Aging is not a disease, true. But in general we don't die from 'aging', but heart failure, or kidney failure, or cancer or....
And many of the chronic problems we associate with aging are being successfully addressed by treating them as caused by chronic infections. See www.bacteriality.com.
2) a much better understanding of the extremely complex interactions that cause the human body to age.
... my wild ass guess is that it will fail
Care to put $$ on that bet/guess? Dr Trevor Marshalls work provides us with a much better understanding of the complex interactions of the
immune system and how chronic infections can prevent the immune system from working. Many of
the problems associated with aging, like diabetes and arthritis and osteoporosis, have been cured with the Marshall Protocol. Even a form of dementia has
been addressed, see
] Cognitive dysfunction in women with chronic diseaseconference[/url].
Parts of the presentation might be outlandish, but Dr Trevor Marshalls work tying chronic infections to many of the problems currently associated with aging is based on sound science, and has a proven record of success.
I agree with your libertarian argument. But we live in a welfare state far from that ideal. The current argument is that the state gets to force you to be healthy to avoid forcing the state to be charitable later and pay for your health care.
The fallacy here is that the assumption that the government or science has any firm idea of how to force somebody else or even one's self to not be fat. There's just that fascist impulse to raise the hammer of punishment and expect the overweight to find a way.
Here's a set of links on various ties between obesity and infection, to get the pot boiling.
"Researchers can't rule out that sicker patients had lower vitamin D levels and, therefore, were already at an increased risk of dying to begin with."
So, without a complete understanding of how Vitamin D,25 and it's metabolites like D,1,25 work, or how the behavior of either might be modified by disease, but merely a statistical
correlation they jump to the post hoc propter hoc fallacy. They haven't any way from this result to show whether the low VitD was a preliminary symptom or a cause of the problem. Since high levels of VitD are known to be immunosuppressive, it is also a big leap to say it's either preventative or curative of anything.
I note that they did not try to force down D,25 levels (likely the only ones they measured), nor watched the long term effects of high dose D,25 supplementation. Without these kinds of studies, they really are way out on a limb to make any causation comments.
Ok, try this in your model. This chart is from a presentation
by Dr Trevor Marshall, Phd to the Bio21 Institute at the
University of Melbourne. (reference here)
Phase 2 Cohort/Recover Statistics
Phase 2, open label, observational community-based study
7 of 8 Rheumatoid Arthritis
20 of 25 Hashimoto's Thyroiditis
4 of 5 Osteo-Arthritis
40 of 77 CFS/CFIDS/ME
9 of 15 Cardiac Arrythmia
57 of 92 Sarcoidosis
3 of 5 Diabetes
12 of 18 Uveitis
20 of 34 FMS
8 of 10 IBS
Here you have a study showing recovery (i.e. cure), not
just palliation, for very significant proportions of the
study group (>50%). For myself, I was diagnosed with
IBS, then sarcoid, then diabetes. The diabetes is gone,
and there are only fading shadows of the problems from
the other two.
And, this is reasonable simple protocol, using well known
antibiotics and one ARB.
You need to watch the 1coyote's progress using the Marshall Protocol against the MP. Dr Marshall has identified the mechanism that various bugs use to defeat the immune system, and also how to stop that. It worked for my sarcoid, and for a number of other auto-immune diseases (diabetes, lupus, etc.). There have been other MP/MS patients, but they don't tend to update their progress on the web site.
You seem to assume that the scientists in question aren't also political in nature. This is likely just the elected group of politicos declaring their primacy over a group of unelected politicized scientists.
So, we have just reclaimed the electoral form of government from the mandarin form.
'so typical' of what? These are all statistical correlations, they haven't described any biochemical reaction path from VitD to cancer, so they are just making a partially educated guess. They are totally wrong about the VitD causation for auto-immune disease.
Vitamin D,25 is not the active form. Other metabolites, such as vitamin D,1,25 are the active forms. High vitamin D,1,25 can cause by itself a lot of the symptoms of auto-immune disease. Since D,1,25 is converted from D,25, the low D,25 is a result of rapid conversion to D,1,25. Adding more D,25 just adds fuel to the inflammatory fire.
It is not due to vitamin D deficiency but is caused by not having enough calcium in the diet.
