Wrote a check the other day for a periodical subscription; and while I was writing it, it suddenly occurred to me "Why 19.97?"
I can sort of understand the old marketing approach of $19.99 is seen as $19 and not $20; but why $19.97? They had to consciously set that price. Do those two cents really mean that much?
"Hey, let's give 'em a two cent discount!"
It even makes less sense when you think about what the use of a penny really is these days. Can't even buy two cent gum any more. Don't even get me started about gas pricing. Does anybody out there realize that they still price it to the tenth of a cent, 9/10's to be exact? So that the $2.39 a gallon is really $2.40, less a tenth of a cent per gallon. What is the point of that? If a penny can't buy anything these days, what does a tenth of a cent get you?
"We saved 2 cents on that 20 gallon tank of gas, let's go get some gum!"
Why do they even bother pricing to the penny anymore? It costs more for the cashier to count correct change these days, than it would to price goods to the nearest dime; perhaps even setting prices to the nearest quarter dollar is warranted.
I still stop to pick up change these days. But I've been noticing a lot more pennies just lying around; and even penny pinching me will occasionally let the singleton just lie there.
Ben Franklin said "A penny saved is a penny earned". But Franklin's pennies were made of copper, rather than the aluminum alloy slugs we get today (not to mention they were a good bit larger then, too) I wonder if he would stoop to pick up a modern day penny.
I guess I should thank that publisher for starting me off on this rant. I've definitely got my two cents worth out of it...
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Moderator no More
I've been pondering what to say on the subject of my hasty exit from moderating Liberty Dollar Online. Not that it's a stunningly popular site, or that many people will notice. It's just that events like this can be very instructional if one simply takes the time to ask "what happened here?" in the proper light.
So let's properly light the scene.
The forum owner, the administrator and the moderator, when those hats are worn by separate people, need to act as a team on issues concerning the operation of the forum. This may seem like an obvious statement; and since teamwork is an often overlooked part of management, perhaps it is 'obvious' in the true sense of the word. In this particular instance, all three hats were worn by different people; a fact I was unaware of until just recently, having not been informed that the owner of the site had farmed out administration duties to a third party.
In a team, the players all know who's on the field, what their roles are, and what parts of the field are used for what purpose. In a forum this constitutes as knowing what types of posts go where, what types of member behavior is allowed (or, perhaps more easily, prohibited) and what types of moderation response is expected.
If you look at the site "Liberty Dollar Online" and think about where a post on any specific topic might go, you'll find the first stumbling block. As a tangential issue, I'll just touch on this here and be done with it. Where do you put a post concerning the Federal Reserve and it's relationship to gold? 'general' is where they end up. Where do you put a post concerning an offer of ELD? Those to end up in 'general' as well. In fact, most posts went to general and then had to be moved to their proper place on the forum. Why? Because the topics of the different sub-forums are too limited, or the wording on the forum description doesn't illuminate the expected contents of the forum. Then there is the 'cover all bets' type threads that could just as easily be a forum (or a poll) in themselves. Heaven forbid a moderator touch one of those immortal sacred cows. The wrath of the heavens (that would be the members who created and continuously add tangents to said thread) will descend upon the moderator who does.
The lackluster forum names and the catch all threads were stumbled over and either dealt with or ignored based on who had admin rights for what and when; so basically, the team isn't really communicating well, and no one really knows where anything needs to be. But we are giving it the 'old college try'.
As a secondary light source, I would like to add that the forum 'klashistan' was described to me as a place where 'anything goes' (remember this point, there will be a test later) I liked the idea, myself. Someplace to consign threads, and the contributing members to same, that have descended into ad hominem hell. It saves the moderator from endless accusations of "you deleted" and "I've been wrongly banned" type bullshit.
...and it is bullshit, because moderating is an unpaid thankless job, and most of the ingrates who use forums have no idea just how thankless it is. The next time one of you average members out there posts criticism of site moderation on a particular site, and it stays there, you should give that moderator a medal. Hell, throw him a party. Because there isn't any reason that he had to leave it there.
That handles the lighting. Now for the play itself.
A pain-in-the-ass member from a Yahoo Group dedicated to the Liberty Dollar decided to join the "Liberty Dollar Online" forum; When I say Mark Queen is a "pain-in-the-ass", I have previous postings to prove it. That's a condensed version. The thread lasted at least a month in time and spanned at least 20 posts. Definition of "pain-in-the-ass".
And he wasn't the first one. A few others joined up earlier, and finding that I was the dreaded 'moderator' they left, letting the owner know that they were leaving 'because of me'. Good riddance, not that I actually cared one way or the other. None of them posted much of anything to credit or damn themselves with; I'll cherish a adversary who can put together a decent argument just as highly as I do someone who shares common cause with me; however, incompetent whiners I have no time for. It's not my fault so few of them are up to the task.
