scicop

um..hmm..i don't know...um..China is dirty and filthy? umm..the have bad dental hygiene? um....they have no sense of fashion? what am i missing? but joking aside, as for the other points, I can't say I disagree. But its nothing startling to the well informed American. Actually..change that..with exception of Bush and his cronies (the most well informed americans), Had to clearify that. Personally i don't see anything special about the movie. Again Its not that startling or thought provoking.

Yeah, ok so the point their trying to make is that China, at American's expense, will become the economic #1 of the world. This is not an eye-opener. Asian Markets are the hottest place to be now. Can't argue that China has a work ethic that surpasses american standards Although the Great Leap forward, Cultural Revolution, and Mao's rule were dark times for China, its impossible to refute the benefits of those eras to the Chinese people today!!!!!!! During those times Chinese workers were lead to believe that intense labor and the communist way of life was the right way; and that capitalist were wrong. The low workers (peasents) were held in highest standards above doctors and teachers. Now you take those strong work values, that strong respect for hard work (albiet not necessarily all the communist values), combine that with that renewed appreciation for education (late 1970's) and you apply that to current day Chinese population in a free market government.... look out America..HA HA HA. The reality is that the authors are taking their history, their so called communist, intense labor philsophiles, and spinning it to a "Communist philsophyis better/ China is better than you" point of view. How easy it is to forget how not to long ago chinese were fleeing china to get away from their communist ways, now they're a embracing it. And for that, I say Bravo to the chinese. But the point they made is nothing new, not an eye opener, but something that dumb americans who don't even pick up a newspaper would think as thought provoking.

You should read works by Thomas L Friedman, especially about the palistine/isreal conflicts. I'm a big fan. I also recommend the "The economist" is also a really good magizine for really good articles on that part of the world. Provides good insight.

One reason to reconsile why DNA is similar (not really..i'll explain) among distant unrelated and related species is that when nature found something that worked, it kept it!! Certain gene sequence motifs are so penatrant that if you were to do an "evoluntionary trace" of that sequence (a technique used by scientist of many diciplines), you would find it nearly unchanged accross multiple divergent species. For example, certain transcription factors and DNA binding motifs, or even receptor sequences. In fact in order to tell which part of a protein/receptor that may be ABSOLUTELY necessary for function, scientist turn to the "evoluntionary trace" analysis technique and assess what is unchanged. Chances are, once they find a conserved motif and do a mutagensis study, their change to that gene can render its product (protein) inactive. So obviously nature "knew" that to change that motif would compromise survival of the protein, and ultimately the whole organism. As an example, take the "eyeless" gene. The gene is a transcription factor. A master regulatory gene as the geneticist call it. Without this ONE gene, NO EYES are formed. So one mutation (i.e. DNA binding domain maybe) to a region that is important to that gene, can mean the difference of life and death. Obviously this gene was important to one of our common ancestors and it survived through the ages. (you can take the fruit fly version of "eyeless", and express it in a frog..know what happens...ectopic eyes!!..NOT KIDDING). So no, a banana didn't become a human one day. Rather in DNA motif similarites between us and other different unrelated species suggest that to our common ancestors, that gene was important and allowed for their propagation/survival. This story is similar to those genes that DO CHANGE. In that case a mutation provided an selective advantage and thus allowed a species to survive, in this case though I'm talking about conservation of sequences that nature deemed.."perfect". As for similarities, yes we have similarites to APEs, but mostly with our coding sequences. There is alot of divergence with the non-coding sequences, which make sense given the non-coding sequences have regulatory elements for control of gene expression. Did humans evolve from the fruit fly..no. There was a common ancestor, which, most likely was a single unicellular organism that lived at the bottom of the ocean.

definately a great thread.