Much of previous beliefs about Vitamin D are being changed, see this from the USDA website [ href="http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publication s/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=169216" ] It is not due to vitamin D deficiency but is caused by not having enough calcium in the diet.
this paper describes the disregulation of the vitamin d metabolism in the disease process. Macrophages can drive the vitamin D,25 levels low by generating damaging high levels of vitamin D,1,25. So, the current knowledge that low vitamin D causes disease is backwards, low vitamin D can be a indication of a disease process that is driving the D,25 levels low, while driving D,1,25 high.
One interesting point for Slashdot readers, is that a lot of the lastest Vitamin D research is being driven by computer modeling of the Vitamin D molecule and the various nuclear receptors it affects. see http://winmlm.neostrada.pl/vitamindbook/vitamindne wresearch.pdf
I would like to be clear that I'm not disagreeing with the result that higher VitaminD is correlated with Cancer. I'm just pointing out that it is likely not as simple as somebody eating too many eggs, and just needing to cut back.
However, I do disagree with the side comment made that high Vitamin D might cause autoimmune disease. The research (and my personal experience) is that Vitamin D disregulation is caused by the autoimmune disease and clears up when the disease clears up.
There are forests, sure, but they would be gone pretty quickly if people started building homes out of wood.
You haven't heard of Weyerhauser? They own lots of tree farms in the US, and I'm sure that there are equivalent companies with similar tree farms in Europe. Russia has lots of land suitable for timber farming, should the need arise.
For the record, Mr. Lindzen is
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
And also, Mr Lomborg had a position as a professor of statistics. Your dismissive note about
being a professor of economics suggests that he's a soft science type
and not up to the task of evaluating climate science. A professor
of statistics has exactly
the background you want to show that the climate change analysis might
be bogus or not.
The term of art used to be 'pumped hydro', wherein water would be pumped back up over a dam to store electricity. It's possible to do pumped hydro. but inefficient. For one thing, it doesn't make sense to use hydro power to pump the water back, so you need a coal burning plant to do so. Unless the coal plant and dam are close, you have transmission loss. If they are close, you have a bit of overkill for production in the area.
There's not much else that can store the quantity of power being talked about here in a centralized approach, though. We'd have to double the total investment to store this much. The grid still needs to carry the whole load. And in the peak of the summer heat, you might not be able to store enough and you'd still get a brownout. Even the addition of local solar/battery setups can destabilize things, as a long hot stretch would exhaust the batteries and everybody tries to draw full load from the grid all at once.
The power companies need to be able to provide full load capacity. If they every planned for less and that became knowledge during a brownout, the politicians would have their scalps. So the peaking equipment must be there and be paid for. You might save some money by not running it, but not as much as everybody imagines. There is a cost to storing electricity, and so far, the economics haven't been great. However, they are looking up. Batteries are definitely better, and point-source generation from fuel cells are commercially available.
Unfortunately, it won't be just a personal id. The plan in GB was to make presentation of the ID mandatory for things like getting money out of a bank account. And the government would have the right to invalidate the ID.
The comment on anonymous has nothing to do with bandwidth, nor did I imply such. It stands alone. The founders were used to anonymous political speech (maybe psuedonymous is a better term) and said nothing to prohibit it, so it should be covered under the 1st Amendment.
The comment on bandwidth was a counter to the current idea that money not only buys speech, but can out shout the competition. With user driven access, that doesn't happen with blogging.
As far as bloggers being bought, who cares. Reputations matter, and they aren't easy to come by in the blogosphere. My bet would that it is now (and will be more so in the future), much better than the print world or the TV networks, where the writers are paid and the columnists chosen to present a certain point of view.
With the same regulations in place as for the traditional media, we can avoid the situation where paid bloggers swamp the net with propaganda with no oversight or control.
In contrast to the current situation where newspapers can spend whatever they want on slanted news and opinions, the bloggers are limited to $5000. Sorry, this is not an even playing field.
Since reading bloggers is a totally user driven experience, compared to adds on TV or even print, there is no reason for any limits.
The USA has a tradition of anonymous political speech, starting with the founders. Both print and broadcast media have bandwidth limits; with enough money you can saturate the channel. That's not true of blogging.
The problem with universal time is the day change. For some, the sun will rise on Monday, but the next time it sets will be tuesday. (I know, this ignores the artic/antartic wherein it rises on April and sets on September or some such odd pairing of months.)