But, Pain-in-the-ass Queen is savvy, so he posts his attacks directly to Klashistan, and refuses to elevate his discourse above the ad hominem level. When he first posted his issues with ALD, I dutifully created a poll that highlighted several of his points, in the proper forum, and invited everyone to come on in and discuss it. You could hear the crickets chirp.
Months go by. The new members come and go, not much happens, and Mark Queen is still pissing in the wind. Then he insults my dog. Well, I'm impervious to most attacks these days, but my dog was deeply offended. After pondering my response (the umpteenth response to the same question, mind you) I decided that 'anything goes' (I said there would be a test later) meant for the moderator as well, and I locked the thread in question, giving myself the 'last word' in the thread, as it were.
"Pain-in-the-ass" Queen complains to the site owner, Frank Motley. The site owner listens, his willingness to listen being only slightly effected, I'm sure, by the fact that Mark Queen has done business with him in the past, and is a friend of his. If I had known the number of relationships involved in this little fiasco (this wasn't the first time I had a run in with a 'friend of the owner') I would never have volunteered to moderate in the first place. When the members can go whine to the boss directly, and he listens, then the 'writing is on the wall', so to speak.
The site owner has the administrator reverse my judgment. No questions of "hey, why did you do this Anthony?" No "would you mind changing this back?" Just a slap in the face by someone I've never met or conversed with, and a public statement of my lack of authority; albeit a feel good "he's a great benefit to the site but has no real authority" type statement.
I'd been toying with bowing out as moderator for awhile anyway, and this had a 'straw that broke the camel's back' type of feeling to it, so I made my stand on principle, knowing what the outcome would be.
...If a moderator can't moderate, then what is he? If anyone can whine to the site owner, and he'll reverse the moderator's judgment, then who is really the moderator?
Not surprisingly, Frank has his own spin on things:
Mark Queen may have been instrumental in Liberty Dollar circles once upon a time, but he has ceased being anything other than an agitator looking for reasons to snipe at alternative currencies. The only reason he would want to know the data he keeps demanding and stating "isn't a problem to collect" (as long as you ignore the facts concerning validity, privacy and compensation for work performed) is so he can damn the entire system as ineffectual; because the data will look ineffectual alongside the data from the Fed that he wants to compare it to.
[It is a 'Mark' of Dumb-ass Queen's cluelessness that he would attribute my locking the thread to my somehow 'loosing the argument'. As if mindlessly repeating the same objections for several months constitutes an 'argument'.]
Additionally, if you had wanted to post a response to Mark Queen's objections (objections that had been offered several months previously) it could have been done in the appropriate forum, just like you ended up doing anyway. There was no need to unlock the thread in question, no need to post to klashistan at all, except to show the moderator just who was boss. There was never any question who was boss. The only question was "who's the moderator?"
It was never me, apparently.
So, what was learned, what information can be taken from this little charade? With tongue in cheek, I offer the following:
[in stark contrast to e-Bay, a site worried about you not using dollars to pay for transactions, but apparently unconcerned when false car auctions are listed. That's another story]
...but is largely unknown even in alternative currency circles. Don't ask me why, the sites work well. Perhaps it's a marketing/exposure question. Maybe it's just a matter of time.
No hard feelings Frank. I'd do business with you in the future. I'm just done with LDO for now.
...and with that, I return you to the regularly scheduled rant.
So let's properly light the scene.
The forum owner, the administrator and the moderator, when those hats are worn by separate people, need to act as a team on issues concerning the operation of the forum. This may seem like an obvious statement; and since teamwork is an often overlooked part of management, perhaps it is 'obvious' in the true sense of the word. In this particular instance, all three hats were worn by different people; a fact I was unaware of until just recently, having not been informed that the owner of the site had farmed out administration duties to a third party.
In a team, the players all know who's on the field, what their roles are, and what parts of the field are used for what purpose. In a forum this constitutes as knowing what types of posts go where, what types of member behavior is allowed (or, perhaps more easily, prohibited) and what types of moderation response is expected.
If you look at the site "Liberty Dollar Online" and think about where a post on any specific topic might go, you'll find the first stumbling block. As a tangential issue, I'll just touch on this here and be done with it. Where do you put a post concerning the Federal Reserve and it's relationship to gold? 'general' is where they end up. Where do you put a post concerning an offer of ELD? Those to end up in 'general' as well. In fact, most posts went to general and then had to be moved to their proper place on the forum. Why? Because the topics of the different sub-forums are too limited, or the wording on the forum description doesn't illuminate the expected contents of the forum. Then there is the 'cover all bets' type threads that could just as easily be a forum (or a poll) in themselves. Heaven forbid a moderator touch one of those immortal sacred cows. The wrath of the heavens (that would be the members who created and continuously add tangents to said thread) will descend upon the moderator who does.
