Well, I still think it's pretty childish to air that kind of crap in that forum. Now (to me) it looks like Ned/Carlos was being more childish than Joe. But they both were being highly unprofessional.
If you want to stop the Lame Ducks, then put out media on it... not little slappy-fights on stage. Even if this was Carlos' doing, arguing about it on stage isn't the way to go. I haven't seen a "Nuh UH! - Uh HUH!" fight like that since gradeschool.
Will Carlos be slapped with legal action from Barbara Streisand for initiating his own Streisand Effect?
Don't get me wrong... I like Carlos' show and his material. But after watching the video, they were both acting like children.
For Carlos: just give the credit for your material source. Christ, we've seen reused material all the time... you're no different.
For Joe: don't go and interrupt the man's show with this kind of confrontation... while many were laughing through the whole thing, not everyone in that audience wanted to see that kind of crap. I'd be pissed if my ticket money was wasted by some little pissy bitchfight.
I hope Carlos learns from this eventually and I hope that Joe feels real good about himself. He's won... but I think it's the same Pyhrric victory as winning an online argument.
Did I miss something? Every one of those Top-10 points only talked about the lawsuits involved. They didn't mention thing-one about what innovation came out of those patents.
The only innovation I saw was finding craftier ways to word patents and even craftier ways to circumvent them.
"What if the silymarin causes problems years later, causing all 6 survivors to get liver cancer? Medicine is rife with case histories like this, where a publicity-hungry doctor made himself into a hero by performing an unnecessary experimental treatment, only to have his patients die later."
-dorpus
You like to throw out a lot of what-if's and then back them up with broad generalizations yet offer no examples. It would be just as easy for me to say that medicine is rife with examples of medical miracles where doctors opted for an experimental treatment that turned out to the only viable solution. Without examples, my statement holds as much meaning as yours.
And besides. If this treatment doesn't work, who says they can't get transplants later? Who says the doctor hasn't already put them on the list (even though they'd probably die waiting anyway).
So instead of seeing that happen, the doctor is doing something.
"Thalydomide was very successful in stopping morning sickness. Years later, it also turned out to be very successful in producing severely deformed babies. Doctors embraced an "outside the box", "experimental", and "progressive" treatment, only to suffer severe consequences later."
-dorpus
At least in this one, you gave an example. But you gave one example that shows "experimental" medicine is not perfect. No surprise there. Nothing is perfect. But that does not mean that all experimental drugs are bad and that all doctors who use them are the evil, unethical killers you make them out to be.
"What if silymarin turns out to cause terrible health problems later, and the family would have been better off with liver transplants?"
-dorpus
Again with the what-if's. ::sigh::... fine. What if the doctor said "no, we're going to wait for the transplant" and no suitable donors are found in time and the whole family dies? What if weeks after the last member dies, another doctor tries this treatment on another liver-poison patient and it turns out to work just fine?
See? What-if's really don't make for good arguing. You can paint any pretty picture you want to support your viewpoint. That's the wonderful thing about hypotheticals: they are wide open.
"Nope, silymarin is just one chemical inside the hundreds that make up milk thistle extract. It sounds like you have never learned basic chemistry?
'Anima l studies suggest that milk thistle may interfere with the way the body processes certain drugs using the liver's "cytochrome P450" enzyme system. As a result, the levels of these drugs may be increased in the blood, and may cause increased effects or adverse reactions. Many types of drugs may be affected. Milk thistle may lower blood sugar levels. Milk thistle may interact with hormonal agents. '"
-dorpus
Never took chemistry. But I do know how to read. Congratulations though, you managed to find, cut and past the drug interaction section.
Most drugs (even "mainstream" ones) have interactions that can inhibit some bodily functions. Haven't you heard any of those commercials for new drugs? The wonderful list of side effects that make you wonder if the original condition is better? You're little list up there about the side effects of milk thistle pales in comparison to some of the lists those drugs rattle off. And those aren't some witch-doctor native cure. Those are new drugs that are pumped out by pharms to get into the mainstream.
But, back to defending my point about whether milk thistle and silymarin are the same. Did you not read the first part of that very article to which you linked? Allow me:
"Milk thistle has been used medicinally for over 2000 years, most commonly for the treatment of liver and gallbladder disorders. A flavonoid complex called silymarin can be extracted from the seeds of milk thistle, and is believed to be the biologically active component. The terms "milk thistle" and "silymarin" are often used interchangeably."
You had originally posted a quote from Pubmed as an example of what you considered reliable reference material as opposed to Google Scholar. I was pointing out that your quote included (as an "approved" treatment) silymarin, which is the same thing as milk thistle extract.
"So should doctors recommend sham treatments to patients? Should cancer patients be told to drink more herbal tea? Should a child with meningitis be told to just hold a crystal and meditate?"
-dorpus
I love how you dance around an issue, make (what you may consider noble and grandiose) statements without actually answering a question.
Who said silymarin was a sham treatment (other than you... sorry, you're not proof)? Your own linked document that you brought forth as backup of
your statements says: "Milk thistle has been used medicinally for over 2000 years, most commonly for the treatment of liver and gallbladder disorders."
2000 years? That sounds like a long time, especially in our modern medical world, for a "sham" treatment to still be around. If it didn't work, why would people still be using it?
"Should cancer patients be told to drink more herbal tea? Should a child with meningitis be told to just hold a crystal and meditate?"
