only other genera of endospore-forming bactera. They, unlike the previous two I mentioned, are Gram-negative.
Deinococcus is an amazing genus. Its members can endure several orders of magnitude more radiation than humans and just about every other organism. They can live in radioactive coolant from nuclear reactors.Their secret resistance to mutation is not resistant DNA; it is DNA repair. They have multiple copies of genes and DNA polymerases that can patch and repair damaged sequences. A recent article I read (here?) proposed studying them in the hopes of using their DNA repair enzymes for medical purposes.
I have had and used credit cards for over 5 years. Never have I paid a cent of interest. How? I pay the total balance every month when it is due. High interest rates only affect people who buy more than they can afford.
Having a credit card number stolen is a worry, but not a great one. The price of the stolen goods goes into creating those high interest rates (along with greed) because the individual card holders usually refuse to pay for unauthorized purchases. If a customer's card gets cancelled over it, there are plenty of other credit card companies to step in for the old one.
The proteins in different luciferin-luciferase systems are significantly different. They do not appear to have a common evolutionary source. Bioluminescence from jellyfish and dinoflagellates probably involve quite different molecules and mechanisms. Also, it is still unclear how many of these systems work.
I found a page that supports what you wrote. The luciferins and luciferases vary among organisms. Biologists believe that several bioluminescent mechanisms evolved independently. Neat-o.
I found a page on bioluminescence after reading an an article on using bioluminescent dinoflagellates to monitor fluid flow about a month ago. I think most bioluminescent organisms use very similar proteins.
Something is fishy. (Pun pun pun) Why in the world do these people need to take that many expensive fishing trips? Luciferin-luciferase systems are understood. In fact, they are easy to buy and culture. Is there something special about jellyfish?
The toys are very cool, but this technology seems much less rare and expensive than the article implies.
How do you feel the return to Apple of Steve Jobs? How do you think he will affect the company? In what direction will he take Apple?
Apple is a closed company. Few hardware specifications have been released, even for old machines. Projects such as MacBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD have progressed slowly. Do you agree with this choice?
Why has MacOS lagged so much? Protecting memory, efficient multitasking and symmetric multiprocessor capabilties are either new or still absent. In light of Copland, then the NeXT acquisition and now the fragmented MacOS X, what should MacOS become?
Think about it this way. I'll provide myself as an example.
Over a period of weeks, I started noticing that I feel lonely and sad whenever I'm not very stimulated. I might try to go out, meet friends and exercise. I can laugh and be personable. The bad feelings remain. Even when I project and feel some happiness, an inner feeling of dispair remains. It seems to stay with me no matter what I try.
I wanted to get better. I didn't give a flying fuck about "normal," "balance," "background" or any of your other similar categories. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. I tried a take charge, upbeat attitude. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. I tried exercise, mainly biking and basketball. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. I tried taking up some personal hobbies, computers, music and reading. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. Do you see the pattern? I just wanted to feel better.
I feel that medical treatment, in the sense of considering our states as locations, is a vehicle. I looked at where I was. I hated it. I wanted out. Treatment helped me move out of that rut. Again, I don't care about the process; I care about the origin and the destination.
Some people will abuse the medical system and themselves. Is it really a surprise? The point is that people who feel suffering and show signs of dysfunction should have access to treatment. Stop worrying about what is "balanced" and think in vehicular terms. Think it basic human terms of suffering and self-destruction. In light of these aspect, why does "balance" matter a damned bit?
Some humor is light. Little stories with unexpected or embarassing outcomes are often funny. We kid our friends and mean no harm by it.
There is another side of humor. Often we make light of tragedy. I still remember a few NASA Challenger jokes. We make fun of physically different groups. I know plenty of racist and sexist jokes. There are plenty of comedy skits about disabled people. We joke about what we fear. There are jokes about death. A tremendous amount of humor centers on sexual dysfunction and behavior. There are jokes about mental illness.
How does this aspect of humor function? Some forms provide relief from tense situations, such as the Challenger explosion and many sexual jokes. Other function to marginalize groups we dislike. Racial jokes do.