For a few time zones, this isn't that big a deal, as the day shift is mostly at night. But there will be a huge political battle about which time zone is privileged to have the day shift occur at current midnight, and which time zone is stuck with a day shift occuring at current midday.
The asteroid theory suggests a much sharper environment change than millions of years in regard to the demise of the dinosaurs.
As for the last few hundred years, you have a real problem in the limited range of data. Go back a thousand years or so and Greenland supported a farming & livestock lifestyle. Over the last million years, the vast majority of time was spent in an Ice Age.
The climate change in the last 150 years (since widespread records started) isn't important unless you can show that it's not related to longer time scales. Since we know that it's been somewhat warmer, and much colder, you bear the task of showing that what changed in the last few hundred years wasn't caused the the same things that caused changes in the previous few thousand years.
Over longer times, the real worry would seem to be how to fend off the next Ice Age.
Cherry picking your data line to prove a point is generally considered dishonest. Of course, if you don't realize that is what you did, it's called something else.
I'd be more careful about calling people retards, if I were you.
Access to your trojaned machines port 25 is not blocked. Access from your machine to port 25 anywhere is blocked. They don't block incoming connections, they block outgoing connections.
Thus, a hijacked PC on the Comcast network will not be able to contact any SMTP server of interest to the spammer.
I
don't believe any ISP should block ports. It's a slippery slope. The ISPs should be utilities, like electric companies, providing you an unhindered connection to the Internet.
I have two primary requirements for an ISP. (1) must not block any ports for any reason. (2) must provide at least one static IP.
AOL blocks game ports, so they can charge you $5 more per month for opening the ports. They were one of the first to change the role of ISP from utility to controlled collector of optimal revenue.
Okay-dokey...
Like the utility company, they'll start
charging by usage. The problem is that most
ISPs view email as a free-by add-on to
your internet connection. When it was
only the top 10% of the users generating
90% of the load, it might have been ugly
but it was bearable. Now, with the hijacked
PCs starting to generate high loads, things
are getting expensive.
You are asking for business class service
at a consumer price. Consumer prices can
be low only if the average usage is low.
Hijacked PCs are breaking the consumer
business model.
It's the definition of business to
be an optimal collector of revenue? Why else
would you do it? Do you not look for the
optimal revenue for your work?
The number isn't being changed at the handset, it's being changed
at the switch. Where 123-456-7890 used
to connect to AT&T (or example), it could become
the only number under 123-***-**** to go
to Sprint.
There is a reason that the 456 was called
the exchange, the older term for
a phone switch. 456 referred to a particular
set of hardware. Routing was sequential. You
could route the connection as the number was dialed. The number sequence was mapped
to routing sequence.
With the new LNP, you can't do that anymore.
Like the Y2K effort, it was a lot work
to find those 'you can't do this anymore' bits
of code.
Or, at least that's my understanding, not being a 5E coder.
Some of their anti-myths are questionable. They
state that the long dark days of a northern
winter can be balanced by long bright summers.
However, they expect the storage to be
done by the power grid. And they want
it for free, selling in the summer and
buying in the winter. However, northern
summers are peak electricity use times
for cooling, just like elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
And many of the chronic problems we associate with aging are being successfully addressed by treating them as caused by chronic infections. See www.bacteriality.com.
... my wild ass guess is that it will fail
Care to put $$ on that bet/guess? Dr Trevor Marshalls work provides us with a much better understanding of the complex interactions of the immune system and how chronic infections can prevent the immune system from working. Many of the problems associated with aging, like diabetes and arthritis and osteoporosis, have been cured with the Marshall Protocol. Even a form of dementia has been addressed, see ] Cognitive dysfunction in women with chronic diseaseconference[/url].
Parts of the presentation might be outlandish, but Dr Trevor Marshalls work tying chronic infections to many of the problems currently associated with aging is based on sound science, and has a proven record of success.
The fallacy here is that the assumption that the government or science has any firm idea of how to force somebody else or even one's self to not be fat. There's just that fascist impulse to raise the hammer of punishment and expect the overweight to find a way.
Here's a set of links on various ties between obesity and infection, to get the pot boiling.
