If I'm with the libs on anything, it's this. GIVE US FREAKING MORE MONEY! We're freaking curing your diseases. You spend more money on guns than medicine. If you've ever taken an antibiotic, you owe biomedical science your life.

And though I'm a capitalist, I still love the idea of open access scientific journals... It is extraordinarily annoying to go after a paper you need and find you don't have access to it. I'm proud to say that the highest journal in my particular field is open access, that is the Journal of Virology. It kills me to say it however, that I think journals should have the right to choose whether they're open access or not. It's their business. It's their money. I think there should be incentives for them to choose open source. Tax incentives? maybe.

Anyway, does anyone know if this particular funding was attached to other funding in the bill? I expect it was part of a HUGE mess of stuff like most bills. Seeing the trends in congress lately I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of a bill that also would mean MANY other radical funding changes or changes in policy. That way when it gets vetoed, they can cry foul on not funding science. yeesh. Could they please just divide that crap up? It's so obviously political BS anymore. Biomedical science needs money. Make a freaking bill that says just that alone.

Anyway, the Scientist:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53858/

I will warn that if this thing passes, it will be a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR upset to non-opensource journals... as in possible colapse of several of them. I hope they are prepared.

FYI, America's "Science" and England's "Nature" are the 2 highest impact journals in the world by a landslide and they are NOT open source journals.

The president is allegedly not opposed to the open source bit, but of pork earmarks in the bill. Most bills have this sort of crap which should be in their own bills in the first place dang it. That sorta crap keeps money from where it should be.

This is one of the most monumental studies to date. It actually supports some of the Biblical passages. I’m not here to preach by any means. It has always been my supposition that what God was trying to communicate to us was a healthy way to live so that we could have a long life. For example telling us that we shouldn’t eat pork was because we couldn’t, in those days, understand that if we didn’t cook it properly we’d get trichinosis. Well here again is evidence of God’s trying to explain to us how we should live, and I’m speaking scientifically. I think the true message of God has been lost in the fervor of politics and control. The 5th commandment is excellent example, “The "sins of the fathers pass to the third and fourth generation".
When the Bible was written the popular language used was Aramaic. In Aramaic the term “sin” was actually an archery term meaning “missed the mark”. So what they were trying to tell people is that they weren’t on a healthy target, mentally and physically, over all.

This video actually substantiates the 5th commandment, “The Sins of the fathers pass to the third and fourth generation”. God was trying to let us know that what we do today may not effect us necessarily, but our grandchildren or their children. So it is important that we watch what we do, eat, say, react to each other, all of this can effect future generations. This is why we should have a more loving and accepting way of being with each other.

So everyone, as result, we have to really take a look at the food we are ingesting. All those fast food chains are the worst thing you can do to your future generations. We do not know the irreparable damage we’ve already done by allowing the food industry to use, steroids, hormones, antibiotics, among other chemicals, in our foods.

Namaste!

Pamela

and more -
"separation of church and state is a narrow-spectrum antibiotic... "
"...If you have a rule that says the state cannot be taken over by a church, a constant danger in any democracy for obvious reasons, the obvious mutation to circumvent this defense is for the church to find some plausible way of denying that it's a church. Dropping theology is a no-brainer. Game over, you lose, and it serves you right for vaccinating against a nonfunctional surface protein."

Yes - when you are taken to an emergency room, you are treated first, but ~70% of all visits to a hospital do not come through the emergency room, and if you have insurance, and go through the emergency room, you are the one who has to haggle out whether or not that visit was covered by your insurance company.

Otherwise, if you are in the ~70% of people that do NOT go through the emergency room, your doctor has to haggle with your insurance company, in most cases, to determine what is deemed as "covered" by the insurance company. It is in this stage that many people die waiting to be treated - sure, the possibility to treat them is there, but if their insurance company won't cover it, they usually can not afford it...and the insurance companies will deny most every treatment they can.

Well, we'll have to see what happens in Massachusetts then - as Capitalism goes, a 100% demand for something most often raises the prices of it. Do you not think that a 100% demand for insurance will cause insurance companies to increase advertising in Massachusetts, just to get a piece of the pie? Do you not think that such advertising will create more of an economic dependency on the insurance companies, and in turn, they will be forced to raise prices? After all - they're certainly not going to lower them. The risks involved in insuring even just single individuals stays the same, regardless of whether they have one person covered, or an entire state.

"If you look at the past, you'll find people suffering from diseases and facing early death at a much higher rate than today" - oh, so you've seen statistics, eh? Please post the data source here, so I can actually review it. As it stands right now, I have subscriptions to 3 major data warehouses and can't seem to find much of anything prior to the late 1800's(and I've looked, and charted death rates from then to now - if you want them in CSV or any other format, I will export them for you).

No - you learned from your history books that "if you look at the past, you'll find people suffering from diseases and facing early death at a much higher rate than today" in quite a broad sweeping generalization that has very little statistical backing...or actual statistics, for that matter. It's pretty well known that, around every 60-80 years, the human race suffers from a bug that infects around one fifth of it's population, and kills off literally millions - the last happening around 1918(The 1918 Influenza Pandemic).

