I always get mixed feeling with these expos, half of the things are pointless variations of old things, the other half are really interesting applications and advances.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I dont really like the plain drinks so I will not miss it when the bubble burst and most if not all the shops go under, but some of the drinks with other flavors mixed can be actually good so I hope they survive at least on convenience stores.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It probably will never be really similar to meat, if people reject the meat of most animals as "gamey" or any other word to describe it as undesirable, obviously artificial meat will be easily distinguished.
They should concentrate on making it a good material to eat without trying to make it a meat equivalent. market it as protein or an organic meal or wathever, but no need to force it into the "meat" category.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
It is unfortunate but this is what a change in paradigm brings at the beginning, companies talk without really understanding what they say.
Probably a few times with a huge payout will do miracles to change this, companies will have to put their money where their mouths are or will have to recognize they will not give leaves to the parents.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
And who is going to do the censorship? The people that are profiting from other methods?
How is google profiting? how is the International Society for Stem Cell Research profiting? I can imagine you have proof of it right? i mean, google is not replacing the ads for the scams with real therapies, because they do not exist yet, so there is nothing to make profit. That is just nonsense, the only people profiting right now from this are the fake doctors that pretend to have a effective therapy when at much is an unethical trial and most of the time just a simple scam for vulnerable people. That is why they don't want google to ruin their unethical business because scientifically they will never get recognition (since they don't have the necessary results) so they need desperate people to fall into their scams directly by using google.
Like uh...I cannot believe I have to even say this...but...uh....I meant something like a regulatory panel....I mean obviously not an in-house investigation where the companies check themselves out and find their product not only cures cancer but makes julienne fries.
So you want people to put a label saying "this is worthless trash made to get your money without giving anything useful back" but leave the ads so people can fell on it when they are desperate enough to stop thinking clearly? That is unethical, a private company have the freedom not to be an accomplice of the scams, the rights of the patients and their families not to be targeted by scammers is more important than the right of the scammers to target desperate people. A regulatory panel would accomplish its role as easily as simply banning the ads, they bring nothing positive to anybody but the scammers so why keep them? People can still choose, just not by using google and other services from companies that are at least this bit ethical.
And four thumbs down. Hard to believe how much internet people hate freedom.
It can also be simply that people don't like users defending the right of scammers to easily prey on desperate victims, there is no such right.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Just slap a label on it. Let the people choose.
And who is going to put the label? the people that are trying to fool people in need? It would be naive to think that unscrupulous "doctors" promoting useless and unproven therapies costing fortunes will ever do that, much less the antivaxxers that don't even have the moral values to stop using a lie when anybody proves to them they are wrong. Your suggestion is like letting anybody call pretending to be a family member in danger, after all old people should know better right?
If something is obviously a fraud and its trying to make money from desperate people, there is no obligation to support it. Google has all the right to refuse helping fakes put in danger the health of vulnerable patients, the more the people lying have to work to reach their victims the better the world is.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Still, misinformation about MMR safety is widespread. Fauci said the solution isn't to criticize people who have no way to know what's false. Instead, "we need to education them to show them what the evidence is."
Criticism is hugely directed to people that do know better and still insist on promoting dangerous infections instead of safe vaccines. People that see a thousand detailed scientific reports and dismiss them as some obscure conspiracy where doctors and nurses knowingly kill their own children for economic profit and when someone provide proof that their beliefs are false they simply repeat them as if that would make them true.
Ignorance is not that bad, but active and willing efforts to spread that ignorance with information that has been proven false should be criticized. Otherwise real evidence is drowned in a sea of lies repeated over and over again.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
So lawyers of 119 plaintiffs filed lawsuits based on a belief that their injuries were caused by the vaccine. It's all a big coincidence, right!
What is the coincidence? yes, each and every one of them filed lawsuits because on a belief, there is not a single one that can prove a causative correlation. That is their right and in a perfect world scientific evidence would be used to prove if that belief is correct or not, unfortunately a-scientific reasons can be also considered. But that does not mean their belief was true.
You can claim or say anything you want but it doesn't necessarily make it true.
Yes, that is precisely the point, for both autism and damage from the HPV vaccines, people claim a lot of things but not only were those things never necessarily true, scientific data have proved them actually false.
then it's hard to dismiss that it's simply all in the victims' head or some such thing.
Of course it is not, since their number is actually LOWER than the victims with the same problems and complications that have never been vaccinated. Studying the evidence makes clear there is no special negative effect in neither case and you are only describing the inevitable problems that happens to people in big populations.
Let me be clear about it
Many victims do not indicate a cause, it only indicate many people suffer from something.
There is NO compelling evidence, not even flimsy evidence, what there is is evidence that the vaccine is safe.
Saying their problems happened after a shot is not evidence, that also happens to people of the same age without any shots, to be an argument you need to prove HIGHER numbers of people when compared with the general population, that is not true in this case.Journalist, doctors and scientist only support the "victims" but never their unsubstantiated claims. There is a huge difference between a doctor saying "yes, this kid has a big health problem" and saying "the problem is caused by the vaccine". Many doctors can say the first thing with clear evidence, none for the second.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The girls and women in this lawsuit obviously regretted taking it.