Joking about mental illness has a similar function. "Hey, everybody is a little crazy." That statement makes light of people's suffering by comparing it to simply feeling blue or becoming anxious when under stress. The humor relieves our tension that we might be mentally ill, a very stigmatized state. For the healthy, pointing to the illnesses as weaknesses draws attention away from their own problems and magnifies their own mental health. Others fear the diseased people. Being around mentally ill people can be scary. It's hard to know what to expect. Making fun of these people is no sin. I like jokes, especially taboo ones. I like to consider why people tell certain jokes, though. When hearing a joke, I often wonder whether it's just funny or whether it's spiteful and insulting. Where do you think this humor about mental illness originates? What motivates people toward the jokes? Look at the comments. Many posters address the report with dismissive humor. Joke if you want, but understand what is happening when you do.
Maybe they were mentally ill. Even if the 22% figure is accurate, how many of those people do you think take medication? For that matter, how many get any help at all? Many do not.
They survive. People back then survived. People now survive. Someone cannot be considered well just because he/she is not dying. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that these problems have been around for the duration of mankind's existence. For the most part, they do not result in death. The diseased often still have children. In short, the selective pressure against most mental illness is slim to none. Selective pressure only works when it affects organisms reproductively. Plenty of mental illnesses do not.
If we have the resources to improve our lives, why shouldn't we use them? To make us tough? You can eat as much of that macho bullshit and call it candy for as long as you want. It won't turn it into candy. I have a real reluctance toward taking medication. I dislike suffering more. If it is going to help someone, do it. Those people who spent three years depressed generally wish they had tried medication sooner. They wasted three years making bad decisions, ruining relationships, working poorly and spending time. Guess what, Elroy. They don't get those years back when they get better. That time is gone. If medication and therapy will help someone from wasting more of his/her life spinning in mental circles, I am all for it.
I heard the Surgeon General yesterday afternoon on All Things Considered. If the researchers need any more evidence about the stigma and ignorance surrounding mental illness, they ought to read Slashdot. Look at the variety of comments we have. Mental illness is immediately equated with being crazy. There are jokes and denials. The header itself is brimming with nervous humor. We deny that mental illness does hinder and even incapacitate people by arguing that abnormality is fine. It's fine to be sad. It's fine to be shy. I agree. We have posts that portray mental illness as some new-fangled plot of our hypochondriac pharmaceutical world and about big brother's attempt to profile and control us. Those points are important. Watch Brain Candy. While I agree that we should face our problems with humor and some caution, we also need honesty, openness and seriousness.
I have struggled with low grade mental problems throughout my life. Several friends and family members have, too. In many respects, I am a highly functioning person. My studies are going well and, except for a few years, have not suffered. I have a good family. I have friends. I often feel awful. While I have casual friends, the attempt to form closer relationships has failed repeatedly and completely. I have tried to pep up magically, to exercise more, to play music and to put myself around other people. All these things did help. Counseling from trained professionals has helped much more. Medication helped dramatically.
I know people who have emotional problems that are absolutely obvious to everyone who knows them well. They often realize it themselves. Even among the ones who realize it, a significant portion will not seek help. They are embarassed. Just as with other illnesses, treatment necessitates revealing personal information, and they are scared of the vulnerability. Most people can comfortably tell a doctor that their throat hurts or that they have been vomiting; they cannot do the same about disabilitating mental experiences. Some are simply reluctant to break with tradition when so few others among their friends and family have received treatment.
We can look into the dangers of labeling people as ill and medicating them. Indeed, we ought to. Those dangers are real. Even when they are true, they do not negate the problems. As the report states, we have the resources to improve our mental lives. Treatment helps people get better. Why shouldn't we take advantage of it? The data are there. Look at them. People miss a great deal of work (and play) because they struggle with mental issues. People commit suicide. Among people who are treated, we can see better work performance, better social feeling and lower suicide rates. Some of these data rest on anecdotal evidence, but quite a few of them are measurable. We can count suicides. We can count missed work days. Abnormality is no sin. Some shy, eccentric and awkward people lead satisfying lives. Abnormality is not identical to mental illness, however. This study does not concern people who cope differently. It is about people who cope poorly, if at all, with the circumstances of their lives due to identifiable, treatable conditions. One can be abnormal without suffering averse consequences. The data do not address people who are just abnormal. They address people who suffer documented detrimental consequences of their mental conditions. Anybody who drops a front of prejudice can see that this issue is more than an invention or an exaggeration.