Now, even with the discovery of antibiotics, the human race is learning of "antibiotic resistant" strings of pathogens - unusual? - I think not. Would it really be all that surprising if another bug infected around one fifth of the human race, starting some time within the next 10 years? Not really - and yet it's just another thing that civilization has not actually helped with.

@ Fletch

>If it really is the word of god, then it MUST be factual if you believe god to be infallible.

I think we're teetering on the semantics of "factual", maybe because I chose the wrong word. Here's an example of what I mean:

"[Jesus,] why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus answered them, "Those who are well don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do."

Jesus was not saying that he ate with tax collectors and sinners because they needed antibiotics. That they are "sick" is not FACT, it is a metaphor. So when I say the Bible is not fact-based, I mean that it is largely driven by metaphors. There is however a FACT there in the quote. The FACT is carried by the metaphor. God doesn't have to have a literally-stated Bible in order to be infallible. The abscence of being literal does not make something fallible, although it would in science. I think this is where many of us run into a roadblock. Love is beyond science, and it bothers us because we have this in-built desire to "know for sure."

>If you don't believe it to be completely factual, then how can you believe it is the word of god?

I'm sorry, I've struggled with my wording, so I'll make it clear: I believe it to be full of facts and truths, carried in the meaning of metaphors.

>If you believe some parts are literal and are open for interpretation, then who decides which is which? You? Your pastor?

Most times it is obvious when you read. "Jesus went over to the well to talk to the woman" versus "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?" Fact vs metaphor. I think your question of who decides is a really, really good one. This is why Christians get together to discuss the Bible. It can be difficult to read and understand. Quite often I have gone back to something I thought I understood, and I have seen that there was another level to a particular verse it that I wasn't old enough, or experienced, enough to appreciate. All a pastor can say is, "I spent alot of time thinking about this, and here's what I think." Since humans are fallible, you get pastors who are wrong. Jesus acknowledges the difficulty when he says, "Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

>"God is outside of time"? Who says?

He does. The Bible does.

>Strengthens evolution if you ask me.

There is no doubt in my mind that it strengthens 'evolution'. I really don't think God is so simple that He would do anything other than allow for life to change and evolve. I mean if He got such a big kick out of creating stuff, why would He just want His creations to sit around and be boring. I think if I were the ultimate creator, I would make stuff that went off on its own and constantly re-made itself, because that would be, and is, a beautiful thing to behold.

>I just refuse to fill in the blanks with "god did it".

No doubt, it can be a cop out. "Why did the book hit the ground when it fell off the table? God did it!" ...doesn't work for me either. But, why does gravity necessarily exist? Couldn't we have a universe without it? Sure we could. Where did it come from? God did it! ...that one I am okay with.

>Throw away the Kent Hovind DVDs and think for yourself man!

I have no idea who that is. Maybe there's hope for me.

persephone, the fact that you believe that these lactose tablets are doing anything is all well and good bar these few things:
* They are doing NOTHING other than any placebo effect, they truly do contain NOTHING at all that could possibly help.
* You are paying for sugar/lactose tablets, you are being conned
* I agree with the over prescription of antibiotics, and I have THREE kids. Two of which we try to never use them on. One we do because he has a series of congenital heart defects which makes the chances of him getting an infection in his heart quite high. For the two kids of ours who don't have this problem we quiet happily give them nothing but panadol or the like for whatever pain they may have, and that's it, let them ride it out and become stronger for it. We would NEVER use homeopathy to treat our heart kid, because if we did, and the infection spread to his heart because, well, the homeopathy does diddly squat, we'd never forgive ourselves.

The few times we do give our kids pain relief, it works a charm because they hardly ever have it.

Stop being part of the problem and spreading the misinformation about homeopathy.

Now, in regards to your Arnica, if you're using it as an external ointment with an actual amount in it, then yes
"There is some positive evidence that arnica has some anti-inflammatory activity when applied externally."

HOWEVER in all other cases:

"A recent review of all placebo-controlled studies related to the clinical efficacy of oral arnica found that the homeopathic remedy is no more efficacious than placebo."

And:

"A placebo-controlled study examining the possible ameliorative effect of oral arnica on the tissue trauma following removal of impacted wisdom teeth found more pain and swelling in the arnica-treated group than in the placebo group. "

Quotes from here

Basically it's bunk... for bumps and scratches use a tea tree ointment, it's in no way homeopathy (it has actual, measurable concentrations), it is a wonderful antiseptic, and reduces swelling etc. and is still nice and natural if that's what you're after.

Try and think a little scientifically when using these things, think about whether there's anything else that you're doing at the same time that may actually be doing the good, and also about your mental state where you 'believe' that it's going to work.

And also stop assuming those who don't believe in homeopathy haven't tried it and haven't sat up at night with a collicy baby, or heaven forbid, one with a nasal gastric tube and acid reflux. Because, you know, some of us have.

Persephone, have you ever read up on the actual articles cited by the book you're quoting from? Here's what little tidbits I have from scanning the article.