So, without a complete understanding of how Vitamin D,25 and it's metabolites like D,1,25 work, or how the behavior of either might be modified by disease, but merely a statistical correlation they jump to the post hoc propter hoc fallacy. They haven't any way from this result to show whether the low VitD was a preliminary symptom or a cause of the problem. Since high levels of VitD are known to be immunosuppressive, it is also a big leap to say it's either preventative or curative of anything.
I note that they did not try to force down D,25 levels (likely the only ones they measured), nor watched the long term effects of high dose D,25 supplementation. Without these kinds of studies, they really are way out on a limb to make any causation comments.
Here's study showing that disease (in this case TB) can down-regulate the amount of VitaminD in the body (making low VitD a symptom, not a cause). Davies PD, Brown RC, Woodhead JS: Serum concentrations of vitamin D metabolites in untreated tuberculosis. Thorax. 1985 Mar;40(3):187-90.
And, this is reasonable simple protocol, using well known antibiotics and one ARB.
You need to watch the 1coyote's progress using the Marshall Protocol against the MP. Dr Marshall has identified the mechanism that various bugs use to defeat the immune system, and also how to stop that. It worked for my sarcoid, and for a number of other auto-immune diseases (diabetes, lupus, etc.). There have been other MP/MS patients, but they don't tend to update their progress on the web site.
Since it's ARC that's stealing something, or reselling what it doesn't own, it's ARC I will be avoiding, not JnJ.
No good deed goes unpunished.
No, it's not so simple
"Fat people harbour 'fat' microbes" and "An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest" PMID: 17183312
A further discussion of obesity and auto-immune disease can be found here.
My personal experience is that as the sarcoid went away, so did the diabetes and extra weight, and the sugar cravings.
You seem to assume that the scientists in question aren't also political in nature. This is likely just the elected group of politicos declaring their primacy over a group of unelected politicized scientists.
So, we have just reclaimed the electoral form of government from the mandarin form.
Vitamin D,25 is not the active form. Other metabolites, such as vitamin D,1,25 are the active forms. High vitamin D,1,25 can cause by itself a lot of the symptoms of auto-immune disease. Since D,1,25 is converted from D,25, the low D,25 is a result of rapid conversion to D,1,25. Adding more D,25 just adds fuel to the inflammatory fire.
Start here: http://vitamind.ucr.edu/biochem.html
It is not due to vitamin D deficiency but is caused by not having enough calcium in the diet.
Much of previous beliefs about Vitamin D are being changed, see this
from the USDA website [ href="http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publicatio
]
It is not due to vitamin D deficiency but is caused by not having enough calcium in the diet.
this paper describes the disregulation of the vitamin d metabolism in the disease process. Macrophages can drive the vitamin D,25 levels low by generating damaging high levels of vitamin D,1,25. So, the current knowledge that low vitamin D causes disease is backwards, low vitamin D can be a indication of a disease process that is driving the D,25 levels low, while driving D,1,25 high.
One interesting point for Slashdot readers, is that a lot
of the lastest Vitamin D research is being driven by computer
modeling of the Vitamin D molecule and the various nuclear receptors it affects. see http://winmlm.neostrada.pl/vitamindbook/vitamindn
I would like to be clear that I'm not disagreeing with the result that higher VitaminD is correlated with Cancer. I'm just pointing out that it is likely not as simple as somebody eating too many eggs,
and just needing to cut back.
However, I do disagree with the side comment made that high Vitamin D might cause autoimmune disease. The research (and my personal experience) is that Vitamin D disregulation is caused by the autoimmune disease and clears up when the disease clears up.
You haven't heard of Weyerhauser? They own lots of tree farms in the US, and I'm sure that there are equivalent companies with similar tree farms in Europe. Russia has lots of land suitable for timber farming, should the need arise.
For the record, Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
And also, Mr Lomborg had a position as a professor of statistics. Your dismissive note about being a professor of economics suggests that he's a soft science type and not up to the task of evaluating climate science. A professor of statistics has exactly the background you want to show that the climate change analysis might be bogus or not.
It's possible to do pumped hydro. but inefficient.
For one thing, it doesn't make sense to use hydro power to pump the water back, so you need a coal burning plant to do so. Unless the coal plant and dam are close, you have transmission loss. If they are close, you have a bit of overkill for production in the area.