They suffered as we do. My parents have stories of people in their communities known to be mentally ill. It was hushed, though. It has been for generations.
Suicide provides an illustrative example. Many families lie about how a family member died, and even if they don't like, they very rarely discuss what did happen.
The 22% are generally "getting along fine." Most of them are functional. The question in those cases is whether they are healthy and prosperous. The answer is that they are not. There are health professionals trained to treat these people. When treated, they tend to get better. We're too busy denying that there's any disease to notice.
Slashdot Mirror
I originally made my reply much harsher. Then I decided there was no good reason to be mean and that I should be accommodating instead.
... or a rubber chicken?" -- The Muppets (What was that one named?)
There is yet another factor to consider, herd immunity. If enough people in a population are resistant to a disease, that disease cannot propagate effectively. In effect, the whole population gains immunity. I think 70% is the estimated fraction of immunization necessary for herd immunity with many diseases. Prophylaxis is not so one sided. Drugs have to get much better, to the effectiveness of vaccines, before it will see like a convincingly good idea. The benefits of herd immunity may outweigh the risks of super resistant mutants. Widespread treatment of nuisance disease potentially shields the people with weak immune systems by reducing the number of contagious people. I do not know beyond doubt which decision is better. I doubt anyone does. In any case, I do not think the answer is at all obvious.
I believe human life is a valuable, precious thing. We should not take actions that are going to kill people. Realistically, we do it anyway. Automobiles seem like a good example to me. Effectively, we kill one another just so we can get somewhere fast. Electricity kills people. It also lets us flip switches and argue about killing people. Your example of the student speaking out against the old argument is good, but it doesn't make the problem vanish. The flu vaccine kills people, and the flu kills people. We get to choose whether to take the vaccine. Both choices hold the possibility of death. Whether or not we make utilitarian calculations, the possible consequences are there. Even something like a cold can kill people when it allows a secondary infection to take hold. Even drugs made to avoid inconvenience, like ones to treat common colds, often have the potential to save lives and the potential to kill people. It should never be strictly a numbers game. However, it is an unavoidable problem in many cases, and we can try to make decisions using the numbers.
As for driving to exinction, it's the only way I know to prevent a species from evolving. After a species is gone, however, other organisms eat its food. I'm not trying to excuse biological extermination. I'm not for "give me convenience or give me death." I'm simply trying to argue that we will cope with microbial disease for as long as we are good food. Since humans are big repositories of nutrients, chances are really good that things are going to keep trying to eat us. I think there is a different,--Viruses don't eat.--but analogous--Viruses have hosts.--situation with viruses. Maybe we'll get really, really good at coping. I hope so.
For the record, I'm pretty new to this biology stuff. My college background is in physics. I have had a few undergraduate level biology courses, including micro this past fall. I learned that material well, but the course was only introductory. I am trying to become a research physician.
"Would you prefer death
What gave you the idea that I think the indiscriminate use of drugs is a good idea? I think you missed a few sentences in my post. I'll get to it later in this post.
As for handing out cures that end up hurting or killing some, welcome to the nasty actuarial world. Many treatments are going to have beneficiaries and victims. How much non-fatal misery is one death worth? Sadly, that question probably does not matter. About half the web links I found for ViroPharma were financial profiles. You have a good point at the end of your post. Welcome to the nasty capitalist world.
If we get very good at drug design, more prophylactic drug use may not be so unreasonable. It might become an intelligent, viable public health strategy. We do not think vaccination is ridiculous even though we are effectively helping direct the evolution of some organisms. Let's consider your example, the flu. Right now, we do a pretty good job of vaccinating for the popular strains each flu season. What is stopping us from reaching a time when we can come up with effective drugs for the strains of each flu season? We are not there now. Preventative use of drugs has its dangers, as we have recently repeatedly learned. I see nothing that makes the approach intrinsically bad, though. Right now, it's just not prudent for many diseases.
As for whether viruses are living, it was a segue into explaining that viruses do carry genetic material. Because they carry genetic material that is imperfectly replicated, resistance mutations are possible in a fashion similar to resistance mutations in undebatably living organisms. Because many viruses have sloppy polymerases, their mutation, as you pointed out, can be very rapid. The flu has the added danger of antigenic shift. Hybridization can couple with mutation in deadly ways. I'm sorry you don't like my rhetorical style. Considering the discrepancies between what you read and what I wrote, my rhetoric hit a big speed bump this time.