The lackluster forum names and the catch all threads were stumbled over and either dealt with or ignored based on who had admin rights for what and when; so basically, the team isn't really communicating well, and no one really knows where anything needs to be. But we are giving it the 'old college try'.
As a secondary light source, I would like to add that the forum 'klashistan' was described to me as a place where 'anything goes' (remember this point, there will be a test later) I liked the idea, myself. Someplace to consign threads, and the contributing members to same, that have descended into ad hominem hell. It saves the moderator from endless accusations of "you deleted" and "I've been wrongly banned" type bullshit.
...and it is bullshit, because moderating is an unpaid thankless job, and most of the ingrates who use forums have no idea just how thankless it is. The next time one of you average members out there posts criticism of site moderation on a particular site, and it stays there, you should give that moderator a medal. Hell, throw him a party. Because there isn't any reason that he had to leave it there.
That handles the lighting. Now for the play itself.
A pain-in-the-ass member from a Yahoo Group dedicated to the Liberty Dollar decided to join the "Liberty Dollar Online" forum; When I say Mark Queen is a "pain-in-the-ass", I have previous postings to prove it. That's a condensed version. The thread lasted at least a month in time and spanned at least 20 posts. Definition of "pain-in-the-ass".
And he wasn't the first one. A few others joined up earlier, and finding that I was the dreaded 'moderator' they left, letting the owner know that they were leaving 'because of me'. Good riddance, not that I actually cared one way or the other. None of them posted much of anything to credit or damn themselves with; I'll cherish a adversary who can put together a decent argument just as highly as I do someone who shares common cause with me; however, incompetent whiners I have no time for. It's not my fault so few of them are up to the task.
But, Pain-in-the-ass Queen is savvy, so he posts his attacks directly to Klashistan, and refuses to elevate his discourse above the ad hominem level. When he first posted his issues with ALD, I dutifully created a poll that highlighted several of his points, in the proper forum, and invited everyone to come on in and discuss it. You could hear the crickets chirp.
Months go by. The new members come and go, not much happens, and Mark Queen is still pissing in the wind. Then he insults my dog. Well, I'm impervious to most attacks these days, but my dog was deeply offended. After pondering my response (the umpteenth response to the same question, mind you) I decided that 'anything goes' (I said there would be a test later) meant for the moderator as well, and I locked the thread in question, giving myself the 'last word' in the thread, as it were.
"Pain-in-the-ass" Queen complains to the site owner, Frank Motley. The site owner listens, his willingness to listen being only slightly effected, I'm sure, by the fact that Mark Queen has done business with him in the past, and is a friend of his. If I had known the number of relationships involved in this little fiasco (this wasn't the first time I had a run in with a 'friend of the owner') I would never have volunteered to moderate in the first place. When the members can go whine to the boss directly, and he listens, then the 'writing is on the wall', so to speak.
The site owner has the administrator reverse my judgment. No questions of "hey, why did you do this Anthony?" No "would you mind changing this back?" Just a slap in the face by someone I've never met or conversed with, and a public statement of my lack of authority; albeit a feel good "he's a great benefit to the site but has no real authority" type statement.
I'd been toying with bowing out as moderator for awhile anyway, and this had a 'straw that broke the camel's back' type of feeling to it, so I made my stand on principle, knowing what the outcome would be.
...If a moderator can't moderate, then what is he? If anyone can whine to the site owner, and he'll reverse the moderator's judgment, then who is really the moderator?
Not surprisingly, Frank has his own spin on things:
Not that I think it matters, but I have not "chosen Mark" over Anthony or anyone else. I made myself perfectly clear above.It does matter, and you did choose. Not one person over another perhaps, but the troublemaker with whom you identify over the office of moderator (the hat I was wearing at the time) that you despise. Perhaps despise is too strong a word, but your adversarial relationship with moderators in the past has definitely negatively colored your perception of what a moderator's job is, and has left you with the tendency to side with the troublemakers, even on your own site.
Mark Queen may have been instrumental in Liberty Dollar circles once upon a time, but he has ceased being anything other than an agitator looking for reasons to snipe at alternative currencies. The only reason he would want to know the data he keeps demanding and stating "isn't a problem to collect" (as long as you ignore the facts concerning validity, privacy and compensation for work performed) is so he can damn the entire system as ineffectual; because the data will look ineffectual alongside the data from the Fed that he wants to compare it to.