And you're absolutely correct! And I do judge papers by their scientific value, however it would be completely "dumb" in not accept that 1. certain journals are below scientific stardard, even for non high caliber work 2. authors publish in certain journals because perhaps the can't get in elsewhere, thus one begins to question their scientific capabilities/knowledge/integrity. With exception of the CATIE trial, which I think was a great study (but since the newer drugs were not available at the time study,they were not incorporated..it would have been interesting to see what would happen if they did include, lets say..abilify) The authors you have cited in your postings are NOT experts, and as a scientist you HAVE to consider where these authors are comming from, who they are, and who their target audience is! For example, "medical hypothesis", who's their target audience? who subscribes to that journal? Would you find a lead author of a clinical trial publishing there? I had the pleasure of being a scientific director (a while back) for a grant review board for a very endowed (lots of $$) non-profit neurodegenrative disease funding agency and I HAD FINAL say in deciding which grants got funded. My review board that "I" selected were among the top scientist in the field for that neurodegenerative disease. When we have 200 grants to go through in one day, You know what's one of the first things we looked at? Publications! Where are the applicants published? Are they in the "Journal of Biological Chemistry", or are they in the "Southwestern Iowa Journal of Biochemistry". Right away that tells us if their grant is even worth our time to read! It gives us insight into whether the research was worth us giving money too!! Chances are if they're in a "someplace journal of something", the peer-review (these are scientist) caliber are no where near the scientist you would have for peer-review in a more reputable journal. Thus most-likely, if not always the case, papers that are REJECTED from the higher caliber journals get accepted into the lower journals. The SAME is true for REVIEWS!! Therefore we did not WASTE our time with that grant, and yes..we are scientist and we do have that point of view..welcome the the world of the science. You think we want to fund low quality science and low quality investigators? If you think my board was bad, wait till you apply for a grant at the NIH, their peer-review process a grant is perhaps 100 worse than what I was directing. I've heard the career of scientist can be destroyed in those meetings. The way science is set up on PLANET EARTH is that if you want to get funding, then YOU HAD better publish in journals with high citation indexes and reputable scientist on their review panel (i.e. their peer review is of high caliber). As I said before, welcome to the world of science, it is not easy and good scientist leave research because of this process. Its even worse now that funding at NIH is top 9% whereas 8 years ago it was 50%. There is a reason young investigators today are scared and leave science (like me). Its so bad today that even good publications can ensure funding...so....you want to trust a guy published in medical hypothesis, or cite a guy whose publication record are letters and commentaries? be my guest, just realize that if you have that point of view, YOU WILL NOT MAKE IT IN SCIENCE!!!!!!

I pressed the submitte button twice. so, anyway with repect to BADCHADs comment on the CATIE trial...yes you are correct, there was alot of criticism about CATIE and their metrix as well as drugs used. In addition CATIE did not include the newer atypicals that are associated with more tolerability (these drugs were not available). CATIE did a great job of showing that atypicals they used were associated with high incidents for Adverse events, therefore companies like BMS and Otsuka jumped on that and actually used the results of CATIE to market aripiprazole to their consumers (not patients!! but rather physcians) through alot of industry sponsered physician training programs like CME. As for PEELS, good research regarding Murray's comment. The reality is that he is correct in terms that pharma does control the minds of physcians, especially in psychiatry. They (pharma) use established clinicians/scientist in thier promotional efforts and pay high money. These clinicians get paid alot of money to make their that pharma industry messaging is incoropated into their seminars even in activities that are suppose to be fair and balanced. The clincians in a sense are selling their souls to the pharma industry, for each talk they give they receive about 3 to 4,000 US Dollars. A few handful of these "whores of the industry" are dictating pyschiatry in the US. By the way for anyone that gets offended by the term "whores of the industry" this is a term used by pharma and understood in the competitive marketing world. It would be understood if you were to use in the industry. It doesn't stop there though. You raised a point about juding a paper on scientific value which I address in the next post, but something I forgot to say is that alot of these journals publish articles that are paid for by pharmaceutical companies (indirectly). The authors of some of these papers are PAID by pharma to include messaging. Some of these journals include Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Also clinical trials! Did you know that pharmaceutical companies pay other companies to write these papers in a positive marketing light? You know where they publish? JAMA, NEJM!! yup..these journals publish clinical trials papers that are written by a medical communications company with the intent to put the data is a positive light. HOWEVER, the data (graphs and tables) can't really be manipulated. The data is realitively raw (OIG will not allow data manipulation for marketing purposes), so its up to the reader to read between the lines. When you do, you find that at least the case for atypicals..they are better than typicals in terms of propensity for adverse events. albiet they DO share the same effectiveness as the typicals (noticed I didn't say efficasy..that's a different word that relates to drug dosing). Now read below regarding my judgement of "crappy" papers.