I do not think that multiple drug resistance is no problem. I do not understand why you thought so. I have talked at length to a healthcare professional about this issue. (I call her "Mama.") A major point of my post is how difficult a problem drug resistance is.
Please allow me to clarify. I carefully chose to use "whether" in my sentence "Good biologists laugh, cry and bang their heads in frustration when people worry about whether resistance against some deadly substance will happen." We do not need to worry about whether we see a mutation. Because mutations will happen, we need to worry about what mutations we should expect, how important they will be, how they will affect the virulence of the individual mutants and the larger population. In the first post, I wrote, "[Smart farmers and doctors] concentrate on finding methods that make their weapons as effective as possible for as long as possible." I think that is exactly the point you made. There is already a journal article about pleconaril resistant mutants. I cited the abstract in another post of this thread.
I think we agree on most points in this debate. I'm sorry I didn't make my position clearer to you two posts up the tree.
I'm not sure what you mean about the inevitability of "the Red Queen's race." I do not doubt that we can continue to make strides in public health. You might mean that we will eventually stop having to run the race. You might mean that there are some diseases we can beat. You cited good examples for the second interpretation. I think there will always be diseases for which the race will continue, at least until we have a big change in what drugs do and how we take them.
Non-human reservoirs are going to be problems for a while yet. Some diseases have hiding places where they can come up with new mutations. There are other strategies against them, though. We have seen great success with the combination of rabies vaccinations for most dogs and rabies vaccinations for humans when necessary. If we can reach a time when these diseases are the ones we really have to worry about, I think we'll have an easier battle with them. If we have good drugs that we don't give to the reservoir, the disease might not ever feel enough selective pressure for resistance mutations to become a great problem.
Smallpox eradication, the example you cited, was so successful because humans were its only hosts. AIDS might be specific enough to humans to allow for its elimination through multiple drug therapy and better public health.
As with AIDS multiple drug therapy, we can force the mutations necessary for resistance to be extremely unlikely, maybe impossible. It is going to take some big steps in drug development, drug prescription practices and patient cooperation.
My mother the pharmacist told me about the 30-30-30-10 problem of medication. 30% of the people will be helped by a drug. 10% will react adversely. 30% will experience neither significant benefit nor harm. The other 30% won't take the drugs.
Allow me to quote myself. "Even if they drive one species to extinction, another one can take its place." I recognize that extinction is always a possibility. I wrote so the first time.
As for resistance mutations against pleconaril, the researchers at ViroPharma have already seen resistant coxsackievirus B3 variants (whatever those bugs are). They claim that, as you guessed they might be, they are less virulent. See J Infect Dis 1999 Jun;179(6):1538-41. You can look for PMID 10228078 at PubMed and read the abstract just as I did.
I'm not so sure that the size of the virus would increase. Viruses (always?) self-assemble. The capsids have specific geometric shapes. Many viruses are icosahedral, for example hepatitis B. The subunits must be shaped and charged the right way for capsid assembly to happen. The geometric constraints make a size change in particle size seem very unlikely to me. It happens, though, that the proteins can change enough to foil the drugs and the immune system without the virus particle or its genome significantly increasing in size. There may be protein that is different to the drugs and immune system and still functional for the virus without being bigger.
As for a change in genome size, your reasoning seems good to me. A smaller genome that can do the job has its advantages.
The reasoning is not perfect. We do see some viruses that are larger than others. It appears that the size of the largest genome is bigger now than it was a few billion years ago. As you note, the balance of evolutionary factors is a delicate one. Nature always has its surprises.
They try to speak another language that they do not know. It is not a sin; it is just an error of convention. I do it, too. With the diversity of sources for English words, it is difficult or impossible not to. Calm down, Beavis.
According to the estimates I read, the flu of 1918 killed more people that World War I. I got my shot for this flu season. The microbiology course I was taking helped convince me to get it. They are not just for hospital workers and the elderly. The vaccine, like Relenza, always kills a few people, but it is less deadly than the flu.