[It is a 'Mark' of Dumb-ass Queen's cluelessness that he would attribute my locking the thread to my somehow 'loosing the argument'. As if mindlessly repeating the same objections for several months constitutes an 'argument'.]
Additionally, if you had wanted to post a response to Mark Queen's objections (objections that had been offered several months previously) it could have been done in the appropriate forum, just like you ended up doing anyway. There was no need to unlock the thread in question, no need to post to klashistan at all, except to show the moderator just who was boss. There was never any question who was boss. The only question was "who's the moderator?"
It was never me, apparently.
So, what was learned, what information can be taken from this little charade? With tongue in cheek, I offer the following:
- Never volunteer for a job. Any veteran of the military can tell you that; I should have listened to one of them.
- Know who the Boss' friends are, and make sure you have the good dirt on them first. They'll make up dirt about you if they have to, so you better be prepared.
- Make sure to 'disappear' any posts that offend your dog, rather than violate some unwritten rule that only applies to moderators.
- Make sure that the forum headings are clear enough that people can figure out where posts should go; and be flexible enough to change them when the membership still can't figure it out.
- Make sure the next moderator understands that "anything goes in Klashistan" applies to everybody else but him.
- Make sure the next moderator knows how to contact the administrator directly; and let him know that it's actually a different person, not you with a better attitude.
- When a member horrifies you by childishly defacing the entire forum with blank posts, and the forum owner confides in you that the member learned that behavior from the owner himself on another forum, quit right then. Don't wait for the other shoe to drop. You'll thank yourself later.
[in stark contrast to e-Bay, a site worried about you not using dollars to pay for transactions, but apparently unconcerned when false car auctions are listed. That's another story]
...but is largely unknown even in alternative currency circles. Don't ask me why, the sites work well. Perhaps it's a marketing/exposure question. Maybe it's just a matter of time.
No hard feelings Frank. I'd do business with you in the future. I'm just done with LDO for now.
...and with that, I return you to the regularly scheduled rant.
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
Listening to ol' Joey today, and I heard the Great Fat One bragging about how he predicted that we were going to 'deal with' Iran two years ago, and how this was now about to happen.
The day Bush named Iraq as the next target in the 'War on Terror', it was clear to me that the Joint Cheifs wanted to establish a 'beachhead' in the Middle East, a place from which to stage the pacification of the entire region, as needed. Obviously, Iran would be the follow-on target. That was a bit more than two years ago. If ol' Joey only figured it out two years ago, then he must be slipping in his old age.
...The real question is, are the Iranian's engaging in nuclear weapons research in anticipation of this event, and do we really want a nuclear Iran? I think the answer to the second question is "no", but are we prepared for the consequences of that answer?
We've handed these people our money, hand over fist, for 4o years now. We've built up their infrastructure and taught them how to drill for oil. Sold them our weapons and trained them in their use. As always, we've gotten the best enemy money can buy. I wonder when we'll learn to quit doing that?
The day Bush named Iraq as the next target in the 'War on Terror', it was clear to me that the Joint Cheifs wanted to establish a 'beachhead' in the Middle East, a place from which to stage the pacification of the entire region, as needed. Obviously, Iran would be the follow-on target. That was a bit more than two years ago. If ol' Joey only figured it out two years ago, then he must be slipping in his old age.
...The real question is, are the Iranian's engaging in nuclear weapons research in anticipation of this event, and do we really want a nuclear Iran? I think the answer to the second question is "no", but are we prepared for the consequences of that answer?
We've handed these people our money, hand over fist, for 4o years now. We've built up their infrastructure and taught them how to drill for oil. Sold them our weapons and trained them in their use. As always, we've gotten the best enemy money can buy. I wonder when we'll learn to quit doing that?
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Isn't it Obvious?
Every time I hear that phrase, I think "yes, it is".
All over the internet (if you Google it) are sites and messages from well meaning, angry people, attempting to point out a fact or a situation that is "hidden in plain view".
Why do I say 'hidden'? Well, it must be. Why else would someone ask a patently 'obvious' question? They don't see the answer, though it is right before them. It's not a mark of stupidity, but more a problem with perception.
I looked up 'obvious' on several dictionary sites in an attempt to confirm the nuances of meaning that I see in the word. None of them seem to see the obvious differences between obvious and similar words like apparent and evident. Appearances can be illusory, and evidence makes the answer evident. But you can stumble over the obvious, because it is 'in the way' (as the Latin states) so look carefully before asking that next 'obvious' question.
...but then, if you know an answer is 'obvious', is it?