-dorpus
As a way to relieve the pains involved in cancer? Yes, drink more tea. But I don't know of any doctor that says "here, drink this. It'll cure your cancer."
Are you proposing that we just sit back and watch these patients die without trying anything? Who's unethical now?
You're dragging out these hyperbolic, hypothetical examples that are so far removed from reality that you're doing nothing more than shooting your argument in the foot.
What we're talking about here is a doctor that has said "take this treatment. It may help avoid a transplant". Not "take this and you're cured!"
"If the doctor neglected to look up the standard treatments on poisoning, then yes, he IS guilty of homicide."
-dorpus
But that's not the case here. Read both articles again. The family was treated with the standard treatment for poisoning. The silymarin was a treatment to help avoid the need for transplant. The family's lives were already saved by the standard treatment (except the grandmother).
Now, if the treatment worsens their condition, then yes, the doctor could be found guilty of malpractice. If that negligence leads directly to the death of the patient, then you could be looking at negligent homicide.
"Germany is notorious for approving ineffective or even harmful drugs, because of its powerful alternative medicine lobby. Thalidomide was invented by Germans and eagerly promoted for "curing" morning sickness in pregnant mothers, giving birth to 10,000 children with severe malformities."
-dorpus
So? That doesn't mean that every "alternative medicine" is a harmful snake-oil that's going to detract everyone from "true medicine". Did you miss the point where it was said that this treatment was "successfully" used in Europe? Unless I lost all grasp of the English language, "successfully" means that it worked. Maybe not all the time, but then even "mainstream" medicine doesn't work all the time.
And who's talking about Germany exclusively anyway? The first people this doctor talked to was a pharm in Belgium... you know... not Germany.
Yeah it sucks that Thalidomide didn't work like they thought. Yeah it's horrible what happened because of that... but what does that have to do with silymarin?
"Yes, you should feel the hurt. "Milk thistle extract" is not the same thing as silymarin."
-dorpus
No pain here... well, except a razor cut from shaving this morning. But thanks for asking.
Yes, silymarin is the same thing as milk thistle extract. Read the line I wrote, and then click on it, since it's a hyper link. You know what... here: CLICK ME Now you don't have to scroll back up.
"Some compounds found in tiny amounts in snake venom show promise as chemotherapeutic agents, but we would not want to inject cancer patients with gallons of snake venom as a "natural cure"."
-dorpus
oooh... a Red Herring. Too bad I don't like seafood.
I don't know what snake venom has to do with silymarin, but I'm glad you're not going to be injecting it by the gallon into anyone.
Now, if it's found that small doses of snake venom have healing value, then good for it. Snake venom in small doses isn't always fatal. And I'm sure there are peoples of the world that have found it a functional cure for some ailments.
But then, that's an "alternative medicine" so anyone who believes it could work must be a fool.
Anyway, my final point still stands that your vaunted Pubmed spat out the same info that the much-maligned Google Scholar did.
You still haven't answered my question. What is this beef you have with "alternative medicine"? If a doctor recommends it and people go with that option, and it works, what does it matter to you?
"If this doctor did not read this on Pubmed, and just went by a quack milk thistle treatment on Google that killed one of the patients, then he is guilty of homicide. The newspaper article does not say he tried to do anything else."
-dorpus
Because heaven forbid that the family be responsible for their actions. Heaven forbid a human doctor make a mistake and not use the most absolutely perfectly perfect solution available.
Doctors are there to try to heal people. When they aren't successful, they aren't guilty of homicide.
If you read the article, it wasn't an attempt to save lives as though this were a triage situation where he just on-the-fly opted for an experimental solution while a life was on the line.
He used the (already successfully in-use in other countries) solution to try to minimize the reliance on a transplant for survival. He had already administered the "standard treatment for liver poisoning" as per the article. (Read the first link)
Damn dorpus, I'm a cynical bastard, but you don't see me going on the warpath against all things "alternative". What's your beef with this?
"That is the problem with pseudoscientific search engines like Google."
-dorpus
Since when did Google become any in way scientific? Funny, I thought it was a search engine... as in you search for stuff. I don't remember them claiming that their results are only the scientifically-founded matches to your search.
And finally... my new favorite for the day...
"I bet that Pubmed has this to say about amatoxin poisoning:
'Specific treatments consisted of detoxication procedures (e.g., toxin removal from bile and urine, and extracorporeal purification) and administration of drugs. Chemotherapy included benzylpenicillin or other beta-lactam antibiotics, silymarin complex, thioctic acid, antioxidant drugs, hormones and steroids administered singly, or more usually, in combination.' "
-dorpus
Hold on folks... this one is fun...
"Chemotherapy included benzylpenicillin or other beta-lactam antibiotics, silymarin complex,..." (from dorpus' quote from Pubmed)
"does no one remember nextel, with their exclusive "push to talk" walkie-talkie feature? that was copyrighted and patented. however, the copyright was only for so long and then the technology became public domain. hence how you now see, boost mobile and their slogan, "where you at?" along with cingular's version coupled with verizon, who was about to introduce their own radio cell phone before the nextel/verizon merger."