Don't try to outsmart yourself with Latin. The correct plural is "viruses".
Natural selection happens. It will happen with this drug. It will happen without this drug. It will happen on a train. It will happen on a plane. It is impossible (or nearly so) to stop. Unless biology changes drastically, evolution will keep going until every strain of every organism is obliterated.
Good biologists laugh, cry and bang their heads in frustration when people worry about whether resistance against some deadly substance will happen. The evolution of many organisms is hard to track because we do not notice great survival pressures bearing down on them. Provide enough pressure, and the organisms will evolve. If a drug, pesticide or herbicide is good enough, it will provide selective pressure. Evolution will happen. It happened against superpesticides that farmers thought would work forever. It happened against our miracle drugs.
The smart doctors and farmers have stopped thinking ridiculous thoughts such as, "Will evolution happen this time?" They know that, somehow, it will. Even if they drive one species to extinction, another one can take its place. They concentrate on finding methods that make their weapons as effective as possible for as long as possible.
Viruses are not living according to the biologists I know. They probably would not call them organisms. Many viruses carry DNA, just as living organisms do. Some carry RNA, and it functions similarly. All DNA and RNA molecules are subject to damage and to errors in base pairing. Mutation is going to happen. When mutation happens, evolution can and will happen.
The promise of carefully designed drugs is that we can keep pace with evolution better. Much drug development is still done with a shotgun. Researchers expose the bugs to chemicals and pick out the effective ones. We do not understand how many antimicrobials work. We just know that they do work and that they are not too toxic. By understanding disease mechanisms, more drugs can be designed and not just discovered. Even when a new bug appears, researchers will be able to discover how it works and to design chemicals that interfere.
Animals fall into two broad classes, deuterostomes and protostomes. For protostomes, the mouth forms before the anus. Starfish, jellyfish and insects and protostomes. In deuterostome development, the anus forms first. Vertebrates are among the deuterostomes. The early cleavage of protostomes is spiral. For deuterostomes, it is radial.
If one removes cells from a protostome blastula after the first few divisions, a deformed, partial organism will develop. Cell differentiation starts early. Deuterostomes differentiate later. An animal can develop normally after removing a few cells from a blastula even after the first few divisions.
Once cells begin differentiating, it is hard to clone them. Dolly was such a feat because the managed to reset that cell differentiation clock removing the DNA from a zygote, putting in the parent's DNA and doing some chemical magic.
This feat was accomplished with a mouse a long time ago. I saw it on Nova. Those researchers also fused two separate, very tiny embryos. One embryo was from a line of white mice; the other from a line of black mice. They got a mouse with patches of both colors.
Splitting a tiny embryo to make several embryos is an accomplishment. The work is difficult and delicate. Even though cell differentiation begins later in deuterostomes, I imagine it is still challenging to get the cells to survive and then to grow normally.
Cloning usually means making a genetically identical copy. It comes from the Greek word for twig in reference to the horticultural practice of cutting and grafting small twigs to make clones. Most pecan trees in the USA actually have the roots of another species. Pecan trees do not have sturdy roots. Grafting them onto strong roots solves that problem. These scientists, however, did not make copies of an adult. They cannibalized an embryo. Cloning is still good enough, I think.
There's always one of me just-a hangin' arou-hound.
The bacteria under Bacillus are Gram-positive rods. Clostridium is another genus of endospore-forming bacteria. I wonder why they picked one over the other. I think Desulfomaculum is the only other genera of endospore-forming bactera. They, unlike the previous two I mentioned, are Gram-negative.
Deinococcus is an amazing genus. Its members can endure several orders of magnitude more radiation than humans and just about every other organism. They can live in radioactive coolant from nuclear reactors.Their secret resistance to mutation is not resistant DNA; it is DNA repair. They have multiple copies of genes and DNA polymerases that can patch and repair damaged sequences. A recent article I read (here?) proposed studying them in the hopes of using their DNA repair enzymes for medical purposes.
I have had and used credit cards for over 5 years. Never have I paid a cent of interest. How? I pay the total balance every month when it is due. High interest rates only affect people who buy more than they can afford.
Having a credit card number stolen is a worry, but not a great one. The price of the stolen goods goes into creating those high interest rates (along with greed) because the individual card holders usually refuse to pay for unauthorized purchases. If a customer's card gets cancelled over it, there are plenty of other credit card companies to step in for the old one.
