Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:So basically he is acting like every other MD? (Score 1) 289

by rs79 (#49501967) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

Actually chinese snake oil actually works - it' made from water snakes with a high Omega 3 content and is still sold today. It has proven efficacy at a topical liniment to relieve inflammation mostly in joints..

American snake oil was made from rattlesnakes who ate mice and contained no Omega 3 and didn't do anything. So it's really a pejorative of the patent medicine industry in the US, and a known working product in Asia. It says more about the person using it that doesn't know this than it does about anything else.

That is it's not really hokum the pharma industry just fucked it up without knowing what they were doing and never tested it properly. If you watch Ben Goldacre's Ted talk you'll see the exact same thing happens today and if you look at the history of scurvy it's been going on for at least 500 years.

And they always say they're right of course.

Comment: The thing is... (Score 1) 289

by rs79 (#49500535) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

Evidence based medicine is commonly wrong because the evidence is interpreted incorrectly.

Around the 1600s, cedar leaf tae saved Jacques Cartier's crew from scurvy, 25 died the rest were save and when he got back to France was told there as no evidence this worked.

Prior to that Vasco de Gamma nearly diet near the Cape of Good Horn but his crew found eating citrus fixed it.

Hundreds of years later, evidence showed citrus prevented scurvy and it became institutionalized. Later it was boiled on copper kettles (which neutralize the C) and nobody noticed it didn't work any more as diets had improved, until sailors and polar explorers began dying. Similarly at around the same time the new process of warming babies milk to kill bacteria also killed the vitamin C and a new disease of the rich emerged: infantile scurvy. By 1933 vitamin C had be found and scurvy became much less widespread.

The point is scurvy has been around for 20 million years, it' s in recorded history for 5500 years but as of the Scott Antarctic expedition people were still dying of it despite cures being known since Egyptian times ("bitter herbs" all have ascorbate). It's not that the evidence is lacking, it's that there's a disruptive influence from commerce and industrialization. Some unintentional, some because of vested interest. History records that "the evidence was contradictory" and while this is true it never stopped being true that two fresh citrus a day prevented and even cured scurvy, of course more was better, ascorbate does not take up into the body in hours it takes days. so any time i the past 500 years it's been true people have been saying "look I know if I eat fresh fruit I won't get sick" while the medical community insisted, no, it' something else we disproved that. During Scott's antarctic mission the medically accepted ce for scurvy was a brew called "vitriol" containing sulphuric acid. That where evidence based medicine got you and this is one of the reason it's a UN right that you can deterring your own course of treatment to any illness. Science is just a sure it's right the nit's wrong as it is when it's right and it's been worn as recently as elat year, the recent fats ans cholesterol deacle as well as finding out sugar is the cause of cholesterol is proof at least to me that the conventional wisdom is neither.

It cannot be said this does not exist today. I'm not a TV guy and have only a very casual knowledge of the claims he made. ome I know are wrong and know why there are right and I know why but are rejected by industry. Given the near complete control by industry of antu to do with pharmaceuticals they are not the best ones to adjudicate this. The belief that if it's in our pharmacopoeia it's good and anything that isn't is bad it fatally flawed in many many ways.

I don't think they'll pursue this very far. All it's going to take is one thing Oz says that works that they say doesn't but actually does and now everything else they say is in question.

If you have unwavering faith in the pharmaceutical industry to be acting only out of the best interests of your health in an ethical manner at all times then you must not have seen these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://projects.propublica.org...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci...
http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar...
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_g...
https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_...
http://truth-out.org/news/item...
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
http://theantimedia.org/big-ph...

But once you accept the premise they're not infallible than anything they say must be regarded with some scepticism. Goodness knows it wouldn't be the first time something from science for so long only to be ridiculed - for decades or even a century - before being accepted by mainstream medicine despite the evidence it worked being there all along: in the past 10 years therapeutic use of niacin, fish oils and the gut flora hypotheses have been examples of this.