-the silent one
The problem w/ the Nextel patent is that Cingular, Verizon, AT&T (they were still around at the start of Nextel, right?), Sprint, et al, could have been innovating on the concept of PTT cell phones from the start and Nextel would have been improving on their "invention" as well. Think of how much more improved and advanced it would have been by now. But no. Nextel had their little rest period where they did nothing. I had Nextel for a long time... my first cell phone, actually... and I never saw any improvement over that initial "neat little PTT feature".
BTW, didn't Nextel merge w/ Sprint? I have Verizon and I don't know anything about Nextel coming in.
"additionally, the iphone is going to be a highly desireable item simply because of that one little lowerc case "i" in front of the phone. as soon as i saw the phone, i was entranced, and said to myself, that is my next phone. the thing is just cool, and is an uber-geeks wet dream."
-the silent one
You're comment about the desirability of the i-Phone is right though. Read Mike's comments about why simply copying won't automatically beat out the original innovator. There is a lot of brand recognition and brand loyalty that would beat out any competition... if there actually was any. But instead, there will be almost no competition because of the artificial monopoly. And all because Apple was the first to put a few existing widgets together. (See my previous statement about what Apple hasn't actually done here.)
Yeah, they innovated, but they also put an artificial barrier to keep anyone from innovating further behind them.
"i'm glad that steve got a ton of patents for it, that way it will be a long while before cheap imitators come out with their versions but, adversely, it will also be a long time before prices come down to a respectable norm.
my two cents."
-the silent one
You're glad they got the patents? And your reason is "that way it will be a long while before cheap imitators come out with their versions"? That's bad. That's why there will be very little innovation. I see what you're saying about cheap imitations that truly pale in comparison... but why would anyone buy those anyway? That's not a threat to Apple's competitiveness. No one will by a piece of crap simply because it's cheaper than a piece of gold.
Your comment about the price is also right on. If Apple didn't have their artificial monopoly and had to compete in a truly free market, they would have to be very careful about how they price. I'm not saying that Apple is gouging here, but how much of that price could be shaved off if they had to worry about being undercut by a truly worth-while competitor... which they might...
Keep an eye on LG's new phone. That's going to be the only competition for the i-Phone for a while. It'll also probably be the first new major patent war for the year. However, LG will probably say "Well, since Apple priced here, we'll price just below them" instead of pricing for competition (which could be a lot lower).
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you here, so please don't feel that I think you're stupid or anything. I've just read through all of the comments back and forth between Mike and a few other posters and I realized your comment illustrated some of those contested points quite clearly.
I just wanted to throw that question out here... everyone seems to be talking about Apple protecting "everything it's worked for here". What have they done that's new?
From what I can tell (unless I missed something in the article), Apple has done nothing more than take a lot of existing concepts, thingies, and widgets and put them into a single box.
1) Phone
2) mp3 Player
3) PDA
4) Large touch screen
5) multi-touch interface (which is not new)
If that's the case, why should they be the only one's allowed to do so? Why should they be the only ones who are allowed to take "other peoples works" and put them underneath their own logo?
"Just to clarify this one, which I've seen misreported often, what they did was declare that all references to French fries and French toast on the menus of the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of Representatives would be removed. It was a symbolic act and didn't force anyone anywhere else to do the same."
-Anonymous Coward #7
This was answered best by kjpweb in # 25...
"Hmm - A symbolic Act? For what? As a symbol of narrowminded stupidity? Just thinking it is ridiculous - but acting on it really shows an unbelievable range of intolerance. The same people would have liked to see this put in to law, mind you..."
-kjpweb
"Actually we call the French cowards because they let Hitler march into the capitol city without a fight because it would have destroyed a "Beautiful city".
The Americans who died on D-Day thank the French military for that one, as well as the foresight of the Maginot Line.
Thanks France, you really saved the Americans from Nazi Rule!"
-Witty Nickname
No, you call them cowards for those reasons. Don't group all of us into your war-mongering hate-speech.
If the French didn't want to fight, for what ever reason, that's fine. I don't remember all of the French going along with it. Didn't they have a resistance that helped us (US and other ALLIED forces) push the Germans out? Oh that's right. They did.
And the Americans who died on D-Day don't thank anyone for anything. They're dead.
Finally, no one saved America from Nazi rule. Wrong continent dumbass. Unless you mean that eventually America is going to own everything and France didn't help us save a future possession from Nazi rule.
Bottom line is this. WWII wasn't an American war. We helped... you may even be able to say that we turned the tide or carried more than our fair burden... but we weren't the only country in that war. Stop making it sound like America saved the damned world.
American soldiers (brave men, all) didn't die or spill one drop of blood for our freedom. They did one better. They bled for the freedom of others; the French, Polish, Jews... everyone the Nazis had ground under their boots.
And you know what... no one owes us a damned thing for it because we've betrayed that sense of nobility and sacrifice by becoming an aggressive, abusive world-police and then try to play it off like we're "promoting freedom" or "promoting democracy". Bullshit. We're promoting American interests and making a shitload of money for a select few while we're at it.
"French government is really disappointing for everyone in the World, specially for French..."
-Florian
I wonder how many of my fellow Americans (that usually just make fun of the French to be trendy) are going to be pissed when they realize how much we have in common with you.
Two peoples united in their hatred for their respective governments. Hail brother!
On topic:
After someone in our own government tried to change "french-fries" to "freedom fries", I don't think anyone on this side of the big pond can say a damned thing about what the French Government is doing. At least not without starting with something like "I know our government is just as stupid, but..."