The proteins in different luciferin-luciferase systems are significantly different. They do not appear to have a common evolutionary source. Bioluminescence from jellyfish and dinoflagellates probably involve quite different molecules and mechanisms. Also, it is still unclear how many of these systems work.
I found a page that supports what you wrote. The luciferins and luciferases vary among organisms. Biologists believe that several bioluminescent mechanisms evolved independently. Neat-o.
I found a page on bioluminescence after reading an an article on using bioluminescent dinoflagellates to monitor fluid flow about a month ago. I think most bioluminescent organisms use very similar proteins.
Something is fishy. (Pun pun pun) Why in the world do these people need to take that many expensive fishing trips? Luciferin-luciferase systems are understood. In fact, they are easy to buy and culture. Is there something special about jellyfish?
The toys are very cool, but this technology seems much less rare and expensive than the article implies.
1. Push button.
2. Rub hands under warm air.
3. Dry hands on pants.
How do you feel the return to Apple of Steve Jobs? How do you think he will affect the company? In what direction will he take Apple?
Apple is a closed company. Few hardware specifications have been released, even for old machines. Projects such as MacBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD have progressed slowly. Do you agree with this choice?
Why has MacOS lagged so much? Protecting memory, efficient multitasking and symmetric multiprocessor capabilties are either new or still absent. In light of Copland, then the NeXT acquisition and now the fragmented MacOS X, what should MacOS become?
I have seen only the advertising campaign. It appears that this company may provide affordable, 2-way satellite access. StarBand
Think about it this way. I'll provide myself as an example.
Over a period of weeks, I started noticing that I feel lonely and sad whenever I'm not very stimulated. I might try to go out, meet friends and exercise. I can laugh and be personable. The bad feelings remain. Even when I project and feel some happiness, an inner feeling of dispair remains. It seems to stay with me no matter what I try.
I wanted to get better. I didn't give a flying fuck about "normal," "balance," "background" or any of your other similar categories. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. I tried a take charge, upbeat attitude. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. I tried exercise, mainly biking and basketball. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. I tried taking up some personal hobbies, computers, music and reading. I felt absolutely shitty nearly all my waking hours. Do you see the pattern? I just wanted to feel better.
I feel that medical treatment, in the sense of considering our states as locations, is a vehicle. I looked at where I was. I hated it. I wanted out. Treatment helped me move out of that rut. Again, I don't care about the process; I care about the origin and the destination.
Some people will abuse the medical system and themselves. Is it really a surprise? The point is that people who feel suffering and show signs of dysfunction should have access to treatment. Stop worrying about what is "balanced" and think in vehicular terms. Think it basic human terms of suffering and self-destruction. In light of these aspect, why does "balance" matter a damned bit?
What things do we choose as topics for humor?
Some humor is light. Little stories with unexpected or embarassing outcomes are often funny. We kid our friends and mean no harm by it.
There is another side of humor. Often we make light of tragedy. I still remember a few NASA Challenger jokes. We make fun of physically different groups. I know plenty of racist and sexist jokes. There are plenty of comedy skits about disabled people. We joke about what we fear. There are jokes about death. A tremendous amount of humor centers on sexual dysfunction and behavior. There are jokes about mental illness.
How does this aspect of humor function? Some forms provide relief from tense situations, such as the Challenger explosion and many sexual jokes. Other function to marginalize groups we dislike. Racial jokes do.
Joking about mental illness has a similar function. "Hey, everybody is a little crazy." That statement makes light of people's suffering by comparing it to simply feeling blue or becoming anxious when under stress. The humor relieves our tension that we might be mentally ill, a very stigmatized state. For the healthy, pointing to the illnesses as weaknesses draws attention away from their own problems and magnifies their own mental health. Others fear the diseased people. Being around mentally ill people can be scary. It's hard to know what to expect. Making fun of these people is no sin. I like jokes, especially taboo ones. I like to consider why people tell certain jokes, though. When hearing a joke, I often wonder whether it's just funny or whether it's spiteful and insulting.
Where do you think this humor about mental illness originates? What motivates people toward the jokes? Look at the comments. Many posters address the report with dismissive humor. Joke if you want, but understand what is happening when you do.
