tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.comments2023-05-13T03:35:58.030-07:00Teddy's Rat LabSpeakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06067034722507056802noreply@blogger.comBlogger206125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-69267818328411667532017-10-02T06:27:09.343-07:002017-10-02T06:27:09.343-07:00It is not surprising that reading involves a lot o...It is not surprising that reading involves a lot of activities in Vernicke's and Broca's areas as these parts has been working with language long before reading is learned. Language comprehension is done in these areas and to understand reading the brain translates combinations of letters into sounds.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756635090825814171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-83962338471420748732017-10-02T06:18:57.085-07:002017-10-02T06:18:57.085-07:00It's not surprising that reading involves a lo...It's not surprising that reading involves a lot of activities in Broca's and Vernicke's areas as we had developed "hearing" and "speaking" language long before we learned reading and language comprehension is done in these areas. We understand text after translating combinations of letters into sounds, or vocalising them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756635090825814171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-84283090905118934132015-08-04T03:31:19.583-07:002015-08-04T03:31:19.583-07:00It is not "difficult" to prove anything ...It is not "difficult" to prove anything via the scientific model - it is impossible.<br /><br />The method is designed to avoid error, not to divine truth. Hence falsifiability, and not provability.<br /><br />Provability is an interesting aspect of mathematical problems, and not strictly part of the scientific method (acknowledging it may come in to play in those statistical exercises such as you outlined in your recent articles on why the science is never settled. How can anything be proven but not settled? We might have a high confidence level due to repeated experimentation & observation, but then, so did Newton. So did Ptolemy.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-85339144981287682432015-08-03T12:57:24.862-07:002015-08-03T12:57:24.862-07:00I am sorry I did not see this comment at the time....I am sorry I did not see this comment at the time. Of course, April through July has been quite busy this year.<br /><br />So - Did Daily Mail misrepresent the research ? No, not any more than any public news media would. Cannabis extracts - mainly delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) suppresses activity of the hippocampus. That is known - I was studying the phenomenon from 1982 through 2009. What's *new* is that we now know that every time a memory is recalled, the information has to cycle through hippocampus *again* and then rewritten. The original memory is weakened in the reading, and strengthened in the re-write. Unfortunately, it picks up additional details in the process, which can alter the original memory and falsify certain aspects. Add that to conditions in which the hippocampus' activity is substantially reduced - yeah, you have a recipe for false memory.<br /><br />There's more to it, of course, at the same time THC affects memory circuits, it also suppresses some of the brain area that helps to assess risk and make accurate decisions.<br /><br />I have long felt that aside from the consideration of relative levels of risk comparing marijuana to alcohol - pot has never been, nor will it ever be - *harmless*. Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-50362457507928354232015-08-03T12:48:11.281-07:002015-08-03T12:48:11.281-07:00Biases are everywhere, but I would start with Natu...Biases are everywhere, but I would start with Nature, Science and New Scientist as examples of two scientific journals, and one science-news journal that use layman's language for complex scientific terms. They are a good starting point for learning the terms and structure of a scientific paper. <br /><br />In Science and Nature, particularly look at the Methods sections (they are often online, and not in the print journal itself. Go to Entrez Pub-Med - the National Library of Medicine's search tool - also PubMed Health. They provide specific links to the relevant science behind a finding (for medicine/life sciences). <br /><br />Then, ask a scientist to help explain what you've read.Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-3287082026778350162015-08-03T12:44:38.037-07:002015-08-03T12:44:38.037-07:00Just returning the favor... Just returning the favor... Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-42840185403779979312015-08-03T12:44:12.750-07:002015-08-03T12:44:12.750-07:00Yes, it is easy to claim conspiracy... because doi...Yes, it is easy to claim conspiracy... because doing the homework is too darned hard. More often that not, it seems that "conspiracy" was really just a matter of the best compromise - given facts that are not obvious to (or neglected by) those who would cry conspiracy.Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-77354071495983681802015-08-03T12:42:30.862-07:002015-08-03T12:42:30.862-07:00Thanks for the praise - in response to your questi...Thanks for the praise - in response to your questions - I suspect that since corporate execs are human - they resist making *everything* public on the general principle that *someone* will find *something* to protest. Thus, the reason could be politics, it could be the general "us against them" feeling that many in science have against the media, or it could simply be that they don't *have* to."<br /><br />#2 is in some ways harder to explain, but the plain truth is that model of biochemical and physiological processes just aren't that good. There is a strong nonlinear component to any biological process - meaning that subtle variations of outcome are dependent on very fine detail of starting conditions. On one project in which I work, there is a nonlinear model which requires over 1 million coefficients (i.e. variables) - just to track 32 inputs and 32 output signals. To model just 30 seconds worth of data requires a 1024-node computer cluster approximately 18 hours. <br /><br />...and getting *more* accuracy makes the math even harder, with more coefficients and finer detail. When it comes to drug interactions, it is not enough to model just the drug-receptor interaction at the brain cell, but also drug/fat, drug/protein, drug/glucose interactions, and to model blood delivery. effects on blood cells, nerve cells, fat cells, immune cells, support cells, muscle cells, etc. Even with incredible advances in computing, the models just keep getting more complicated as we discover new features that *must* be included in the models.Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-68915125199643553422015-07-24T11:51:57.858-07:002015-07-24T11:51:57.858-07:00Thanks for putting this far better than I could.Thanks for putting this far better than I could.The Writer in Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00634971729839053990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-81315210072990284172015-07-24T06:03:04.266-07:002015-07-24T06:03:04.266-07:00People love conspiracies. They make great boogie-...People love conspiracies. They make great boogie-men in the popular imagination, some faceless group of people doing shady things. To make matters worse, they occasionally exist (Iran-Contra, for example). <br /><br />However, I suspect that 99.9 percent of those high level conspiracies come to light in excruciating detail because while people may love money and/or power, many love attention more. The idea of book deals, TV interviews, movies about your life, all after you have leaked that Big Pharma has a cure for cancer but is sitting on it because it's more profitable to treat the disease...with documentation.<br /><br />Honestly, it's one of the most reassuring things I've discovered about humanity. :)<br /><br />On an unrelated note, can you recommend someplace to learn how to read and understand scientific papers? It may not be hard, but if you're not careful, you can buy into papers that offer up faulty research (see recent revelations about a study that said chocolate could help you lose weight).Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02077210856500271635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-41618371348679627422015-07-23T14:25:15.384-07:002015-07-23T14:25:15.384-07:00Excellent post. The same conspiracy exists around ...Excellent post. The same conspiracy exists around the auto industry (which we're told has been buying and suppressing 100 mile/gallon cars for decades).<br /><br />Even when there's a real conspiracy or cartel it isn't so clear cut. A recent article in IEEE Spectrum magazine (search "The Great Lightbulb Consipiracy", it says no links in comments) talks about a cartel in the 1920s to 1930s consisting of companies manufacturing light bulbs. The claim in the article is that the cartel artificially reduced the expected life of incandescent bulbs to 1000 hours to increase sales and profits (planned obsolescence). However, the article never asks why in the 80 years after the cartel disbanded the expected life of incandescent bulbs remained at 1000 hours.<br /><br />So is a 1000 hour incandescent light bulb a result of planned obsolescence or is it a good tradeoff between bulb cost, power per unit of light, and the hassle of replacing a bulb?Thomas Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05701283200252131890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-29941273133563439082015-07-23T09:32:27.085-07:002015-07-23T09:32:27.085-07:00Great post! :) I do have two-ish questions for you...Great post! :) I do have two-ish questions for you, though, if you don't mind.<br /><br />1) I've never understood why phrama-companies don't just go public with the governmental threats/shakedowns and flat-out tell people "do you want to know why we're charging you $PriceYouThinkIsTooMuch for medication? Here's why! Convince your governments to respect our patents and everyone in the developed world pay a slightly higher price and we can charge less here."