"If you made me learn to write with a fountain pen, I'd have the lowest self esteem possible!
My handwriting is atrocious, but that doesn't make me any less smart, nor does it make me insecure."
-Bumbling old fool
I'm guessing, by your name, you're not in grade school. Which means that your handwriting and script are already well established.
What this program is designed and intended to do is teach students while they're still young to develop good writing skills. This will reinforce communication later. It will also instill a pride-in-workmanship that is, as I previously stated, sorely missing.
"How many people thing riding horses should be taught in school?"
-The infamous Joe
Hooray for Herrings! Again... this whole article and discussion is not about teaching something archaic just to fight back against modernization. It's about using a tool to reinforce a skill that is still needed today: communication skills.
And yes, I can calculate the square root of a number by hand without a calculator. I learned the algorithm myself through research because they didn't teach it when I was in school.
Wow. What a enthusiastic, yet completely shallow response. Did you not bother reading the posts above yours? If you had, you would have noticed that a few of us weren’t talking about coffee (except as an example) but about abuse of authority. It's not the coffee we have a problem with. It's the expectation of the free coffee just because you wear the badge.
Stop being so dramatic and literal.
As I said in an earlier post, it's not the badge that gives you status as a hero, it's what you do with that badge. Same goes with entitlement. You don't earn my respect for wearing that badge. You earn it by being a good cop.
I'll stop being critical of abusive and corrupt police officers when I stop seeing them.
You can come bitch about my job all you want. But I don't go around to convenience stores saying "Hey, I sell insurance. Give me some coffee."
Just wanted to steer a few things back into focus... I'm not picking on people here.
"teaching penmanship...cool
having it the focus of studies? maybe for a day week at the most.
but after that, move on. yes it's wonderful to know how to write. however, there are many other topics that should becovered."
-AC, #29
They aren't talking about just teaching penmanship, they're talking about using penmanship to reinforce better communication habits. That's something that should be reinforced throughout your entire life. Perhaps if language and communication were of a greater focus, things like Ebonics and "leet" wouldn't be so annoyingly prevalent.
"if young adults (and older ones, too) send reports off without proofreading them on the computer they are not going to proofread them if they write them out on paper"
-Kuanyin
You've got the carriage in front of the horse. It's because we don't proof on the computer that we need proofing reinforced. If we make it a focus early on, proofing will be a habit no matter which medium is being used.
Besides, with pens, you can reinforce "preemptive correctness" instead of "post-writing correction". I know that I sometimes let common misspellings go while I'm typing because I'm in a hurry and I know spellchecking will catch it. It's not a good habit to rely on spell-check, and I've been burned by it before.
"The only time I ever used a fountain pen, the edge of my left hand ended up BLUE from dragging it over what I just wrote. Pfffffffffffffffffflllt on this idea."
-SalukiJim
That was covered in the article near the end. They talk about the school "developing a style of writing..." so that even left-handed people (for whom fountain pens have always been a bane) can write it. They're not "reprogramming" southpaws, they're working with them. Hooray for them. :)
"Hmm... y 'know, it occurs to me that while calligraphy might be a little extreme, the tendency to ignore legibility in handwriting as a goal of education might be bad."
-Danno
They never said they were teaching calligraphy. Calligraphy is not the only use of a fountain pen. I use fountain pens on a regular basis, and I can't pen the first letter in calligraphy.
They are reinforcing the habit of paying attention to what you're writing and to take care in your output. I.e., legibility.
I find that writing with a fountain pen (especially a dip-style pen) makes a connection with the written work that is certainly absent from just jotting it down using the $0.02 pen from he bottom of your drawer. This connection also lends a more watchful eye for misspellings, punctuation, et al. Basically, it makes someone feel that what they have written is more important to them. Therefore, it will be examined more closely.
Now, how this is "vitally important"? That’s a matter of opinion. And if it's opinion of the decision makers of that school, so be it.
"It's not at all clear how they go about proving this, other than a couple of random anecdotes, but the school is absolutely positive that fountain pens are the key to a child's success."
That's a bit cynical, Mike. When one of the "anecdotal" evidences is one of the students saying "it's improved my work", I'd say that's an expert on the subject. If the student feels that it has improved his work, and his pride in his work, I'd say that it proves the teacher's point. And that is reinforced when the parents say that it's improved their work.
And I don't see anything in the article that asserts the school's belief that "this skill is the key to the child's success". That's something that you've added from your interpretation of the article. Those kinds of throw-ins seem like personal attacks, Mike. Personal vendetta?
Now, did you not notice the last few paragraphs where it talks about the school developing a particular writing style that allows right- and left-handed students to write with a fountain? It sounds to me like they are using the fountain pen as a focus and tool for developing pride-in-work, as well as basic readability, spelling, etc. So, why the cynical attack? If a student has a better grasp of communication in the written medium, and has a developed sense of pride-in-work (something I see painfully missing these days), then what's wrong with using a method that develops those?
"You are not aloud to accept a free cup of coffee??
You live in the US???"
-Unknowledgeable Geek
If the law says that a police officer cannot accept gratuity in any form, then no, he cannot accept a free cup of coffee. It's up to his conscience and the interpretation of law as to whether that cup of coffee is a gratuity or just a nice convenience store clerk. But I will say that if it's not gratuity, there had better be someone else walking out of that store with free coffee too. Otherwise, it's a gratuity.