All over the internet (if you Google it) are sites and messages from well meaning, angry people, attempting to point out a fact or a situation that is "hidden in plain view".
Why do I say 'hidden'? Well, it must be. Why else would someone ask a patently 'obvious' question? They don't see the answer, though it is right before them. It's not a mark of stupidity, but more a problem with perception.
I looked up 'obvious' on several dictionary sites in an attempt to confirm the nuances of meaning that I see in the word. None of them seem to see the obvious differences between obvious and similar words like apparent and evident. Appearances can be illusory, and evidence makes the answer evident. But you can stumble over the obvious, because it is 'in the way' (as the Latin states) so look carefully before asking that next 'obvious' question.
...but then, if you know an answer is 'obvious', is it?
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Curing Cancer?
I once jokingly labeled a floppy disk (5 1/4" floppy. Back when floppies were 'floppy') "Cure for Cancer", and then stuck it to the refrigerator with a magnet. Little did I know that the government has been literally doing the same thing for years now...
----
Atlasphere - Peter Duesberg Part I & Part II
----
If certain bureaucrats masquerading as "leading scientists," (such as those who run the National Institute of Health) had at their disposal unprecedented billions in research dollars, it would be only natural that they should want to set the agenda. They would want to decide what was permissible and what was not, which theories were fit subjects for study and which were not. It would be only natural that "political correctness" should find its way into the process, and into the institutes and academies of scientific research. That's exactly what has happened.
----
The fact that in such a climate there exists a real scientist like Duesberg seems almost an anomaly, and a tragedy. And it would be too, if he succumbed to it; but he doesn't. Like other fountainheads of creative genius, he rises to the challenge — he persists and he creates. Whether people accept his gifts or not, he offers them. Eventually they will be accepted and he will receive his due vindication. The command scientists will be forgotten; but in the meantime it's an uphill battle.
----
In the above column references an article published in the American Spectator, which I also took the time to track down and read:
----
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8588
----
WHERE TO BEGIN? One place is a story in the Washington Post, a few months back, headlined "Genetic Test Is Predictor of Breast Cancer Relapse." The test "marks one of the first tangible benefits of the massive effort to harness genetics to fight cancer," Rob Stein wrote. No real benefits yet? I think that is correct. Two well-publicized genes supposedly predispose women for breast cancer, but in over 90 percent of cases these genes have shown no defect.
Genes that (allegedly) cause cancer when they are mutated are called oncogenes. They were reported in 1976 by J. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus, who were rewarded with the Nobel Prize. Varmus became director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under President Clinton; Bishop, chancellor of the University of California in San Francisco, one of the largest medical-research institutions in the country. The two scientists had "discovered a collection of normal genes that can cause cancer when they go awry," Gina Kolata later reported in the New York Times. About 40 such genes had been discovered. Normally harmless, "they would spring into action and cause cancer if they were twitched by carcinogens." When mutated, in other words. This was "a new era in research."
----
At the beginning, the oncogene theory posited that a single gene, when mutated, turned a normal cell into a cancer cell. We have gone from 1 to 250, the latter "playing a role." This "multiplication of entities" -- genes -- is the hallmark of a theory that is not working. It's what philosophers call a "deteriorating paradigm." The theory gets more and more complex to account for its lack of success. The number of oncogenes keeps going up, even as the total number of genes goes down. Six years ago some thought humans had 150,000 genes in all. Now it's one-sixth that number. How long before they find that all the genes "play a role" in cancer?
----
Here is the key point: cancer cells do not have the correct complement of chromosomes. Their "ploidy" is not good, so they are said to be aneuploid. Cancer cells are aneuploid. This defect arises not in the germ line, but in the grown body. Cells divide in the course of life, by a process called mitosis, and sometimes there is an error in the division. The chromosomes do not "segregate" properly (do not end up equally in the two daughter cells) and an extra chromosome may be hauled off into one of the new cells. Such over-burdened cells will usually die, but sometimes the error repeats and magnifies and increases. The cell just keeps on dividing, its control mechanisms overridden by the abundance of extra DNA in the cell. A tumor forms in that part of the body, and that is cancer. Some cancer cells may have as many as 80 chromosomes instead of 46. They may actually have double the right number of genes.
The aneuploid character of cancer cells is the first thing that Theodor Boveri and others noticed when they began to look at cancer under the microscope, 100 years ago. Leaving unresolved the question of what causes aneuploidy, early researchers thought that this was surely the genetic cause of cancer. Mutation didn't enter into it. But gradually the early research was buried. In the last generation, textbooks on the cell and even textbooks on cancer have failed to mention aneuploidy or its bizarre chromosomal combinations. Weinberg wrote two books on cancer without mentioning aneuploidy. Overlooking what was plainly visible in the microscope, researchers worked for years with those defective, immortalized cell lines, assuming that their extra chromosomes were unimportant.