<br /><br />2) (This one is going to reveal my ignorance of biochemistry so please be gentle): Why are certain animals used in testing? I've never understood why researchers use rats. I could see using other primates (we have a lot more in common with them, don't we) but not rodents. Also, is our understanding of biochemical processes so primitive (meaning "still in its early stages" not "bad") that we can't run more accurate computer modules and skip some of the more costly early-round tests entirely?<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />-- G.K.G.K. Mastersonhttp://www.gkmasterson.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-83018502860154094942015-04-24T19:56:44.616-07:002015-04-24T19:56:44.616-07:00http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-305...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3051326/Marijuana-users-false-memories-Brain-scans-reveal-cannabis-smokers-live-reality.html<br /><br />Has the Daily Mail substantially misrepresented this research? Have they spelled the guy's name right, so that I can look him next time I have access to a university library? Is the research they reference in a reputable journal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-80916157771257736862015-04-07T21:54:25.123-07:002015-04-07T21:54:25.123-07:00"Hold Fast" - MacLeod clan motto "Hold Fast" - MacLeod clan mottoNick Gardnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-25936656336359191972015-04-07T15:17:02.296-07:002015-04-07T15:17:02.296-07:00Well said. Let's stick to the nominated works ...Well said. Let's stick to the nominated works (or works of the nominated authors in the case of the Campbell award) rather than guilt by association.Thomas Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05701283200252131890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-4085277553043013292015-04-07T13:56:07.010-07:002015-04-07T13:56:07.010-07:00Amen, brother!!!Amen, brother!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-21985209563846291772014-10-28T09:10:25.948-07:002014-10-28T09:10:25.948-07:00Dr. Roberts,
Nice article, but I am wondering why ...Dr. Roberts,<br />Nice article, but I am wondering why no mention is made of 28 days later. Is this movie not one of the earliest - if not the first - to posit a viral cause for zombie-ism? Also the concept of the "fast" zombie?Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02046723262450747137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-68778074743237911602014-08-04T23:38:22.127-07:002014-08-04T23:38:22.127-07:00I don't believe I have said "This is '...I don't believe I have said "This is 'Merica we can handle anything." What I am *trying* to do is provide calm rational information - so much so that I corrected and posted a new version of this blog - expanded, revised, and yes, I acknowledged and corrected mistakes.<br /><br />I acknowledge that Ebola is scary - however, if all a person knows of the virus is The Hot Zone - then they know only partial, out-of-date information. Given that you have spent 37 years in healthcare compared to my 35 years in medical research, you *also* know the danger of panic. People are panicking. If we allow folks to picket CDC through ignorance, called for strict isolationism and block scientific inquiry that can prevent the spread and develop treatments, then we truly will *not* have a chance. In fact, we will get exactly what we deserve.Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-78390867681479595182014-08-04T23:20:58.130-07:002014-08-04T23:20:58.130-07:00Humanity has dodged MANY bullets in regards to inf...Humanity has dodged MANY bullets in regards to infectious diseases....HIV is one where the vector mechanism made the spread difficult and easily preventable. Other diseases such as cholera etc. are easily controlled with good hygiene practices.....and some like influenza are simply beyond our ability to prevent, all we can do is treat the symptoms and hope for the best. In the case if influenza pandemics CAN occur and HAVE occurred. There are other diseases that can travel quickly and kill quickly that to date have NOT succeeded in reaching their complete lethal potential, SARS/MERS, Hantavirus and Ebola/filo virii are in this group. Sooner or later one of these or a similar one WILL make the jump from potential pandemic to real pandemic. Acting like Ebola is "No big deal, this is Merica we can handle anything" is a good way to give this one a chance to achieve the status of society killer.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-32991151896915365432014-08-04T21:10:39.183-07:002014-08-04T21:10:39.183-07:00Hmm, I thought I'd posted, but apparently not....Hmm, I thought I'd posted, but apparently not. So I'll try again, and then it will probably show up twice.