Something that indicates nothing, lots of people blamed vaccines for their children autism and it has been completely proven both things had nothing to do. It is not important what the victims believe caused their problems, the only important thing is what actually did.
But they didn't exactly encourage it either once the health problems started being reported
Which is a very well known problem with the Japanese government, it adopts a lot of decisions not supported by science, both by recommending things that are known to have no beneficial value and to retire support to extremely beneficial things at the first whiff of problems. Japanese scientists and doctors are the first to criticize this but there seems to be no solution for this problem in the near future.
People attribute to a lot of things their health problems, but statistically the people that have been vaccinated are as healthy or even more than an equivalent cohort of people without the vaccine, antivaxxers love to manipulate statistics trying to make people think there is a problem with the vaccine, there is no such thing and real health professionals are well aware of it.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
The article didn’t explain how they will get round the problem that your body will recognise the introduced cells as “foreign” and attack them?
From what I read there is no need to introduce the cells to anybody, they are working on how to activate them against common proteins shared between all strains of influenza so your own cells will do the fighting.
Everybody has killer T cells, they found how to activate a subgroup of them that is quite common, its likely that the scientist are working to see if this activation can work with other subgroups so everybody can become immune in the same way.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies. So they don’t have the flu.
No, that is wrong. Isolating the virus can be very difficult and require special equipment, but if you can identify specific antibodies against that strain and the virus genetic material that still means the diagnostic is correct and the patient had the flu, EVEN without the virus isolated and growing in culture.
Masks do not prevent contraction because the viruses are far to small to be filtered by the masks.
That is also incorrect, the mask are not made to stop single viruses floating around because those virus don't exist, they are made to stop the droplets of saliva and mucus that do contain the virus, so you don't aspirate them. A secondary benefit is that when used properly you don't touch your nose and mouth with your contaminated hands since people constantly touch their face so even frequent hand washing is not perfect.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
but haven’t done anything to investigating why babies are getting smaller?
That may be because its something that other people have already described and studied, Decrease of BMI and increase in smoking rates in women of reproductive age are the most likely factors for the trend.
-4 ( +2 / -6 )
It knocks a hole in the claim that chimps are particularly good. If trials using chimps were so good, why are so few used?
That was not what you wrote, you tried to prove they are a flawed substitute for humans, which they are not, now you give different reasons? what if the researcher have money, can handle them and does not get his face bitten off? would that make them a good animal model for you?
We (I hate to include myself in that 'we'...) use smaller, easier to handle animals whose DNA is very different from ours, not because they're the best model,
So now you accept that chimps are a much closer, better model? that is completely different from what you said before,.
And the vast majority of the tests they are used in, will be useless.
if they prevent loss of human lives they are not useless, provide a citation then than the vast majority of test resulting in their death is actually innocuous on humans for example.
I consider it bad that anyone, whether with two, four or six legs, should suffer and die needlessly.
As long as you live in this planet you are the cause for this to happen and for reasons much less important than prove the safety or efficacy of a drug, most of the time you are causing the death of many animals just to get a better tasting or nutritive meal. Of course also every single time you use any medical intervention.
Then the researchers could concentrate their efforts on cures that work in humans, instead of wasting time torturing animals.
That is precisely the point, you are not providing any solution to the use of animals to prevent human deaths, especially to prevent the deaths in human subject for trials. The use of experimental animals save uncountable human lives just by identifying the thousands of unexpected toxic side effects from all the drugs that are rejected. Those rejections are absolutely necessary to find the drugs that will work, and without animals the only other option would be to kill human subjects.
Ever since HIV showed its ugly face some 30 years ago, monkeys have been used in research to find a cure.
And so for every other infectious disease, once again you think finding one failure means that the other 99.99% of the cases where a successful drug is found suddenly has no meaning.
You know who does more to end animal suffering than people that complain but buy the treatments anyway? Researchers that provide ethical standards, that develop better statistical methods to get the same results from less animals, molecular biologists that make possible the replacement of monkeys with mice, mice with worms, worms with cell lines.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Whereas universities should be free of the profit motive, therefore they don't face the same pressures.
My point is that the CiRA is ALSO part of academia, part of the research institutions inside of the Kyoto university. It is not an institution focused in profits (at least in the same degree as every other university that hold patents). Their main productivity is on papers.
Speaking in general the scientific community is the same as academia, and precisely those that are not moved by profits the ones that are more susceptible to be victims of the publish or perish culture, because if you are working for profits not publishing is perfectly fine as long as you can demonstrate economic value.
If you hold a patent for a new research tool and you are interested only on profits its perfectly fine to let everybody else publish results with that tool because you get proof of its usefulness (that you can include as references) without expending anything. But if you are NOT interested in the profits your only way to show your work is to publish as much as possible, then you can use it in your curriculum to get a better position, grants or the next job.