Maybe they were mentally ill. Even if the 22% figure is accurate, how many of those people do you think take medication? For that matter, how many get any help at all? Many do not.
They survive. People back then survived. People now survive. Someone cannot be considered well just because he/she is not dying. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that these problems have been around for the duration of mankind's existence. For the most part, they do not result in death. The diseased often still have children. In short, the selective pressure against most mental illness is slim to none. Selective pressure only works when it affects organisms reproductively. Plenty of mental illnesses do not.
If we have the resources to improve our lives, why shouldn't we use them? To make us tough? You can eat as much of that macho bullshit and call it candy for as long as you want. It won't turn it into candy. I have a real reluctance toward taking medication. I dislike suffering more. If it is going to help someone, do it. Those people who spent three years depressed generally wish they had tried medication sooner. They wasted three years making bad decisions, ruining relationships, working poorly and spending time. Guess what, Elroy. They don't get those years back when they get better. That time is gone. If medication and therapy will help someone from wasting more of his/her life spinning in mental circles, I am all for it.
All Things Considered
I heard the Surgeon General yesterday afternoon on All Things Considered. If the researchers need any more evidence about the stigma and ignorance surrounding mental illness, they ought to read Slashdot. Look at the variety of comments we have. Mental illness is immediately equated with being crazy. There are jokes and denials. The header itself is brimming with nervous humor. We deny that mental illness does hinder and even incapacitate people by arguing that abnormality is fine. It's fine to be sad. It's fine to be shy. I agree. We have posts that portray mental illness as some new-fangled plot of our hypochondriac pharmaceutical world and about big brother's attempt to profile and control us. Those points are important. Watch Brain Candy. While I agree that we should face our problems with humor and some caution, we also need honesty, openness and seriousness.
I have struggled with low grade mental problems throughout my life. Several friends and family members have, too. In many respects, I am a highly functioning person. My studies are going well and, except for a few years, have not suffered. I have a good family. I have friends. I often feel awful. While I have casual friends, the attempt to form closer relationships has failed repeatedly and completely. I have tried to pep up magically, to exercise more, to play music and to put myself around other people. All these things did help. Counseling from trained professionals has helped much more. Medication helped dramatically.
I know people who have emotional problems that are absolutely obvious to everyone who knows them well. They often realize it themselves. Even among the ones who realize it, a significant portion will not seek help. They are embarassed. Just as with other illnesses, treatment necessitates revealing personal information, and they are scared of the vulnerability. Most people can comfortably tell a doctor that their throat hurts or that they have been vomiting; they cannot do the same about disabilitating mental experiences. Some are simply reluctant to break with tradition when so few others among their friends and family have received treatment.
We can look into the dangers of labeling people as ill and medicating them. Indeed, we ought to. Those dangers are real. Even when they are true, they do not negate the problems. As the report states, we have the resources to improve our mental lives. Treatment helps people get better. Why shouldn't we take advantage of it? The data are there. Look at them. People miss a great deal of work (and play) because they struggle with mental issues. People commit suicide. Among people who are treated, we can see better work performance, better social feeling and lower suicide rates. Some of these data rest on anecdotal evidence, but quite a few of them are measurable. We can count suicides. We can count missed work days. Abnormality is no sin. Some shy, eccentric and awkward people lead satisfying lives. Abnormality is not identical to mental illness, however. This study does not concern people who cope differently. It is about people who cope poorly, if at all, with the circumstances of their lives due to identifiable, treatable conditions. One can be abnormal without suffering averse consequences. The data do not address people who are just abnormal. They address people who suffer documented detrimental consequences of their mental conditions. Anybody who drops a front of prejudice can see that this issue is more than an invention or an exaggeration.
Long answer:
They suffered as we do. My parents have stories of people in their communities known to be mentally ill. It was hushed, though. It has been for generations.
Suicide provides an illustrative example. Many families lie about how a family member died, and even if they don't like, they very rarely discuss what did happen.
The 22% are generally "getting along fine." Most of them are functional. The question in those cases is whether they are healthy and prosperous. The answer is that they are not. There are health professionals trained to treat these people. When treated, they tend to get better. We're too busy denying that there's any disease to notice.