Really? It seems with reports of shiite and suni violence from the official thugs in many middle east countries that Isreal would be the best country to support. Their record for religious freedom for Muslims beats that of their neighbors.

Certainly both sides have made many mistakes but putting Hamas beside the Isreali government shows that they're not even in the same league. Supporting Isreal and expecting any others to recognize their right to live is a fundamental requirement for peace in the middle east if they're willing to have it.

Then again.... I'm an idiot....

Another researcher working on the same project seems to disagree. Judith Curry is the second name on the paper according to the daily mail and she's contesting the analysis of his own data as incorrect with some rather strong language.

Then again.... I'm an idiot.....

Cuba has also been known to drop some off of reports and only serve a limited, privileged class. It's very easy to have great bang for the buck when you limit the bucks and only serve the ones you'd rather serve. Such a proposition isn't effective in a nation 'by and for' the people.

Very poor methodology. The US actually has the best, what you're thinking of is 'best per cost'. That's very different. We're willing to pay for all kinds of treatments that aren't available in Cuba.

If I were sick, I would want to be treated in the country that had the best absolute results, not the one that spent minimally. If I were very sick, I would want to spend every effectual dollar, not just the ones that a bureaucrat approved.

Why on earth does this get points for insightful?

This really isn't the issue. The treatments as given in the US are generally as good or better, with prostate cancer numbers being one of the classic examples.

The real issue is that the FDA in the US is comparatively slow and over-cautious in allowing these alternative treatments. In other words, the problem is that the US has over-regulated healthcare presently and we would have the same advantages that the rich seek in Europe if we had more deregulation.

Of all of the doctors that I've rotated with in medical school, each one that has spoken of the FDA has shared this opinion. Then again.... I'm an idiot...

There are two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't. I'm one of the latter. (Jim Blinn)
Then again, I'm an idiot....

In college chem we had to do this same problem. Basically, at any normal temperatures and pressures you could break high level encryption by brute force methods sooner than notice any change in the diamonds weight by conventional methods.
Graphite is very similar to diamond in this. Technically the reaction is favorable but the kinetics don't work..... then again, I'm an idiot.....

The job of NASA's physicians was to not allow astronauts into space if they were at all unhealthy. Even a suspicion of a coming flu was enough to ground an astronaut from a mission they'd spent years preparing for. Thus, medication has rarely been required in space and tests in space have always been limited and expensive. Then again.... I'm an idiot.....

As I responded elsewhere in the comments:

We needn't think that microgravity affects chemical compounds to explain this. Many more gross physical quantities are often dominant in the effects of drugs. For example, bioavailability (absorption) of drugs can dominate with digoxin, aspirin etc. Thus changing GI motility is a big issue and could be affected by a lack of gravity. We STILL don't know how our GI tract separates gas from liquid and this could easily be gravity dependent.

Other systems dependent on gravity include veins (the return of blood is gravity dependent especially in the legs) and lymphatic pumping (which is mainly motivated by eccentric/isometric or various contractions of the muscles that occur less in space. For many drugs the limiting factor is proper dispersal in the body (e.g. haloperidol, NSAIDS, antibiotics). Then again, I'm an idiot medical student.......

This is not true. From a relevant Wikipedia article: The human body, consisting of about 100 trillion cells, carries about ten times as many microorganisms in the intestines. Any of this including the most benign cyanobacteria can lead to major infection. In fact, not taking in sufficient bacteria from the environment can be a cause of disease. It's an old disproved myth that "Avoiding illness is as simple as avoiding microbes."

Additionally, this doesn't account for latent diseases like herpes and many other viruses. Then again ..... I'm an idiot in medical school ......

We needn't think that microgravity affects chemical compounds to explain this. Many more gross physical quantities are often dominant in the effects of drugs. For example, bioavailability (absorption) of drugs can dominate with digoxin, aspirin etc. Thus changing GI motility is a big issue and could be affected by a lack of gravity. We STILL don't know how our GI tract separates gas from liquid and this could easily be gravity dependent.

Other systems dependent on gravity include veins (the return of blood is gravity dependent especially in the legs) and lymphatic pumping (which is mainly motivated by eccentric/isometric or various contractions of the muscles that occur less in space. For many drugs the limiting factor is proper dispersal in the body (e.g. haloperidol, NSAIDS, antibiotics). Then again, I'm an idiot medical student.......

Drivel. Companies have a fiduciary duty to make a profit. "reputable" means how you go about trying to make a profit, not whether or not you prioritize making a profit. Then again .... I'm an idiot ......