An analogy suggests the magnitude of the error. Cells today are compared to factories, so let's think of an automobile plant. A cancer cell is the equivalent of a monster car with (let's say) five wheels, two engines, and no brakes. Start it running and you can't stop the damned thing. It's hazardous to the community. The CEO wants to know what's gone wrong so he sends underlings into the factory. There they find that instead of the anticipated 46 assembly lines, there are as many as 80. At the end of the process this weird machine gets bolted together and ploughs its way out the factory door.
But today's gene mutation theorist is someone who says: "That's not it. The extra assembly lines are irrelevant. What is happening is that three or four of the tens of thousands of workers along the assembly lines are not working right!" In the analogy, genes along the chromosomes correspond to workers along the assembly lines.
----
I HAVE LEFT THE MOST DRAMATIC PART to the end. The man who rediscovered the old work on chromosomes and cancer and has drawn attention to it ever since, supported by investigations of his own, is none other than Peter Duesberg of U.C. Berkeley. He was already in the dog house at NIH for saying that AIDS is not an infectious disease and that HIV is harmless. All his grants were cut off in retribution. But as a member of the National Academy of Sciences he could still publish in respectable journals. So for the last seven years he has been drawing attention to the cancer matter. The NIH is pursuing the wrong theory, he says. Talk about persona non grata! No more grants for him! (And he has not received any.)
A researcher at the University of Washington who became controversial at NIH in an unrelated field warned Duesberg that "in the present system of NIH grants, there is no way to succeed." No matter how much they prate in public about thinking outside the box and rewarding "high-risk" proposals, "the reviewers are the same and their self-interest is the same." In the cancer field, grant proposals are reviewed by, and won by, proponents of the gene mutation theory.
----
Maybe in the end he will show that in order to achieve a real breakthrough, it's important not to be funded by the NIH. If so, we will all have learned a very expensive lesson.
----
The 'spectator' article references a Wayt Gibbs article in the Scientific American (July 2003) that goes into the findings that Duesberg has produced from his research into the causes of cancer; research that not only isn't funded by the NIH and our tax dollars, but is apparently being discouraged at every turn.
THIS is something worth going on a rant about. Gov't sponsored medical research that is *research* in name only. True research, research that questions accepted theories, is left out in the cold.
----
Atlasphere - Peter Duesberg Part I & Part II
----
If certain bureaucrats masquerading as "leading scientists," (such as those who run the National Institute of Health) had at their disposal unprecedented billions in research dollars, it would be only natural that they should want to set the agenda. They would want to decide what was permissible and what was not, which theories were fit subjects for study and which were not. It would be only natural that "political correctness" should find its way into the process, and into the institutes and academies of scientific research. That's exactly what has happened.
----
The fact that in such a climate there exists a real scientist like Duesberg seems almost an anomaly, and a tragedy. And it would be too, if he succumbed to it; but he doesn't. Like other fountainheads of creative genius, he rises to the challenge — he persists and he creates. Whether people accept his gifts or not, he offers them. Eventually they will be accepted and he will receive his due vindication. The command scientists will be forgotten; but in the meantime it's an uphill battle.
----
In the above column references an article published in the American Spectator, which I also took the time to track down and read:
----
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8588
----
WHERE TO BEGIN? One place is a story in the Washington Post, a few months back, headlined "Genetic Test Is Predictor of Breast Cancer Relapse." The test "marks one of the first tangible benefits of the massive effort to harness genetics to fight cancer," Rob Stein wrote. No real benefits yet? I think that is correct. Two well-publicized genes supposedly predispose women for breast cancer, but in over 90 percent of cases these genes have shown no defect.
Genes that (allegedly) cause cancer when they are mutated are called oncogenes. They were reported in 1976 by J. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus, who were rewarded with the Nobel Prize. Varmus became director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under President Clinton; Bishop, chancellor of the University of California in San Francisco, one of the largest medical-research institutions in the country. The two scientists had "discovered a collection of normal genes that can cause cancer when they go awry," Gina Kolata later reported in the New York Times. About 40 such genes had been discovered. Normally harmless, "they would spring into action and cause cancer if they were twitched by carcinogens." When mutated, in other words. This was "a new era in research."