Top 10 Jobs you don't want: 10. S**T collector 9. Infectious waste disposal technician 8. A Fluffer 7. Porno-store booth cleaner 6. Gastroentrologist 5. Radioshack Sales Associate 4. New York City Police Officer 3. Non-unioned construction worker 2. McDonalds Fry Maker 1. Research Assistant Professor Next topic: Top 10 reasons you hate cops

yup. quid pro quo. If local law enforcement does it; then so are our boys within the IC. At the local LE level, sometimes letting some of the little fish survive is a the best way to getting some of the bigger fish as well as whats going on elsewhere. Its a little different at the IC level, especially when dealing with foreign entities whose economy/political/law enforcement system is driven by illegal drug trade. Sometimes you gotta play with the bad boys to get what you want.

It relates more to the control of WHEN and WHERE certain gene products are expressed to form a "hard wired"/instintual behavior. Can't argue that DNA has the essentials for instintual behevior, but spatial and temporal control of gene expression ("protein" for you non-geneticist) its what at key. It is possible to identify and correalate specific loci to certain behaviors (and pathologies) and this is DONE all the time, however usually geneticist are limited for the need of inherited genetic dysfunction (for humans and organisms were genetic modulation is not feesible) or mutation induction in organsims where genetic modulation is established (and feesible),. One behavior that is instinctual in nature and has been studied extensively is sleep! There are humans (and dogs) who have genetically inherited pathologic sleep patterns, and familial genetic loci mapping have led to indentification of genes involved in regulating membrane conductance (i.e. ion channels). Studies have also been done in mice. So, the genes for certain ion channels have been identified and cloned (we know the DNA sequence and thus the amino acid sequence) and what does that mean for understanding the origin of sleep behavior? By itself..not much. Certain questions become important in order to start getting to such understand such as: 1. Where is it expressed 2 When is it expressed 3. What signal turns on expression? 4. What singal turns on the signal that turns on expression? 5. What other gene products (either functionally or physically) interact with your gene of interest? 6. When are those expressed? 7. Where are those expressed? 8. How is the whole process intiated? (asymmetric cell division hense intrinsic or autocrine signaling extrinsic? So the take home message is that a single piece of DNA may mediate a instintual behavior, it does not absolutely control the "development" instinctual, rather its an interplay of gene regulatory systems. Hope this helps.

Ok, just to clarify, I'm not advocating for the use of neuroleptics, but they are better than no treatment at all. The cititation you provided was interesting though I have issues with papers published in a journal called "medical hypothesis". Even my most crappist PhD and postdoctoral papers and reviews were published journals with very high citation indexes..I wouldn't publish in "medical hypothesis" if it were the last journal to publish in. As far as your second links are concern....Ahh..my old friend CATIE!!! Great study!! but they didn't include the newer partial agonist!

Um yeah, the body makes acetone (keytone bodies) under metabolic distress and it is extremely toxic, even at the doses that are made in the body. Do NOT consume acetone. Second, I don't know what essensce you're trying to isolate and the degree of purity you're looking for and for the purpose. If you're isolating a particular compound (small molecules) and the protocol calls for 95% ethanol de-natured ethanol, then use that. Do not use acetone as a substitute,as its protic properties are different than ethonol. As for getting your ethanol, you can try Fisher or Sigma. If you don't work in a lab ask a lab friend.

yeah, sadly. The higher costs for new drugs may mean that the safer drug drugs may remain out of reach, usually being precribed when patients have failed to respond to a drug or experienced health compromising adverse effects. Usually alot of the newer drugs are placed in tiered, or stratified formularies so physicians as well as consumers (thats the patient!) have to been prescibed other medications before "being covered" by insurance. Doesn't mean it can't be prescribed, you can still get it providing your willing to pay out of pocket. Big pharma is on your side on this one (however for their benefit) they try convinice the MCOs and thier formulary committes that thier new drug is effective and safe, as well as cost-effective. Big pharma knows..as so do we that MCOs would rather cover more costly yet effective and tolerable drug, rather than less costly and less effective and tolerable, drugs. So if the pharma can convince providers that their newer drugs are more cost-effective in the long run (less money expended to treat side-effects or co-morbid conditions) then there can be accessibility for the consumers. Ah....the world of MCO's and formulary management. Sorry for the managed-care pharmcist language.

two. one is retarded.