So "academia" is the segment of the scientific community where this problem is more important.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
American universities as well
Your link is still about the scientific community.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
These researchers, many who receive very little if anything for any inventions they create, may see an opportunity to make some cash along the way
Nobody made any cash here, you could accuse Yamamizu of "stealing" his salary or wasting grant money, but nobody got any money out of this. A researcher that wants to get money from his efforts simply leave academia and works for a company (or makes one if he has the resourcers), falsifying results don't result in him pocketing any money.
It's a culture of "Publish or Perish" It's not only in the scientific community, but in academia as well.
In what parts of academia not included in the scientific community?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
How did the fact that the figures were falsified come to light?
The usual situation is that someone else (even from the same lab) is trying to replicate the experiment doing exactly the same protocol, with the same cells, same chemicals, same equipment, etc. and ends up getting a completely different result. Results that cannot be replicated by anybody else without any reasonable cause point to something fishy, the cheater now has to work under supervision to get again the results and the whole thing comes to light.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
so why the focus on foreigners huh
Because the percentage is much higher than in the general population?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that foreigners are being predominantly targeted for this scam, they are not the criminals here but the victims so the report It could lead to authorities focusing some resources into preventing this kind of problem by, for example, making sure that companies like the medical consulting firm mentioned do not introduce their clients to clinics that provide illegal treatments.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
The pharmacist is more than qualified to run through a quick medical and allergy history, and administers the vaccine too.
Its still the same, in that case the pharmacist is the one that performs the medical visit, in some countries that can be a qualified nurse. The point is that someone has to see the patient and confirm that there is no reason to pass on the vaccine, maybe the confusion is that I have only seen "over the counter" used for things that can be bought without need to see any kind of health professional (it can be sold from a vending machine for example).
In the original quote the user is complaining doctors would receive less money because this vaccine can be sent in the mail, that would not be the case, any person receiving this from the pharmacist could do it even now so there is no change.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
oop doctors wont like this it means they wont be able to charge a visit for everyone who wants the vaccine
What makes you think this would be the case? the reason for a medical visit for vaccinations is not that the vaccine is difficult to administer but because there is need for a check up in order to be used safely. There is no way a vaccine is going to be available over the counter, and any doctor that sends this without examining the person receiving it opens the door to lawsuits and losing their license if anything happens (even if there is no proven relationship with the vaccine).
0 ( +1 / -1 )
How is this praising Hitler? Reading the article its quite obvious the main point is that economically he did something right while others did not and that advantage let him do all the horrible things he is infamous for. I think is perfectly fine to say that good people should be active and take the opportunities if only to avoid the risk of having bad people doing the same.
11 ( +17 / -6 )
Posted in: More than 80% of the radiation was deposited in the ocean and poles, so I think the global population got the least exposure. What I found was that we got one extra X-ray each. See in context
I am very interested on reading any report he has published, he seems to be extremely sure about his conclusions.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"For the sham treatment, the needles were placed in areas not known to be acupuncture points and the deqi sensation wasn’t induced."
So, the participants on the "true" acupunture group had a very obvious feeling of stimulation and the control group did not? well that is a clear example of a bad control. The only thing they had to take care was to eliminate every hint of the subjects about what group they were and this glaring difference is more than enough.
In acupuncture studies its always the same, as long as any of the groups have something extra to produce a placebo effect then some small change is being perceived, but on those studies where the control group is properly masked the difference disappear.
The important part of the comments of Dr Gelfand is that neither a researcher nor a clinician should support acupuncture. A researcher because the effects shown are always related to sloppy science (indicating no real effect), and a clinician because acupuncture is not free of risks therefore anything that would produce the same placebo effect but without those risks should be preferred (in this case sham acupuncture).
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Hitting on someone's back just makes anything go deeper into their throat, like banging a jar of coffee on the counter settles all the grounds to the bottom.
Not really, the CPR courses of the Red Cross do recommend back blows because the mechanism for dislodging food from the airways is very different from settling a jar of coffee, if any object in the airways had enough freedom to be "settled" there would be no need for anything but the normal cough to bring that object out.
Still none of the 2 techniques are 100% effective and there will always be cases when people die, the numbers for this year are relatively low and I would not be surprised to find much more cases if you count asphyxiation by any other food source.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
By 2001 it was completely removed from all vaccines in the US, however, it is still included in vaccines sold in the developing world.
And of course Autism after 2001 disappeared from US righ?
Its obvious that anybody working with vaccines knows about the importance of vaccinating, so if the population is fooled into fearing an ingredient that can be replaced, the easiest way to deal with this is just eliminate that ingredient instead of trying to convince people that don't care about evidence anymore. The problem is that health authorities failed to consider that this kind of people are not so good at reasoning either so instead of vaccinating again now that the dreaded thimerosal was no longer included, they instead began to search for other excuses to reject the vaccines.
Putting in higher risk their own children and the population in general is not something that this kind of people care about, therefore the huge amount of research that has been done both in autism and vaccines (such as the article is talking about) is wasted on them. As long as is against what they believe they will reject all amount of evidence presented, and if it fits with their mistaken beliefs then they will believe even known crooks and convicted liars.
2 ( +2 / -0 )