----
At the beginning, the oncogene theory posited that a single gene, when mutated, turned a normal cell into a cancer cell. We have gone from 1 to 250, the latter "playing a role." This "multiplication of entities" -- genes -- is the hallmark of a theory that is not working. It's what philosophers call a "deteriorating paradigm." The theory gets more and more complex to account for its lack of success. The number of oncogenes keeps going up, even as the total number of genes goes down. Six years ago some thought humans had 150,000 genes in all. Now it's one-sixth that number. How long before they find that all the genes "play a role" in cancer?
----
Here is the key point: cancer cells do not have the correct complement of chromosomes. Their "ploidy" is not good, so they are said to be aneuploid. Cancer cells are aneuploid. This defect arises not in the germ line, but in the grown body. Cells divide in the course of life, by a process called mitosis, and sometimes there is an error in the division. The chromosomes do not "segregate" properly (do not end up equally in the two daughter cells) and an extra chromosome may be hauled off into one of the new cells. Such over-burdened cells will usually die, but sometimes the error repeats and magnifies and increases. The cell just keeps on dividing, its control mechanisms overridden by the abundance of extra DNA in the cell. A tumor forms in that part of the body, and that is cancer. Some cancer cells may have as many as 80 chromosomes instead of 46. They may actually have double the right number of genes.
The aneuploid character of cancer cells is the first thing that Theodor Boveri and others noticed when they began to look at cancer under the microscope, 100 years ago. Leaving unresolved the question of what causes aneuploidy, early researchers thought that this was surely the genetic cause of cancer. Mutation didn't enter into it. But gradually the early research was buried. In the last generation, textbooks on the cell and even textbooks on cancer have failed to mention aneuploidy or its bizarre chromosomal combinations. Weinberg wrote two books on cancer without mentioning aneuploidy. Overlooking what was plainly visible in the microscope, researchers worked for years with those defective, immortalized cell lines, assuming that their extra chromosomes were unimportant.
An analogy suggests the magnitude of the error. Cells today are compared to factories, so let's think of an automobile plant. A cancer cell is the equivalent of a monster car with (let's say) five wheels, two engines, and no brakes. Start it running and you can't stop the damned thing. It's hazardous to the community. The CEO wants to know what's gone wrong so he sends underlings into the factory. There they find that instead of the anticipated 46 assembly lines, there are as many as 80. At the end of the process this weird machine gets bolted together and ploughs its way out the factory door.
But today's gene mutation theorist is someone who says: "That's not it. The extra assembly lines are irrelevant. What is happening is that three or four of the tens of thousands of workers along the assembly lines are not working right!" In the analogy, genes along the chromosomes correspond to workers along the assembly lines.
----
I HAVE LEFT THE MOST DRAMATIC PART to the end. The man who rediscovered the old work on chromosomes and cancer and has drawn attention to it ever since, supported by investigations of his own, is none other than Peter Duesberg of U.C. Berkeley. He was already in the dog house at NIH for saying that AIDS is not an infectious disease and that HIV is harmless. All his grants were cut off in retribution. But as a member of the National Academy of Sciences he could still publish in respectable journals. So for the last seven years he has been drawing attention to the cancer matter. The NIH is pursuing the wrong theory, he says. Talk about persona non grata! No more grants for him! (And he has not received any.)
A researcher at the University of Washington who became controversial at NIH in an unrelated field warned Duesberg that "in the present system of NIH grants, there is no way to succeed." No matter how much they prate in public about thinking outside the box and rewarding "high-risk" proposals, "the reviewers are the same and their self-interest is the same." In the cancer field, grant proposals are reviewed by, and won by, proponents of the gene mutation theory.
----
Maybe in the end he will show that in order to achieve a real breakthrough, it's important not to be funded by the NIH. If so, we will all have learned a very expensive lesson.
----
The 'spectator' article references a Wayt Gibbs article in the Scientific American (July 2003) that goes into the findings that Duesberg has produced from his research into the causes of cancer; research that not only isn't funded by the NIH and our tax dollars, but is apparently being discouraged at every turn.
THIS is something worth going on a rant about. Gov't sponsored medical research that is *research* in name only. True research, research that questions accepted theories, is left out in the cold.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Corporate correspondence
In the continuing saga of "The Quest for Sobe Black Tea":
Couldn't care less about any other flavor of beverage that you produce. I have been on quest for Sobe Black Tea since I first discovered Sobe on a road trip to West Texas nearly 10 years ago. Following that discovery, I went to more than 50 quickshops in the Austin area, personally, in order to get Black Tea from the local distributor. Instead I get all the other flavors BUT Black Tea.
I can't even buy it online. I can't even buy it directly from you. I am beyond pissed at this point, I'm just about livid. I would really like some answers as to why I can get 19 other flavors of Sobe in Austin, but I can't get Black Tea? Does someone need to be replaced at the local distributor? In my opinion, the answer is yes.