And what does living in America have to do with it?
Crap... forgot part of what I wanted to say on #41. I got distracted.
"They earn them, especially when your wife is raped or your child murdered..."
Ummm... wouldn't that be when they weren't doing their job?
And besides... they are earning their paychecks by doing their jobs.
Being a police officer, soldier, firefighter doesn't make you a hero or a saint. Being a good police officer, soldier, firefighter and defending the people you are supposed to defend... that makes you a person doing your job. Defending people without regard to your own well-being... that makes you a hero.
"They earn them, especially when your wife is raped or your child murdered..."
Ummm... wouldn't that be when they weren't doing their job?
Look, it's simple. Offer civil service people discounts/free stuff if you think they deserve it. Then fire the cops that harass a place because it doesn't give them stuff. Fire the cops that treat it like a "protection fund" (i.e. extortion).
If a cop runs a red light, get his car number and call it in. Hell, check your local state laws about citizen's arrest. I had a friend actually follow a cop and "pulled him over" (not sure exactly how he managed it) and insisted on getting another officer/superior out there to resolve the matter. It turned out that the cop did illegally run the red-light (no extenuating circumstances) and he got a ticket. And this is in a town that's run through with a horrible "good 'ol boy's network". Go figure.
There is right and wrong on both sides of the arguments here. The bottom line is that Mr. Police early on is right: you can't paint all police with a negative brush. But he's wrong in that you can't paint them all with a good brush either. So bust the ones that fuck up. And do what the law is supposed to do... punish them hard enough that it deters others from repeating the mistake. No slaps on the wrist.
Personal opinion here... but if you are in the position of defending and enforcing the law, and you break that law, you should be punished more, substantially more, than a regular citizen that committed the same crime.
Get rid of the bad cops and you'll have good cops that deserve a free donut.
While I'm not a physicist, nor a good friend of Albert, I'd have to say that the context of this quote was in regards to the laws of phyics. I think Al was trying to point out that you can't expect something that can't happen to happen, no matter how hard you want it to. It applies to the context of this article thus because no matter how hard these States may want anti-gaming laws, they just can't do it.
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
Re: Re: What's Next?
Well, I still think it's pretty childish to air that kind of crap in that forum. Now (to me) it looks like Ned/Carlos was being more childish than Joe. But they both were being highly unprofessional.
If you want to stop the Lame Ducks, then put out media on it... not little slappy-fights on stage. Even if this was Carlos' doing, arguing about it on stage isn't the way to go. I haven't seen a "Nuh UH! - Uh HUH!" fight like that since gradeschool.
Oh well... it's just my opinion.
On the post: Carlos Mencia Claims Copyright Infringement On Comedian Who Accuses Mencia Of Stealing Jokes
What's Next?
Don't get me wrong... I like Carlos' show and his material. But after watching the video, they were both acting like children.
For Carlos: just give the credit for your material source. Christ, we've seen reused material all the time... you're no different.
For Joe: don't go and interrupt the man's show with this kind of confrontation... while many were laughing through the whole thing, not everyone in that audience wanted to see that kind of crap. I'd be pissed if my ticket money was wasted by some little pissy bitchfight.
I hope Carlos learns from this eventually and I hope that Joe feels real good about himself. He's won... but I think it's the same Pyhrric victory as winning an online argument.
On the post: Top 10 Gaming Patents: How Many Slowed Down Innovation?
Innovation?
The only innovation I saw was finding craftier ways to word patents and even craftier ways to circumvent them.
Worst. List. Evar.
On the post: Physician Finds Experimental Cure For Poisoned Family On Google Scholar
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh here we go again.
You like to throw out a lot of what-if's and then back them up with broad generalizations yet offer no examples. It would be just as easy for me to say that medicine is rife with examples of medical miracles where doctors opted for an experimental treatment that turned out to the only viable solution. Without examples, my statement holds as much meaning as yours.
And besides. If this treatment doesn't work, who says they can't get transplants later? Who says the doctor hasn't already put them on the list (even though they'd probably die waiting anyway).
So instead of seeing that happen, the doctor is doing something.
At least in this one, you gave an example. But you gave one example that shows "experimental" medicine is not perfect. No surprise there. Nothing is perfect. But that does not mean that all experimental drugs are bad and that all doctors who use them are the evil, unethical killers you make them out to be.
Again with the what-if's. ::sigh::... fine. What if the doctor said "no, we're going to wait for the transplant" and no suitable donors are found in time and the whole family dies? What if weeks after the last member dies, another doctor tries this treatment on another liver-poison patient and it turns out to work just fine?
See? What-if's really don't make for good arguing. You can paint any pretty picture you want to support your viewpoint. That's the wonderful thing about hypotheticals: they are wide open.
Never took chemistry. But I do know how to read. Congratulations though, you managed to find, cut and past the drug interaction section.
Most drugs (even "mainstream" ones) have interactions that can inhibit some bodily functions. Haven't you heard any of those commercials for new drugs? The wonderful list of side effects that make you wonder if the original condition is better? You're little list up there about the side effects of milk thistle pales in comparison to some of the lists those drugs rattle off. And those aren't some witch-doctor native cure. Those are new drugs that are pumped out by pharms to get into the mainstream.
