http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15477546?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Short version: Pot didn't help keep the patients on the most effective meds. (which is an issue for Parkinson's... you can't just take the meds forever. They stop working)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15111259?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Short version: pot might help people with Parkinson's, and here's how. Need to test that out.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15372606?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Short version: if you ask patients, 25% of them admit to using pot, and about half of those people said it helps.

I couldn't find any trials on cannabis alone as a treatment or how it compares to Levadopa in my cursory 2 minutes search.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1242-Science-News-Examiner~y2009m6d12-Wiihab-boosts-Parkinsons-treatments

This particular study used bowling, boxing, and tennis. All part of the Wii Sports game. They did it three times a week for only a month to see these results.

Cheaper than any other options...

Except maybe the Ultimate Solution. Which I'm not that keen on, personally.

I can't speak definitively on the physiology here, but I don't think it's really quite that subjective. People respond to intense aerobic exercise with dopamine release, the same way that people release insulin in response to glucose. Some people might have flaws in that system, but overall, this is "how it works". I believe the system is designed to make you able to keep going even when running started being unpleasant, since if you are running, it's most likely (in the long term scheme at least) because something is chasing you, or you're chasing something, and either way, you'd want to keep going even after the oxygen levels in your muscles drop enough to cause lactic acid build up and the accompanying pain. A little bit of brain chemicals will help you ignore it and catch food/avoid being food.

The dopamine release may contribute to "loving the burn" or the "runner's high" but they aren't the sole cause. I love video games, and I also happen to like running. The runner's high I get doesn't work on a treadmill, though. I hate treadmills. Staring at a wall while running ruins the entire experience for me. But if I forced myself to do it, I still get dopamine released afterward. I just didn't enjoy it, because I was too busy thinking "wow this sucks a lot".

I think you just don't like running. Which is fair. I doubt you don't release dopamine after aerobic exercise. You just don't notice it that much because you're thinking "wow this sucks a lot".

Well in this study, they mention that they see significant improvements in depression symptoms and dopamine levels, which you don't see with normal exercise, and the researchers hypothesize that something about the video game component is causing this. There are actually quite a few studies finding that using the Wii is an incredibly effective form of rehab. One case report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18689607?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

And all of the studies refer to it as a "low-cost gaming console". In comparison to traditional rehab, which cost just as much in equipment then add in the billing rate of a physical or occupational therapist, the Wii is dirt cheap.

I always thought similarly, but my science mind went to "porcine" instead of "pig". Also it nips the pesky Pig-fu martial arts confusion in the bud.

Drugs can be on trial and named. Like dinoprostone, which is marketed for one application, but is in a clinical trial for another application. Happens all the time.

Prostaglandin e2 is a perfectly valid name for that particular molecule, as is dinoprostone, 16, 16 dimethyl-prostaglandin E2, Cervidil... all perfectly valid things to call the compound in question. Each name just uses a different naming convention.

See, having a high muscle mass, I always felt like I was getting cheated.

You mean I'm fat AND I sink? Way to go, physics.

I am not convinced. A high BMI would give you more mass to haul out of the pool, but it would also make most of that mass much more buoyant. It probably evens out in the end.

I was sort of entertained that in Sims2 they even HAD a BMI. Or at least variation. I always wished I could change their height. A sim version of me doesn't look right unless it's short.

'I'm sorry sir, but your worker's comp doesn't cover eye bleach. Stop asking your employer to purchase nudie mags.'

Not to be a jerk, but you should read the study. The researchers in no way, shape, or form present the idea that cord blood, or the stem cells in it, can become nerve cells. Nor do they think that cord blood can reduce symptoms in people with cerebral palsy. They are actually testing whether giving cord blood to an infant with an acute problem at birth (which can CAUSE cerebral palsy later) can reduce their symptoms. Like, within 6 hours after birth. They are willing to stretch it to 24 hours, just to make the study feasible. There are no trials that I can find where cord blood (or the stem cells in it) help people with CP.

It's hype. Get a better doctor.

There are degrees of differentiation. The cells that you find in umbilical cord blood are haematopoietic stem cells, meaning that they later differentiate into blood cells normally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord_blood

Wikipedia is a great jumping off point for more information about most subjects. It's a short article, but they explain how many people have been led to believe that technology exists to cure disease with stem cells from cord blood, which is not really true. It is a source of stem cells. They are not the same as ESC. They are more differentiated, although not nearly as much as a normal adult cell.

Besides, insurance companies have become experts at denying coverage. They are: 1. legally obligated not to discriminate based on genetic information, and 2. totally unhindered by that fact. Why would they bother to start trying to use genetics when they can pay a few doctors to write letters explaining why your requested procedure isn't medically necessary? It seems to work pretty well for them.

Even your math doesn't show a doubling of funding. The link you provided from the NIH's budget actually illustrates the point I was making.

If you look back at the other years included in that proposal, you can see the effective funding levels dropping, as the success rate, or the percentage of incoming grants that receive funding, decreases. If you look a little closer at the budget specifics, you can see that in previous years, even with the funding increases, the actual amount of money going to funding projects decreases. This is usually due to the increasing costs of all the other components of the budget.

I'm not trying to claim that the budget for the NIH was cripplingly low during Bush's terms, or at least not way more than it normally is. But the budget for the NIH hasn't actually gotten smaller since the 70's, until Bush's second term. To say that the Bush years were great for science is a hard claim to make. Science and research took the back burner to Afghanistan and Iraq, in large part, and to a host of other issues here at home. And some people think that's the right choice. I just don't agree.

On the other hand, in the first three months of this year, an additional $200 million was added directly to the grant funding portion of the NIH's budget, which is not reflected in the current budget, as it was awarded after that budget was released. Call me selfish, but I think research is important, and I like it to get funded. And it's being funded better now.

I'm looking hard for how you can calculate a doubling from any perspective. When you adjust for inflation, during Bush's second term the NIH budget shrank. It actually got smaller. You can find the change rates as published in the New England Journal of Medicine http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1665/F1

During Bush's two terms, the funding rates for the NIH went from about 12% to less than 9%. That's a fairly sizable drop in effective funding.