Um, I'm not arguing for the use of neuroleptics, I'm just stating that therapy regimens that are individualized have the propensity to limit adverse events. This is possible given the arsonal of agents available to the physcian, and there are so many agents because pateints are heterogenous in their responses to a given compound (i.e. divers aetiology) As for neuroleptics or another psychiatric drug, they are already compensating for an already existant imbalance (presumably excess cortical dopamine/serotonin) , hense the cause of pyschosis affiliated by bipolar and schizo and so on. This is why these drugs, despite side effects, are effective for reducing psychosis. As I said, new drugs are coming out with less propensity for adverse events, thus the physcians have new tools. In addition, physicians would rather prevent a complete psychotic episode and prescribe atypicals as a preventative step. Among the well known barriers to achieving remission or treating these patients is misdiagonisis and failure to identify the prodromal symptoms (sub symptom) signs of pyschosis and alot of education initiatives (CME..paid for by big pharma) are out there to increase physician awareness of prodromal symptoms and misdiagnosis of psychotic disorders. Such, they're not the best, but its what we've got and scientific research is putting alot more efficacious and tolerable drugs out there (like aripiprazole), just look at some of the pharma pipe lines.

What....what is THIS??!!!! SCIENTIST Aren't allowed to DATE!!!!!!!! You're suppose to form INCESTURAL relationships with your LAB MATES, preferably your BAY MATE, and work late hours in the lab together..and then get your own lab and work on your grants until late hours of the night!!! None of this dating crapola!!!! Now come on...there's media to be made, grants to be written, cells to be split, cultures to be grown, fragments to be subcloned, come on!!! Hop to it. Your tenure depends on it.

reminds of the old telephone prank....the telephone rings you answer: Hello, Abortion Clinic!! You rape them, we scrape them, no fetus can beat us!!!! Its the womans choice. There is no debate. God has spoken.

Yes and no, certain effects, such as parkinsonium, akathisia, tardive dyskiesis, siezure can occur if switching or therapy cessation is not titrated properly. Thus these effects can be controlled for by a well-educated/practiced physician. Others, such hyperprolactermia (a function of D2 receptor occupancy by pure d2/5ht antagonists) may not be important in certain populations like the elderly or pre-adolescent/adolescent. Although hyperprolacemia may cause sexual dysfuntion, and H1 affinity may predict weight gain, as stated before, there are the newer partial agonist drugs that have more favorable adverse event profile, and are more effective for achieving remission and preventing relapse to psychosis.

For every mountain, there's a valley. YT will find it.

1. Torch it. Claim insurance. 2. Donate it, get a tax write off. 3. Ghetto-fab it and sell it in your run-down neighborhood of choice. Not much money to ghetto-fab it..bottle of armor-all, some fuzzy dice, and a can of lime-green spray paint. Slam it a bit (drop it down on the wheels a so you have about 3 inches separating the car from the ground) Maybe you can go to your local junk yard, and get a spoiler.

I'll take the old manual controlled one thats been packed. The electronic one might need batteries. And if the plane was hit by lightning, or lightning stricked close by the EMP may have fried the circuits. We don't know why the planes engines don't work. But if YT was flying I'd stay in. He'd probably know some sort of flaring technique to glide the plane safely down.

well, she said we could only take one.....so I'll go with the "packed in 1986", rather than the "tested in 2006"...at least in the "packed in 1986" there's a parachute...in the "tested in 2006"..what does tested mean? Is there still a chute in there after its been "tested"? but..i can fly, so I don't need to stinking parachute.