But, back to defending my point about whether milk thistle and silymarin are the same. Did you not read the first part of that very article to which you linked? Allow me:
"Milk thistle has been used medicinally for over 2000 years, most commonly for the treatment of liver and gallbladder disorders. A flavonoid complex called silymarin can be extracted from the seeds of milk thistle, and is believed to be the biologically active component. The terms "milk thistle" and "silymarin" are often used interchangeably."
You had originally posted a quote from Pubmed as an example of what you considered reliable reference material as opposed to Google Scholar. I was pointing out that your quote included (as an "approved" treatment) silymarin, which is the same thing as milk thistle extract.
I love how you dance around an issue, make (what you may consider noble and grandiose) statements without actually answering a question.
Who said silymarin was a sham treatment (other than you... sorry, you're not proof)? Your own linked document that you brought forth as backup of
your statements says: "Milk thistle has been used medicinally for over 2000 years, most commonly for the treatment of liver and gallbladder disorders."
2000 years? That sounds like a long time, especially in our modern medical world, for a "sham" treatment to still be around. If it didn't work, why would people still be using it?
As a way to relieve the pains involved in cancer? Yes, drink more tea. But I don't know of any doctor that says "here, drink this. It'll cure your cancer."
Are you proposing that we just sit back and watch these patients die without trying anything? Who's unethical now?
You're dragging out these hyperbolic, hypothetical examples that are so far removed from reality that you're doing nothing more than shooting your argument in the foot.
What we're talking about here is a doctor that has said "take this treatment. It may help avoid a transplant". Not "take this and you're cured!"
On the post: Physician Finds Experimental Cure For Poisoned Family On Google Scholar
Re: Re: Oh here we go again.
But that's not the case here. Read both articles again. The family was treated with the standard treatment for poisoning. The silymarin was a treatment to help avoid the need for transplant. The family's lives were already saved by the standard treatment (except the grandmother).
Now, if the treatment worsens their condition, then yes, the doctor could be found guilty of malpractice. If that negligence leads directly to the death of the patient, then you could be looking at negligent homicide.
So? That doesn't mean that every "alternative medicine" is a harmful snake-oil that's going to detract everyone from "true medicine". Did you miss the point where it was said that this treatment was "successfully" used in Europe? Unless I lost all grasp of the English language, "successfully" means that it worked. Maybe not all the time, but then even "mainstream" medicine doesn't work all the time.
And who's talking about Germany exclusively anyway? The first people this doctor talked to was a pharm in Belgium... you know... not Germany.
Yeah it sucks that Thalidomide didn't work like they thought. Yeah it's horrible what happened because of that... but what does that have to do with silymarin?
No pain here... well, except a razor cut from shaving this morning. But thanks for asking.
Yes, silymarin is the same thing as milk thistle extract. Read the line I wrote, and then click on it, since it's a hyper link. You know what... here: CLICK ME Now you don't have to scroll back up.
oooh... a Red Herring. Too bad I don't like seafood.
I don't know what snake venom has to do with silymarin, but I'm glad you're not going to be injecting it by the gallon into anyone.
Now, if it's found that small doses of snake venom have healing value, then good for it. Snake venom in small doses isn't always fatal. And I'm sure there are peoples of the world that have found it a functional cure for some ailments.
But then, that's an "alternative medicine" so anyone who believes it could work must be a fool.
Anyway, my final point still stands that your vaunted Pubmed spat out the same info that the much-maligned Google Scholar did.
You still haven't answered my question. What is this beef you have with "alternative medicine"? If a doctor recommends it and people go with that option, and it works, what does it matter to you?
On the post: Physician Finds Experimental Cure For Poisoned Family On Google Scholar
Oh here we go again.
Because heaven forbid that the family be responsible for their actions. Heaven forbid a human doctor make a mistake and not use the most absolutely perfectly perfect solution available.
Doctors are there to try to heal people. When they aren't successful, they aren't guilty of homicide.
If you read the article, it wasn't an attempt to save lives as though this were a triage situation where he just on-the-fly opted for an experimental solution while a life was on the line.
He used the (already successfully in-use in other countries) solution to try to minimize the reliance on a transplant for survival. He had already administered the "standard treatment for liver poisoning" as per the article. (Read the first link)
Damn dorpus, I'm a cynical bastard, but you don't see me going on the warpath against all things "alternative". What's your beef with this?
Since when did Google become any in way scientific? Funny, I thought it was a search engine... as in you search for stuff. I don't remember them claiming that their results are only the scientifically-founded matches to your search.
And finally... my new favorite for the day...
Hold on folks... this one is fun...
"Chemotherapy included benzylpenicillin or other beta-lactam antibiotics, silymarin complex,..." (from dorpus' quote from Pubmed)
The active ingredient, or liver-protecting compound in milk thistle is known as silymarin.
Oops! Looks like Pubmed is giving the same "chrystal-swinging alternative medicinds" that Google did.
Damn. That's gotta hurt.
On the post: Does The iPhone Need Patents?
Re:
The problem w/ the Nextel patent is that Cingular, Verizon, AT&T (they were still around at the start of Nextel, right?), Sprint, et al, could have been innovating on the concept of PTT cell phones from the start and Nextel would have been improving on their "invention" as well. Think of how much more improved and advanced it would have been by now. But no. Nextel had their little rest period where they did nothing. I had Nextel for a long time... my first cell phone, actually... and I never saw any improvement over that initial "neat little PTT feature".
