blike

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. You would still be fingerprinted had Kerry been in office.

I'm looking for good "case studies" documenting an obvious branching in a phylogenic tree, or a large phenotypical change within the species itself. Preferably the case study would include potential selection factors and evidence for each, fossil evidence of the change, and any other evidence that would help bring the whole story together. I have a friend who is having a hard time understanding how selection pressures can lead to large changes in a species over time. I know there are some good papers out there, but I'm not sure how to go about finding them.

I see your point, but this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about.

Sorry, but that's laughable. BUSH BREAKS ALL-TIME POPULAR VOTE TOTAL, SURPASSING REAGAN... I wonder if the Kerry campaign will begin filing lawsuits if Bush picks up this last electoral vote. It looks like the republicans held on to control of the house and senate.

Reminds me of the princess bride scene: V: Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. M: You've made your decision then? V: Not remotely. Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. M: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. V: Wait till I get going! Where was I? M: Australia. V: Yes -- Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. M: You're just stalling now. V: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong. So, you could have put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

I just voted. People were saying they've never seen a line that long as long as they've lived in the state. It moved quick though, I got in and out in an hour. They were very organized and efficient.

Don't worry, Michael Moore is watching out for you. (He's got cameras all over Florida and Ohio)

Do you honestly think he wants the man responsible for killing or capturing over half of his organization's leadership back in office? Do you think he wants the man who has caused him to be on the run for the past year and a half back in power? Don't you think that if he really wanted George Bush in office, he'd bomb somewhere major in the states? Or was a video tape the best he could do?

When someone starts indiscriminently blowing themselves up in public places, threatening the infidels, and removing the heads of innocent hostages, they earn the label terrorists. Until then, they are called whatever they are, which is why we called the iraqi army "the iraqi army" when we invaded.

Yes. The AMA and the AOA (governing bodies of both insititutions) revoke licenses of doctors who demonstrate gross incompetence. Yes. In order to graduate you have to pass two sets of board examinations, both of which are known to rip new holes in even the smartest of people. Anyone who can pass medical boards is clearly competent, at least at the time of taking them.

November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement. The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry. MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us." The statement in question is when bin Laden said on the tape: "Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." That sentence followed a lengthy passage in the video in which bin Laden launches personal attacks on the president. Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term "ay-wilaya" to refer to a "state" in that sentence. That term "specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee," Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a "country" he would have used the Arabic word "dawla."

Indeed. I think it will require some responsibility on the part of lawyers. Perhaps the governing body for US lawyers should establish some sort of guidelines to help lawyers. Another alternative is using a 3rd party mediating system which independently decides if the case merit's a court appearance.

It's been so long since I've timed myself running I wouldn't even try and take a guess. Now that I think about it, it's been forever since I've ran period

Btw, antibiotic resistance is a classic example of beneficial mutations. Bacteria replicate extremely fast, and are thus a good model for studying genetic diversity and adaptation. Nonetheless, you seem to be looking for a beneficial genetic mutation in humans: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567. "PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants," by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy. Abstract: Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) plasma levels have been consistently related to a polymorphism (4G/5G) of the PAI-1 gene. The renin-angiotensin pathway plays a role in the regulation of PAI-1 plasma levels. An insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been related to plasma and cellular ACE levels. In 1032 employees (446 men and 586 women; 22 to 66 years old) of a hospital in southern Italy, we investigated the association between PAI-1 4G/5G and the ACE I/D gene variants and plasma PAI-1 antigen levels. None of the individuals enrolled had clinical evidence of atherosclerosis. In univariate analysis, PAI-1 levels were significantly higher in men (P<.001), alcohol drinkers (P<.001), smokers (P=.009), and homozygotes for the PAI-1 gene deletion allele(4G/4G) (P=.012). Multivariate analysis documented the independent effect on PAI-1 plasma levels of body mass index (P<.001), triglycerides (P<.001), sex (P<.001), PAI-1 4G/5G polymorphism (P=.019), smoking habit (P=.041), and ACE I/D genotype (P=.042). Thus, in addition to the markers of insulin resistance and smoking habit, gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998 Jan 8;338(2):79-85 Polymorphisms in the coagulation factor VII gene and the risk of myocardial infarction. Iacoviello L, Di Castelnuovo A, De Knijff P, D'Orazio A, Amore C, Arboretti R, Kluft C, Benedetta Donati M Department of Vascular Medicine and Pharmacology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy. BACKGROUND: High blood levels of coagulation factor VII are associated with a risk of ischemic vascular disease. Although factor VII levels may be genetically determined, the relation between genetic polymorphisms of factor VII, factor VII blood levels, and the risk of myocardial infarction has not been established. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of 165 patients with familial myocardial infarction (mean [+/-SD] age, 55+/-9 years) and 225 controls without a personal or family history of cardiovascular disease (mean age, 56+/-8 years). The polymorphisms involving R353Q and hypervariable region 4 of the factor VII gene were studied. Factor VII clotting activity and antigen levels were also measured. RESULTS: Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratios, 0.08 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.9] and 0.22 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.63], respectively). For the R353Q polymorphism, the RR genotype was associated with the highest risk, followed by the RQ genotype and then by the QQ genotype (P<0.001). For the polymorphism involving hypervariable region 4, the combined H7H5 and H6H5 genotypes were associated with the highest risk, followed in descending order by the H6H6, H6H7, and H7H7 genotypes (P<0.001). Patients with the QQ or H7H7 genotype had lower levels of both factor VII antigen and factor VII clotting activity than those with the RR or H6H6 genotype. Patients with the lowest level of factor VII clotting activity had a lower risk of myocardial infarction than those with the highest level (odds ratio, 0.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that certain polymorphisms of the factor VII gene may influence the risk of myocardial infarction. It is possible that this effect may be mediated by alterations in factor VII levels.

