The article also said that it worked extremely rapidly. In this case I'd play safe and use half the recommended dosage for cancer. This would probably act more slowly, but it would minimize the side effects, and it's not like beta-amyloid plaques are going to evolve resistance.

Since the plaques build up very slowly, clearing them away slowly is probably safer than trying to remove them all quickly.

This drug is currently used as a cancer treatment. So I don't think you need to worry about "brain hemmoraging", etc. But mice do have a slightly different hormonal system, so it's not guaranteed that something that works in mice will work in people. (E.g., it might be degraded too soon to do the job. Or maybe it can't get throught the blood/brain barrier.) But there's a reasonable chance.

Generally the easiest way to control those side effects if by decreasing the doseage. I see no reason to believe that the optimal dose for Alzheimers would be the same as for cancer. I'd give reasonable odds that the dosage would be substantially lower. And from the report on the mice it might not be a medicine that's continually needed. If it clears away the plaques, then you might not need to continue to take it. Or might be able to get by with a SUBSTANTAILLY reduced dosage.

The nice thing is that it's a drug that's already approved for use in humans. So the testing required to get it approved for the new use would be quite a bit less. And doctors are already allowed to prescribe for "off label usage" (but the insurance company might not pay).

IIRC, you need to speak Norwegian to be considered for immigration. Not the most unreasonable of requirements, but too high a bar for some. You may also need to be under 30 or 35, so don't delay too long. (OTOH, it's been a long time since I last checked, so my memories may be faulty, or things may have changed. Check it out yourself if you're serious.)

Just matching a religious doctrine doesn't mean that something is being taught as a religious doctrine. Not murdering people is generally accepted as a good rule of civil behavior no matter what the relition. And in most places it's "the law of the land". You don't need to teach it as a religious doctrine to teach it. Teaching something or refusing to teach something or performing some act or refusing to perform some act because of religious doctrine should disqualify one from accepting taxation benefits or governmental grants. (Note that this isn't the same as forbidding that it be taught. Just "You don't get any special priviledges for practicing your religion.".)

That's a valid point, but it is, as you say, a different one. That doesn't constitute censorship in a normal meaning of the word. Abusive monopoly, perhaps.

If it's a school that teaches or promulgates religious doctrines, then it should not qualify for the same benefits as a school that doesn't. The refusal to teach or support birth control is in support of a religious doctrine. Therefore a school that does that should be taxed at the same rate as, say, a movie theater or delicatessen. (Granted those are probably different tax rates...taxes are complex and vary wildly by locality. Schools, however, are generally granted a specially favorable tax rate.)

P.S.: I didn't mean to single out Catholic organizations more than other religious organizations, but the article was about a Catholic organization. I would have the same opinion of Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon or Hindu, Moslem, or Pagan organizations. But it is true that the major religions, especially including Catholics, have taken much more advantage of taxation relief than more minor religions typically have.

That's not the problem. If they were censoring based on usage, or even arbitrarily, there wouldn't be an issue.

The issue is that they appear to be censoring based on political considerations (i.e., somebody was criticizing the university over the decision to raise tuition). This makes it appear, to me, to be illegal censorship. Not that I think anyone will prosecute them for it, but someone SHOULD. I'm not sure who would have standing, but whether it's a student (or their parents, i.e. funding source) or the DA I think it quite unlikely that the prosecution will happen. In the first case it's too expensive in both money and time, and in the second place, he's not interested in getting the state political structure angry with him.

N.B.: Many people say "What about spam filters?". My position is that they should be optional. I, personally, wouldn't trust an organization that had as much control over me as universities have over their students to decide what was and what was not spam.

Having an agreement does not make the agreement legal. If such an agreement *is* legal for a university that recieves public funds, then it shouldn't be.