BTW, didn't Nextel merge w/ Sprint? I have Verizon and I don't know anything about Nextel coming in.
You're comment about the desirability of the i-Phone is right though. Read Mike's comments about why simply copying won't automatically beat out the original innovator. There is a lot of brand recognition and brand loyalty that would beat out any competition... if there actually was any. But instead, there will be almost no competition because of the artificial monopoly. And all because Apple was the first to put a few existing widgets together. (See my previous statement about what Apple hasn't actually done here.)
Yeah, they innovated, but they also put an artificial barrier to keep anyone from innovating further behind them.
You're glad they got the patents? And your reason is "that way it will be a long while before cheap imitators come out with their versions"? That's bad. That's why there will be very little innovation. I see what you're saying about cheap imitations that truly pale in comparison... but why would anyone buy those anyway? That's not a threat to Apple's competitiveness. No one will by a piece of crap simply because it's cheaper than a piece of gold.
Your comment about the price is also right on. If Apple didn't have their artificial monopoly and had to compete in a truly free market, they would have to be very careful about how they price. I'm not saying that Apple is gouging here, but how much of that price could be shaved off if they had to worry about being undercut by a truly worth-while competitor... which they might...
Keep an eye on LG's new phone. That's going to be the only competition for the i-Phone for a while. It'll also probably be the first new major patent war for the year. However, LG will probably say "Well, since Apple priced here, we'll price just below them" instead of pricing for competition (which could be a lot lower).
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you here, so please don't feel that I think you're stupid or anything. I've just read through all of the comments back and forth between Mike and a few other posters and I realized your comment illustrated some of those contested points quite clearly.
Cheers.
On the post: Does The iPhone Need Patents?
What has Apple done that's new here?
From what I can tell (unless I missed something in the article), Apple has done nothing more than take a lot of existing concepts, thingies, and widgets and put them into a single box.
1) Phone
2) mp3 Player
3) PDA
4) Large touch screen
5) multi-touch interface (which is not new)
If that's the case, why should they be the only one's allowed to do so? Why should they be the only ones who are allowed to take "other peoples works" and put them underneath their own logo?
On the post: How The French Take English Internet Words And Make Them Acceptable For French Ears
This was answered best by kjpweb in # 25...
"Hmm - A symbolic Act? For what? As a symbol of narrowminded stupidity? Just thinking it is ridiculous - but acting on it really shows an unbelievable range of intolerance. The same people would have liked to see this put in to law, mind you..."
-kjpweb
No, you call them cowards for those reasons. Don't group all of us into your war-mongering hate-speech.
If the French didn't want to fight, for what ever reason, that's fine. I don't remember all of the French going along with it. Didn't they have a resistance that helped us (US and other ALLIED forces) push the Germans out? Oh that's right. They did.
And the Americans who died on D-Day don't thank anyone for anything. They're dead.
Finally, no one saved America from Nazi rule. Wrong continent dumbass. Unless you mean that eventually America is going to own everything and France didn't help us save a future possession from Nazi rule.
Bottom line is this. WWII wasn't an American war. We helped... you may even be able to say that we turned the tide or carried more than our fair burden... but we weren't the only country in that war. Stop making it sound like America saved the damned world.
American soldiers (brave men, all) didn't die or spill one drop of blood for our freedom. They did one better. They bled for the freedom of others; the French, Polish, Jews... everyone the Nazis had ground under their boots.
And you know what... no one owes us a damned thing for it because we've betrayed that sense of nobility and sacrifice by becoming an aggressive, abusive world-police and then try to play it off like we're "promoting freedom" or "promoting democracy". Bullshit. We're promoting American interests and making a shitload of money for a select few while we're at it.
On the post: How The French Take English Internet Words And Make Them Acceptable For French Ears
Re:
I wonder how many of my fellow Americans (that usually just make fun of the French to be trendy) are going to be pissed when they realize how much we have in common with you.
Two peoples united in their hatred for their respective governments. Hail brother!
On topic:
After someone in our own government tried to change "french-fries" to "freedom fries", I don't think anyone on this side of the big pond can say a damned thing about what the French Government is doing. At least not without starting with something like "I know our government is just as stupid, but..."
On the post: School Teaching Kids How To Use Fountain Pens; Do They Teach Math With An Abacus Too?
Re: Learning to write for self-esteem?
I'm guessing, by your name, you're not in grade school. Which means that your handwriting and script are already well established.
What this program is designed and intended to do is teach students while they're still young to develop good writing skills. This will reinforce communication later. It will also instill a pride-in-workmanship that is, as I previously stated, sorely missing.
On the post: School Teaching Kids How To Use Fountain Pens; Do They Teach Math With An Abacus Too?
Re: This message was typed with a fountain pen.
Hooray for Herrings! Again... this whole article and discussion is not about teaching something archaic just to fight back against modernization. It's about using a tool to reinforce a skill that is still needed today: communication skills.
And yes, I can calculate the square root of a number by hand without a calculator. I learned the algorithm myself through research because they didn't teach it when I was in school.
On the post: Using Your Badge to Skip Playstation 3 Lines
Re: (Comment #51)
Wow. What a enthusiastic, yet completely shallow response. Did you not bother reading the posts above yours? If you had, you would have noticed that a few of us weren’t talking about coffee (except as an example) but about abuse of authority. It's not the coffee we have a problem with. It's the expectation of the free coffee just because you wear the badge.