<br /><br />Anyway:<br /><br />Chill, folks. I was a Certified Respiratory Therapy Technician in the early AIDS era. There was all kinds of worry about the risks to health care workers, and the risks to the general public. In fact, aside from people who caught bad blood transfusions, almost all AIDS patients were gay/bisexual men, needle sharing drug users, women in long term relations with men in the first two groups, and children of women in the first three groups. And none of us health care workers got sick from on the job exposure.<br /><br />People LIKE to panic about epidemics, even when the epidemics aren't real. The LIKE to overemphasize threats. Recall that the guy in THE HOT ZONE who started vomiting blood on an airplane, iirc. No one caught it from him.<br /><br />Nothing is going to happen this time, either.Stephen St. Ongehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10477067342281594974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-46957505930573577652014-08-04T16:29:28.834-07:002014-08-04T16:29:28.834-07:00Mt. Sinai is reporting that they do not suspect Eb...Mt. Sinai is reporting that they do not suspect Ebola in their patient but are running the tests based on his recent travel to be sure. As for the British case the Public Health officials descended on Gatwick and put in place protocols to handle the situation and have the information for everyone that not only was aboard the plane but was in any way associated with the plane.<br /><br />Mind you that the airline industry has protocols in place for dealing with body fluids on a plane. Philip Docfather Wohlrabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01893897932966372576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-85930152699788551102014-08-04T15:27:40.129-07:002014-08-04T15:27:40.129-07:00Then there was the woman on the flight that landed...Then there was the woman on the flight that landed at Gatwick. But she didn't die from ebola, she died of "natural causes" - even as she was shitting and vomiting as she got off the plane. And what happens to those who (unprotected) get to clean up the mess in the plane? Same for the guy in New york.emdflnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-21412433536822603712014-08-04T13:27:39.569-07:002014-08-04T13:27:39.569-07:00Speaker et al., how much of a concern is the repor...Speaker <i>et al.</i>, how much of a concern is the report that Mt. Sinai Hospital in NYC is testing for Ebola someone recently come from W. Africa? Could just be he has an ordinary flu—but is this news something to follow closely, or is it a “we’ll hear about it if it becomes a problem” thing?J. C. Salomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16499605133549720090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-3434023273581508322014-08-04T10:31:19.296-07:002014-08-04T10:31:19.296-07:00I am also not making light of the effort required ...I am also not making light of the effort required to keep a patient alive that has gone into end-stage disease. Antivirals don't work, but the main treatments are platelets and keeping blood volume elevated. The primary cause of death is low blood pressure and NOT blood loss. Supportive therapy is just that - keep the patient supported while their own immune system counters the disease.<br /><br />In that respect, in western medicine it very likely will be the case that an Ebola/Marburg outbreak will be similar to other viruses in that among those with access to supportive care, the predominent victims *will* be the young, elderly and immune compromised.<br />Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6211929548240400184.post-37968674452356021172014-08-04T10:06:46.767-07:002014-08-04T10:06:46.767-07:00It is important to understand the difference betwe...It is important to understand the difference between viruses that are prominently spread through nocosomial means and Ebola/Marburg. Norwalk Virus (i.e. norovirus - for one nocosomial example) is eliminated by bleach and Betadine, but totally unaffected by "antibacterial" soaps, chlorhexidine gluconate and benzethonium chloride. Norovirus is present in feces, sputum and vomitus; it survives dry cool air, boiling water, ether, and acids, but to date it cannot be easily grown in cell culture. <br /><br />The "filioviruses" of which Marburg, Ebola/Zaire, Ebola/Reston, etc. are members are susceptible to: bleach, alcohols, ethers, acids, lyes, lipid solvents (soaps), detergents, UV radiation, high temperature (60 degrees C) - it *can* survive drying if it is still in a cellular medium (dried blood) but on the whole, these viruses are extremely fragile compared to the types of viruses most commonly found in "hospital" infections. <br /><br />So yes, the basic principles of handwashing, not sharing needles, and cleaning up body fluid spills will go a long way to containing an Ebola outbreak.<br /><br />I'm not saying that Ebola is not dangerous. I am saying that FEAR-MONGERING and fueling the growing public PANIC that is leading to people picketing the CDC because we transported two patients to the U.S. is IRRESPONSIBLE. We need to be *educating* people, not simply scaring them!Speaker to Lab Animalshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10060134036743411429noreply@blogger.com