I'm not sure about the Netherlands but the US uses the vaccine adverse event reporting system to track all vaccine associated illness and its public ally available....the side effects seem to be about the same as most seasonal flu shots.

the reason for concern is legitimate, albeit possibly overtcautipus. Two traits make this flu serious. One is the observation that a higher percentage of deaths are occuring in young people and two is that, being a strain with genes that have recently jumped from swine and possibly birds makes it less stable.

Seasonal flu kills, on average 33,000-50,000 people per year in the US [http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_flu-pandemic-deaths.htm.] Mortality rates for flu vaccines are almost nonexistent.

False dichotomy aside (most adult bicyclists also own cars and pay the same taxes you do) gas tax and registration tax make up only a portion of the revenue used for roadway construction and repair. In addition, bicyclists contribute a minuscule amount of wear and tear on our roadways compared to cars and trucks. I bike and drive in Portland and see jackasses in both categories. I've not seen or heard of a motorist hurt by a cyclist, however I have to look no further than tonights evening news to hear about another a hit and run death of a cyclist by someone in a car (see KATU, it's not on line yer).

Bikes are considered to be vehicles in Oregon and should be treated as such. Police overlook cyclists running stoplights and weaving through traffic as much as they overlook motorists illegally passing cyclists or using bike lanes to turn in. Neither side is without fault so suck it up, follow the laws, and remember the multi-thousand pound vehicle does a hell of a lot more damage than a bike.

I have never heard of a journal or publication what would not allow you to cite your own or others work. A journals impact factor, the main metric used to rank journals is based on the citations its articles garner, so to do so would be detrimental to the publisher as well as the author, so the whole premise here makes no sense to me. Sure open access is great, but with $2000 publishing fees in places like PLoS it places a heavy burden on many researchers in these times of scarce funding.

This is loophole that needs to be filled. a detailed discussion why is here

The number of people that must be sequenced to interpolate data on a disease depends on what the prevalence of that disease is in the population. A disease like xeroderma pigmentosum is quite rare and would require hundreds of thousands of genomes, while something more common like the BRCA1 gene mutation that leads to a susceptibility to some breast cancers would take 10 to 100 times fewer.

In reality however, each individual has unique mutations that may or may not effect their susceptibility to disease or ability to live a long life, and each new genome we sequence adds to our ability to correlate genes to disease. Indeed, individual actions of persons today could have far-reaching consequences for generations of people to come, particularly for their own progeny.

To have coverage so that 50% of criminals could be identified would require two components, a genome database and a relative database that distinguishes individuals related by blood rather than by marriage. The completeness of each database would determine the exact numbers needed. That being said I don't think I would submit my personal genome to the database with the current uncertainty of personal protection and the state of the health care industry.

actually, plants do contain fat soluble vitamins, particularly leafy green ones, hence the reason vegans don't (all) suffer from theses deficiencies

There are several flaws in the articles reasoning:

1. Retracted papers are retracted for many reasons...a small fraction of which is because the fundamental principal of the paper is wrong. Most often it has to do with smaller things.

2. Prediction is not a zero sum game. Just because someones theory about the risk is incorrect does not mean the worst case scenario will happen.

3. The risk assessment of the LHC is not based on one persons theory, but a collection of scientists theories. As with most scientists, they disagree on a multitude of minor points and some major ones. Despite this the consensus from the vast majority of physicists is that there is little or no danger in smashing particles at the energys used in the LHC. For this to be incorrect the hypotheses of not one but all of the scientists would have to be in error, bringing us back to a very small probability of death by black hole.

It seems like the Norberg's comments fall in a rather blurry area between libel and opinion. Rather than taking this to court, generating more bad publicity and awarding only the lawyers, why does the chiropractor simply publish a rebuttal to the review, explaining his side of the story? Yes, I know, one bad review is worth ten good ones etc. etc., but I personally prefer to make a decision based on reading many points of view. Just like you and the other slashdotters that have made it this far down the forum.

I don't think anyone really enjoys or wants more [insert your favorite ad hominem argument here]