Stop being so dramatic and literal.
As I said in an earlier post, it's not the badge that gives you status as a hero, it's what you do with that badge. Same goes with entitlement. You don't earn my respect for wearing that badge. You earn it by being a good cop.
I'll stop being critical of abusive and corrupt police officers when I stop seeing them.
You can come bitch about my job all you want. But I don't go around to convenience stores saying "Hey, I sell insurance. Give me some coffee."
On the post: School Teaching Kids How To Use Fountain Pens; Do They Teach Math With An Abacus Too?
Not nagging...
They aren't talking about just teaching penmanship, they're talking about using penmanship to reinforce better communication habits. That's something that should be reinforced throughout your entire life. Perhaps if language and communication were of a greater focus, things like Ebonics and "leet" wouldn't be so annoyingly prevalent.
You've got the carriage in front of the horse. It's because we don't proof on the computer that we need proofing reinforced. If we make it a focus early on, proofing will be a habit no matter which medium is being used.
Besides, with pens, you can reinforce "preemptive correctness" instead of "post-writing correction". I know that I sometimes let common misspellings go while I'm typing because I'm in a hurry and I know spellchecking will catch it. It's not a good habit to rely on spell-check, and I've been burned by it before.
That was covered in the article near the end. They talk about the school "developing a style of writing..." so that even left-handed people (for whom fountain pens have always been a bane) can write it. They're not "reprogramming" southpaws, they're working with them. Hooray for them. :)
They never said they were teaching calligraphy. Calligraphy is not the only use of a fountain pen. I use fountain pens on a regular basis, and I can't pen the first letter in calligraphy.
They are reinforcing the habit of paying attention to what you're writing and to take care in your output. I.e., legibility.
On the post: School Teaching Kids How To Use Fountain Pens; Do They Teach Math With An Abacus Too?
Personal touch
Now, how this is "vitally important"? That’s a matter of opinion. And if it's opinion of the decision makers of that school, so be it.
"It's not at all clear how they go about proving this, other than a couple of random anecdotes, but the school is absolutely positive that fountain pens are the key to a child's success."
That's a bit cynical, Mike. When one of the "anecdotal" evidences is one of the students saying "it's improved my work", I'd say that's an expert on the subject. If the student feels that it has improved his work, and his pride in his work, I'd say that it proves the teacher's point. And that is reinforced when the parents say that it's improved their work.
And I don't see anything in the article that asserts the school's belief that "this skill is the key to the child's success". That's something that you've added from your interpretation of the article. Those kinds of throw-ins seem like personal attacks, Mike. Personal vendetta?
Now, did you not notice the last few paragraphs where it talks about the school developing a particular writing style that allows right- and left-handed students to write with a fountain? It sounds to me like they are using the fountain pen as a focus and tool for developing pride-in-work, as well as basic readability, spelling, etc. So, why the cynical attack? If a student has a better grasp of communication in the written medium, and has a developed sense of pride-in-work (something I see painfully missing these days), then what's wrong with using a method that develops those?
On the post: Using Your Badge to Skip Playstation 3 Lines
Re: Re: Re: Good God the ignorance
If the law says that a police officer cannot accept gratuity in any form, then no, he cannot accept a free cup of coffee. It's up to his conscience and the interpretation of law as to whether that cup of coffee is a gratuity or just a nice convenience store clerk. But I will say that if it's not gratuity, there had better be someone else walking out of that store with free coffee too. Otherwise, it's a gratuity.
And what does living in America have to do with it?
On the post: Using Your Badge to Skip Playstation 3 Lines
Re: Re: Re:
And besides... they are earning their paychecks by doing their jobs.
Being a police officer, soldier, firefighter doesn't make you a hero or a saint. Being a good police officer, soldier, firefighter and defending the people you are supposed to defend... that makes you a person doing your job. Defending people without regard to your own well-being... that makes you a hero.
It's not the badge... it's what you do with it.
On the post: Using Your Badge to Skip Playstation 3 Lines
Re: Re:
Ummm... wouldn't that be when they weren't doing their job?
Look, it's simple. Offer civil service people discounts/free stuff if you think they deserve it. Then fire the cops that harass a place because it doesn't give them stuff. Fire the cops that treat it like a "protection fund" (i.e. extortion).
If a cop runs a red light, get his car number and call it in. Hell, check your local state laws about citizen's arrest. I had a friend actually follow a cop and "pulled him over" (not sure exactly how he managed it) and insisted on getting another officer/superior out there to resolve the matter. It turned out that the cop did illegally run the red-light (no extenuating circumstances) and he got a ticket. And this is in a town that's run through with a horrible "good 'ol boy's network". Go figure.
There is right and wrong on both sides of the arguments here. The bottom line is that Mr. Police early on is right: you can't paint all police with a negative brush. But he's wrong in that you can't paint them all with a good brush either. So bust the ones that fuck up. And do what the law is supposed to do... punish them hard enough that it deters others from repeating the mistake. No slaps on the wrist.
Personal opinion here... but if you are in the position of defending and enforcing the law, and you break that law, you should be punished more, substantially more, than a regular citizen that committed the same crime.
Get rid of the bad cops and you'll have good cops that deserve a free donut.
On the post: State Laws Banning Video Games Still Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Insanity:
On the post: State Laws Banning Video Games Still Unconstitutional
Insanity:
Next >>