I don't know if caps on lawyers fees are intended to directly combat malpractice costs. All capping lawyer fees would probably do is narrow down 10 lawyers fighting for a client to 1 or 2. It seems like there's always someone willing to do it.

Indeed. I didn't really mean to attack democrats in the post, but it seems the party is downplaying the seriousness of the malpractice issue. Nevertheless, there are other issues contributing to the rise of healthcare costs, but malpractice contributes a more than some might think. I'd like to know whether the impact malpractice has on healthcare costs that John Kerry cited included secondary and tertiary effects of malpractice. For example, did they only count the amount awarded anually in settlements and verdicts? Or did they include things like the cost of defending doctors from frivolous suits, costs hospitals incur from defending themselves, or factors such as costs of tests and procedures which are done only as a formality to document in case of litigation? I'm not accusing him of intentionally distoring facts (we all know both parties do this), but I'd like to know the process by which he arrived as his figure. Even more important than monitary considerations is the impact this has on the quality of healthcare. Doctors can't really practice medicine anymore, they practice "cover-your-rear" medicine, as you mentioned. Another impact high litigation has is that many doctors are not willing to research and try new procedures in the United States. For example, a patient in a hospital recently had a surgical incision that just would not heal. There are biosynthetic materials used in the burn unit that help burn patient's wounds heal better. The patient asked the doctor why the material wouldn't work on an incision. The doctor and surgeon could see absolutely no reason why they could not be used, and in-fact, thought it was a good idea. Nonetheless, neither were willing to try. There is a fine balance between regulating advancements in medicine to protect the patient and over-regulating advancements to the point where no one will try anything new. The scale has been tilted towards the latter because of litigation rates. It's a fine balance that must be struck, but currently I think it leans too far toward the latter.

Hello there! I see you're from Tampa as well! There are several different ways to quote. The easiest is to hit "Quote" at the bottom of a post and it will take you to a new page with the quote vbCode already in place. See here for another method: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote If you still need help feel free to send me a private message!

Well, the democrats would like you to believe that malpractice is not a significant contributor to rising healthcare costs. However, talk to any doctor and he'll tell you the reason healthcare costs are rising is because doctors can't afford to pay their malpractice premiums, which are elevated because of the litigous society in which we live. I just applied to medical school this year, and I was told several times by several physicians to pursue something other than medicine. Both schools I interviewed at asked me why I wanted to become a physician when I would undoubtedly be named in a frivolous suit more than once. The lawsuit crisis is real, and it's hurting doctors and patients alike. Doctors can't afford to practice, and they can't practice like they were trained to. Take for example an ER doctor I talked to the other day. He ordered a test that he would never have ordered 20 years ago, but because he had lawyers breathing down his neck on this patient, he ordered the test. $600 wasted on what any physician would have told you was unnecessary at that stage. It's horrible. In florida we've got obstetricians and gynocologists respecializing because they can't afford to practice. In parts north Texas you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who will deliver your baby. Now we've got this amendmant here in florida that will probably pass which states that a physician loses his license to practice in florida after three lawsuits. What does that mean? Well, aside from all of the surgeons packing up and applying for licenses in other states, it means that doctors will no longer try and defend themselves in court [because three strikes you're out] and will settle. Malpractice premiums are expected to rise significantly, which means your doctor will be charging more so he can break even for the year. There is. It's called your HMO, PPO, etc. Doctors don't set their prices. Furthermore, we're talking about frivolous lawsuits, i.e. lawsuits that should never make it to court. The simple fact that it makes it to court is costing malpractice insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars in defending doctors a year. I don't think you get it. The notion that "only bad doctors get sued" is ridiculous. If you happen to be on the case where another doctor messed up, guess who gets named in the suit. There are obstetricians being sued over bad outcomes. The american people have had it beat into their head by trial lawyers that bad outcome = bad doctor. Just ask John Edwards. He sued an obstetrician in NC (I believe that was the state) using junk science. The jury felt bad and awarded money. Any other doctor would have done the same thing. This is happening all over the united states. There was a time when a surgeon could be insured for 25k a year. Now it's costing florida surgeons over $80,000 a year to be insured! Considering the average surgeon's income is around $200,000, 49% of which gets taken out for taxes, many doctors are struggling to break even these days!

Here it comes: "Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al Qaqaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons." Will John Kerry publically retract his claim?

Almost as bad as "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." *cue liberals jumping to clinton's defense*

Suprise suprise. I could have told you who they would endorse months ago.

I used a Sony DSC-S30 old school digital camera.

The funny thing is, the media seems to be giving Kerry a free pass and not calling him on this obvious and blatant lie. That's such crap. If GW made said the same thing there would be front page headlines about it. Now there are claims that Russia moved the explosives to Syria in March '03. dun dun dunnnn John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad. "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units." http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

These were taken with my digital camera and my 6" Meade reflector scope http://www.scienceforums.net/misc/

Sounds like an urban legend.