blike

Check this out. Watch till the end.

48 hours is definitely within the normal range of recovery period. Find a workout plan that works you hard enough to be sore, but not so hard that you're still sore 2 days later. Don't push through the pain just to workout again, your body needs that healing time. As Phi says, you'll start having to work harder and harder to get sore. In college when I worked out regularly, I really had to do something extraordinary to feel even a little bit sore the next day.

Haha, nice Martin!

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail%3bjsessionid=66434CA6FE6500D6A04B9F946D779145?contentId=3641729&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

The curious thing to me is the downward diplopia. A good eye exam would have to be done. It could be trochlear dysfunction, or it could be that the patient is correcting for the dysfunction except in downward gaze. If a good eye exam were performed and it was strictly a downward diplopia, then I might start thinking about things other than cranial nerve pathology. With no other neurological signs or symptoms and no significant history reported (i.e. coagulopathy, afib, recent trauma / surgery) I probably wouldn't go down the thrombus pathway. Again, a neurological exam would have to be performed to rule out these things. One thing that might fit the initial clinical presentation is a periorbital abcess (or even a CNS abscess). However, I'd think that would be more bacterial than viral, and it appears the attending physicians determined it to be viral in origin. With the history of a viral infection, some sort of encephalitis also comes to mind. This could, perhaps, explain all of the symptoms. The best thing to do is ask the doctor who treated you about it.

Heh, if the person was just nervous, that's one thing, but it may be that the person had severe anxiety tremors -- which would be an indication for propranolol. I think I may need some during my surgery rotation, hah!

As far as I know, in the US, most patients are started with a thiazide diuretic as first line of treatment for stage 1 (140-159 / 90-99) primary hypertension. This is in accordance with the JNC7's recommendations. Combination therapy is considered when a thiazide alone fails lower the BP to the desired level. Stage 2 primary hypertension is usually managed initially with 2-drug combination therapy (thiazide + ACE, or thiazide + ARB). Like Dhondy said, B-blockers are not really used unless there is a compelling indication.

The test isn't a pass / fail test, it simply spits out a score that medical schools use to evaluate you. A "competitive" score is considered >30 (30 is the national average for medical students, I believe). It's funny looking back on that post at me stressing out about the MCAT. I just finished my medical boards (Step 1) two weeks ago.

That's actually a very good question, I had the same question when I was taking endocrine physiology. I always rationalized it simply by the fact that glucagon will raise serum glucose levels, which will them stimulate insulin secretion. However, the answer to the question seems to be that glucagon actually acts directly on the GLP-1 receptors in the pancreatic beta islet cells to cause insulin secretion. Check out this paper: Evidence that glucagon stimulates insulin secretion through its own receptor in rats. So glucagon has both a primary and secondary insulin secreting effect -- the primary being through the GLP-1 receptors on pancreatic islet cells, and the secondary being due to increased serum glucose.

Open your Biology book, if you're in a biology course, you surely are requried to have a biology textbook of some sort.

That's a lot of information to request from people! Have you first exhausted the available resources on the subject (i.e. wikipedia, etc.)?

Ship the new keyboard to my apartment, thanks. I'd pick the launderer. I hate, and I mean hate, doing laundry.

Just wondering if anyone caught this paper published last week in Science. See here for a modified version. It's very interesting, check it out. "Our intuitive psychology also contributes to resistance to science. One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed "promiscuous teleology." Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to prefer creationist explanations..." Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg, 2007, “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” Science, 316(5827), 996-997, 18 May 2007

oh. wow.

Hit F5 (hard refresh), see if that fixes it.

I see 458 views...

I've got a few more laying around, mostly from the same TED conference (the speakers are tend to be very good and thought provoking). I can post it up if you'd like.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you just bookmark the forum url (scienceforums.net/forum) instead of going to the main page first? I used to prefer the main page, but I'm beginning to jump right into the forums instead. That's where I end up anyways.

See, actually, that's why I was tinkering with it in the first place. We're only supposed to get text ads from google -- but for some reason yesterday I was seeing some image ads. Strange.

In undergraduate I sometimes used wikipedia as a jumping point to more resources. The problem with this is that you not only limit your exposure to viewpoints that the wikipedia author happens to link to, but you also lose the chronological development and modifications of ideas. For example, a wikipedia article may cite a paper from 2002. What you may miss if you jump from wikipedia is that a paper published in 2003 basically reversed the viewpoint, and then in 2005 a study modified the 2003 paper's conclusions, and in 2007 the 2005 conclusions were once again modified. No I did not learn this the hard way.

I made an offhand comment in another thread about someone deserving to have their doctorate degree "revoked" by the granting institution. This got me thinking: has anyone ever heard of a doctorate degree being revoked for any reason other than issues with the thesis or coursework that came to light after the person earned the degree?

Christine Page's M.D. should be revoked by the granting institution.

Have you tried at all? What'd you get so far?

Have you tried at all? What'd you get so far?