I would really like a response that answers questions rather than a blow off note that suggests I find something else to like. As someone who will special order Cokes, Dr. Peppers and 7-ups with real sugar in them, just to get the 'real thing', I think it's a more likely possibility that Satan will ice skate to work tomorrow.
Also, I noticed that the domain name changed from lizmail.com to pepsi.com. If you notice my list of favorites, you might come to realize that there isn't much love lost between me and Pepsi.
Your turn at bat, swing and a miss?
--------A Message from Consumer Relations 011015940A
Hello Anthony,
Thank you for taking the time to email us here at SoBe Beverages. It's always a pleasure to hear from lizard lovers like yourself.
Unfortunately, the product that you are asking about is no longer carried by the local distributor in your area. However, keep your eyes open for new beverages from SoBe in your area. In the meantime, your comments will be shared with our sales team and senior marketing staff. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Again, thank you for contacting us. We appreciate your interest in our company.
Lauren Napolitano
Consumer Relations Representative
lauren.napolitano@pepsi.com
011015940A
Couldn't care less about any other flavor of beverage that you produce. I have been on quest for Sobe Black Tea since I first discovered Sobe on a road trip to West Texas nearly 10 years ago. Following that discovery, I went to more than 50 quickshops in the Austin area, personally, in order to get Black Tea from the local distributor. Instead I get all the other flavors BUT Black Tea.
I can't even buy it online. I can't even buy it directly from you. I am beyond pissed at this point, I'm just about livid. I would really like some answers as to why I can get 19 other flavors of Sobe in Austin, but I can't get Black Tea? Does someone need to be replaced at the local distributor? In my opinion, the answer is yes.
I would really like a response that answers questions rather than a blow off note that suggests I find something else to like. As someone who will special order Cokes, Dr. Peppers and 7-ups with real sugar in them, just to get the 'real thing', I think it's a more likely possibility that Satan will ice skate to work tomorrow.
Also, I noticed that the domain name changed from lizmail.com to pepsi.com. If you notice my list of favorites, you might come to realize that there isn't much love lost between me and Pepsi.
Your turn at bat, swing and a miss?
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Car "trips"
Heading out in about 5 hours to deliver the children to their grandparents for a few weeks of vacation (theirs or ours, it's hard to guess) and I suddenly realize just how much I've come to hate sitting in a car.
I used to hunger for the freedom that a car represented; and when I finally got my drivers license, you couldn't get me out of the vehicle except to sleep. I'd plan trips like the impending one to the nth degree, mapping out which way to go, picking just the right music; and I'd spend the day proceeding it cleaning every inch of the vehicle inside and out.
These days I don't notice the car is dirty until I can't see out the windows. I don't even want to talk about sitting. Legs hurt, hips hurt, back hurts; and you just have to sit there. Music is secondary now, too. If we're lucky, the wife and I will hit a good conversation rhythm, and we won't even notice the radio is off.
I don't drive by myself any more, maybe that's what's different. I doubt it, though. Given a choice, I'll play the passenger rather than have to concentrate on driving for hours at a time.
Maybe car trips are like the other trips; drug trips specifically. At first it's a mind blowing change, to be in control and able to do anything (at least in your own mind, which is where it counts when it comes to trippin') and then as the number of trips piles up, they start turning into bad trips, and you wonder why you ever wanted to do that shit in the first place.
...Or maybe I just need to take up flying.
------
Made it back alive though. It's always a wonder when that happens, even though it has happened every time...
I used to hunger for the freedom that a car represented; and when I finally got my drivers license, you couldn't get me out of the vehicle except to sleep. I'd plan trips like the impending one to the nth degree, mapping out which way to go, picking just the right music; and I'd spend the day proceeding it cleaning every inch of the vehicle inside and out.
These days I don't notice the car is dirty until I can't see out the windows. I don't even want to talk about sitting. Legs hurt, hips hurt, back hurts; and you just have to sit there. Music is secondary now, too. If we're lucky, the wife and I will hit a good conversation rhythm, and we won't even notice the radio is off.
I don't drive by myself any more, maybe that's what's different. I doubt it, though. Given a choice, I'll play the passenger rather than have to concentrate on driving for hours at a time.
Maybe car trips are like the other trips; drug trips specifically. At first it's a mind blowing change, to be in control and able to do anything (at least in your own mind, which is where it counts when it comes to trippin') and then as the number of trips piles up, they start turning into bad trips, and you wonder why you ever wanted to do that shit in the first place.
...Or maybe I just need to take up flying.
------
Made it back alive though. It's always a wonder when that happens, even though it has happened every time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)