J. Kleijinen, P. Knipschild, and Gerben ter Riet. "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy." British Medical Journal 302 (Feb 9, 1991): 316-323

"CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials."

Note also that the conclusion and analysis portion of the paper recommended publication bias as a serious concern for the legitimacy of a meta-analysis.

J.P. Zmirou, D. D'Adhemar, D. and F. Balducci. "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndromes." British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 299 (1989): 365-366

"Despite the use of terms such as "attributable fraction" which have specific meaning in clinical epidemiology parlance, it would be unwise to claim that the study has demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between the drug and the recoveries.""

What's also good to note is that the "difference in efficacy" for the control and variable group for recovery time was about 7%, while upwards of 12% of patients who were supposed to submit post-sickness data failed to. Also, note that the p-values compared were those typical for a clinical trial, although this had none of the legitimacy of such a trial, due largely to the fact that patients were treated for flu-like symptoms but were not even checked to see if they had the actual disease, as well as the fact that all data measurements were taken by the patients themselves, rather than physicians.

"Quadruple Blind." Lancet (April 4, 1989): 91

What's funny is that, due in no small part to this article, the Lancet has refused to lend editorial support to the article past its publishing and has recently dismissed even the possibility of homeopathy as a legitimate form of treatment.

I will also note that proving the efficacy, or lack thereof, of homeopathy has nothing to do with antibiotics being overused, nor does it have anything to do with calling into question fellow sifters' "life experiences" nor one's own experiences, which are anecdotal and biased in nature and thus not viable as factual evidence in an overall scientific analysis.

Homeopathics are not expensive. A vial which costs about $8US lasts us a year. Don't presume to know anything about me, Farhad. I stick with what works, it's got noting to do with belief. Try sitting up all night with a baby screaming with symptoms that the hospital emergency ward can offer nothing other than antibiotics for, and no explanation for the child's symptoms and see how quick you are to try whatever seems to work.
I think you coud do with some real life experience to broaden your mind a little. I choose alternatives to antibiotics because I endured an entire childhood being fed them and they did more damage than good. Antibiotics are overused by many GPs and this is causing big problems for the fight against superbugs.

I've been using homeopathics to treat our children's health issues since they were babies and I wouldn't be without it. Arnica is fantastic for when they have a fall, eases the pain and they hardly bruise at all. Our nine and six year old have never needed to use antibiotics. We've given them panadol about once each in their lives for pain. Homeopathics has worked the rest of the time for them.

The American govt has never funded homeopathic research, but there has been a significant number of published studies on homeopathy elsewhere.

"The British Medical Journal published a review of twenty-five years of clinical research on homeopathy.(1) The researchers described 107 controlled clinical trials, 81 of which showed successful results from the homeopathic medicines. Of these 107 studies, a significant percentage of the highest-quality experiments showed positive results from homeopathic medicines".

"A study of 487 patients with influenza showed that a homeopathic medicine, Anas barbariae 200C, was effective; almost twice as many patients given this remedy had their flu symptoms completely resolved within 48 hours, as compared with the patients given a placebo. This study was published in the British Journal of Pharmacology(2) and received special commendation from the Lancet(3)".

(1) J. Kleijinen, P. Knipschild, and Gerben ter Riet. "Clinical Trials of Homeopathy." British Medical Journal 302 (Feb 9, 1991): 316-323

(2) J.P. Zmirou, D. D'Adhemar, D. and F. Balducci. "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndromes." British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 299 (1989): 365-366

(3) "Quadruple Blind." Lancet (April 4, 1989): 91

Taken from: "Homeopathic Medicine for Children and Infants"
Dana Ullmann, Putnam, N.Y. 1992

Survival Kit contents check. In them you will find: one 45 caliber automatic, two boxes of ammunition, four days concentrated emergency rations, one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills, one miniature combination Rooshan phrase book and Bible, one hundred dollars in rubles, one hundred dollars in gold, nine packs of chewing gum, one issue of prophylactics, three lipsticks, three pair of nylon stockings -- shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff....
-Maj. T.J. 'King' Kong (Slim Pickens)

Either way our civilization is on the brink of probable collapse. Either by depletion of our soon to be dwindling energy resources, over population, mass economic depression due to the peg of the US dollar to oil, newer forms of bacteria and viruses resistant to our dwindling antibiotic stock. Oh shit... global warming? Either way it's not going to be fun.

And I take no responsibility for the belligerent harassment some <ahref="http://www.videosift.com/video/Doin-Nails-for-Jesus--from-Jesus-Camp">people on the sift express towards theists as I do not condone such actions myself.

This will happen no matter what. Just wait for one of the vampires of the high echelons of power feel tragedy strike himself or his closest loved ones... Because it's not like we argued against the use of antibiotics because it goes against Gods plan of you dying is it now...

"The amazing story of the Leafcutter Ants - a species of insect that has been employing the technologies of agriculture and antibiotics for approximately 50 million years. Long before man had even figured out how to bang a rock."