There's not much else that can store the quantity of power being talked about here in a centralized approach, though. We'd have to double the total investment to store this much. The grid still needs to carry the whole load. And in the peak of the summer heat, you might not be able to store enough and you'd still get a brownout. Even the addition of local solar/battery setups can destabilize things, as a long hot stretch would exhaust the batteries and everybody tries to draw full load from the grid all at once.
The power companies need to be able to provide full load capacity. If they every planned for less and that became knowledge during a brownout, the politicians would have their scalps. So the peaking equipment must be there and be paid for. You might save some money by not running it, but not as much as everybody imagines. There is a cost to storing electricity, and so far, the economics haven't been great. However, they are looking up. Batteries are definitely better, and point-source generation from fuel cells are commercially available.
That's not a power I want the government to have.
The comment on bandwidth was a counter to the current idea that money not only buys speech, but can out shout the competition. With user driven access, that doesn't happen with blogging.
As far as bloggers being bought, who cares. Reputations matter, and they aren't easy to come by in the blogosphere. My bet would that it is now (and will be more so in the future), much better than the print world or the TV networks, where the writers are paid and the columnists chosen to present a certain point of view.
In contrast to the current situation where newspapers can spend whatever they want on slanted news and opinions, the bloggers are limited to $5000. Sorry, this is not an even playing field.
Since reading bloggers is a totally user driven experience, compared to adds on TV or even print, there is no reason for any limits.
The USA has a tradition of anonymous political speech, starting with the founders. Both print and broadcast media have bandwidth limits; with enough money you can saturate the channel. That's not true of blogging.
However, as show in this graph, http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/2 .jpg,
the case can be made that the temperature turns up before
the CO2 increase.
For a few time zones, this isn't that big a deal, as the day shift is mostly at night. But there will be a huge political battle about which time zone is privileged to have the day shift occur at current midnight, and which time zone is stuck with a day shift occuring at current midday.
True, but virus forms like HPV and HTLV are shown to induce cancer, and they do evolve.
The asteroid theory suggests a much sharper environment change than millions of years in regard to the demise of the dinosaurs.
As for the last few hundred years, you have a real problem in the limited range of data. Go back a thousand years or so and Greenland supported a farming & livestock lifestyle. Over the last million years, the vast majority of time was spent in an Ice Age.
The climate change in the last 150 years (since widespread records started) isn't important unless you can show that it's not related to longer time scales. Since we know that it's been somewhat warmer, and much colder, you bear the task of showing that what changed in the last few hundred years wasn't caused the the same things that caused changes in the previous few thousand years.
Over longer times, the real worry would seem to be how to fend off the next Ice Age.
Cherry picking your data line to prove a point is generally considered dishonest. Of course, if you don't realize that is what you did, it's called something else.
I'd be more careful about calling people retards, if I were you.
Thus, a hijacked PC on the Comcast network will not be able to contact any SMTP server of interest to the spammer.
I don't believe any ISP should block ports. It's a slippery slope. The ISPs should be utilities, like electric companies, providing you an unhindered connection to the Internet.
I have two primary requirements for an ISP. (1) must not block any ports for any reason. (2) must provide at least one static IP.
AOL blocks game ports, so they can charge you $5 more per month for opening the ports. They were one of the first to change the role of ISP from utility to controlled collector of optimal revenue.
Okay-dokey ...
Like the utility company, they'll start charging by usage. The problem is that most ISPs view email as a free-by add-on to your internet connection. When it was only the top 10% of the users generating 90% of the load, it might have been ugly but it was bearable. Now, with the hijacked PCs starting to generate high loads, things are getting expensive.
You are asking for business class service at a consumer price. Consumer prices can be low only if the average usage is low. Hijacked PCs are breaking the consumer business model.
It's the definition of business to be an optimal collector of revenue? Why else would you do it? Do you not look for the optimal revenue for your work?
There is a reason that the 456 was called the exchange, the older term for a phone switch. 456 referred to a particular set of hardware. Routing was sequential. You could route the connection as the number was dialed. The number sequence was mapped to routing sequence.
With the new LNP, you can't do that anymore.
Like the Y2K effort, it was a lot work to find those 'you can't do this anymore' bits of code.
Or, at least that's my understanding, not being a 5E coder.
Tanstaafl