Another way to look at this is the harm done. For all the crazy things Oz said where's the pile of bodies? It's the usual metric governments use for these sorts of things. Now compare that to the pile of bodies (zero) with the pharmaceutical industry (who are the ones complaining he is dangerous, nobody else has budget and time to bother with this, and make no mistake, sales are down) from unintended side effects: 60 - 100,000 every year in the US in no small way making the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US behind Cancer and heat disease.

I realize how crazy this all sounds. But it's only crazy if it's not true. I've looked at this for some years now and the evidence is pretty overwhelming and there's a lot to learn.

Comment: I call utter bullshit. (Score 0) 417

"Ocean acidification killed off more than 90 per cent of marine life 252 million years ago, scientists believe"
Nonsense published in The Independent in April 2015.

In an attempt to frighten people about rising CO2 and ocean acidification The Independent ran a story postulating ocean acidification could have been responsible for massive die-offs we know as major extinction events. This is unlikely. Translate "scientists believe" as "a couple of guys had a crazy idea and wrote it up.". In a climate of increasing CO2 this might resonate with some, but rising CO2 has now stalled.

Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
Preliminary IEA data point to emissions decoupling from economic growth for the first time in 40 years
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...

If it was so acid why didn't the coral die out? It's by far the most sensitive to pH. The fact is, coral has survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past much higher than the 400ppm of today.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

How? It has genes it can switch on that let it ignore heat and pH, that's why. Have they not surveyed all the literature?

Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change
In less than 2 years, acclimatization achieves the same heat tolerance that we would expect from strong natural selection over many generations for these long-lived organisms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
January 16, 2014 - Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide insight into corals' resistance and resilience to ocean acidification.
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....

JJ Scheel (1968:Page 25) proved in the 1950s aquatic life doesn't care about pH at all which you can prove to yourself at home. Transfer any fish from water of pH 9 to water of pH 4.5 and back again - they simply don't care about pH. One of the great aquarium myths along with "nitrates are deadly" (Not with an LD of 2200 ppm for marine larvae they're not) and "Plant bulbs" are essential (no, intensity matters, spectrum not one bit).

It's a widely held myth they do but again, the literature suggests otherwise and I've verified it's right on countless occasions and you can too.

Mythbusters rates this one: utter nonsense. Supervolcanoes blocked out the sun. When you have no light, warmths or plant life, pH of the water, irrelevant to aquatic life, is the least of your problems. Every species alive today survived this, there's no reason to think they won't if it were to happen again - which is isn't.

Refs:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
https://books.google.ca/books?...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

Comment: Re:No Static Typing (Score 1) 182

by rs79 (#49324979) Attached to: Modern PHP: New Features and Good Practices

"It is also interesting that 40 years of careful research into programming language design, including very sophisticated systems such as Algol 68 and Common Lisp, had absolutely no effect on the design of what are the most commonly used hack languages today. (PHP and C.)"

You may have won the Internet today. I salute you sir.

(btw I'm totally stealing this)

Comment: Whether you think climate change is real or not&md (Score 1) 416

by rs79 (#49277339) Attached to: Politics Is Poisoning NASA's Ability To Do Science

8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?

"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."
"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...

A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...

"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver

Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014
http://www.iea.org/newsroomand...

Sea ice is increasing
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

OP is less aware of the science than Cruz is. How is that even possible?

Comment: SYMBOLICS IS NOT THE FIRST DOT COM (Score 5, Informative) 48

by rs79 (#49253175) Attached to: Oldest Dot-com Domain Turning 30

Everyone gets this wrong.

BIND was written at Digital when Brian Reid looked at Mockapetris spec and got Vixie to take the Berkeley B-Tree code and produce BIND.

Now what do you suppose the chances are that he didn't bother to grab digital.com? How bout zero? If you guessed that, you deserve a cookie.

Reid has the nic receipt for digital.com and it predates symbolics.com. February vs. March, NSI screwed up the dates in one of their transitions.

Ref: Brian Reid. Ask him yourself. This was explained on one of the domain mailing lists during the DNS wars.

If you don't have time to do it right, where are you going to find the time to do it over?

Working...