prion

For a quick answer, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16175068&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16014371&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum For a more detailed explanation of how this has been utterly debunked, you have to do a bit more searching. (by the way, the whole B17/Laetrile/amygdalin thing is just so 1970's, things have moved on to detox diets and random food intolerances...) The American Camcer Society has an excellent review of all the research, summarised at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1902140&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum For those that can't access the full thing, I will fill you in: Right. Dr Krebs tried giving cancer patients apricot kernels. They contain amygdalin, which is digested by gut bacteria to release cyanide. Cyanide is obviously extremely toxic and people have died from eating apricot and cherry pits, etc. Then Kreb's son said he had modified the amygdalin into stuff called Laetrile, which he said was less toxic. Amygadalin releases cyanide when it reacts with the enzyme beta glucosidase. It was theorised that cancer cells have lots more beta glucosidase than normal cells, so they release more cyanide when exposed to amygdalin (poisoning themselves). Research showed this was not true - there isn't much beta-glucosidase in tissues and there's no more of it in cancer cells. Small amounts of cyanide can be broken down by the enzyme rhodanese and it was theorised that cancer cells had less of this causing the cyanide to build up. This was shown to be false too. Then the Krebs people decided that actually it's a different enzyme - beta-glucoronidase - that's more abundant in cancer cells. This was shown to be untrue. Anyway, beta-glucoronidase cannot release cyanide from amygdalin - the stuff that's in apricot stones etc. The Krebses said that the enzyme did release cyanide from their product, Laetrile. However analysis of Laetrile products have shown them to be just made of amygdalin, ie they are basically ground up apricot stones. Then the Krebs (determined to make a buck somehow) declared that cancer was a vitamin-deficiency that could be cured by vitamin B17. This was just the same stuff they had been selling all along. You can't just decalare something to be a vitamin - it has to be officially classified. So there is really no such thing as vitamin B17. Apparently US FDA regulations apply to medical treatments but not to vitamins so this was just a sneaky way of trying to get round the rules. Regardless of all of this, there has not been a single peer-reviewed medical trial published that shows the stuff has any effect on cancer. Probably the most well-known clinical trial is this one published in the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the world's best and most respected medical journals): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7033783&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum where 178 patients were treated with laetrile. The conclusion was: "No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range...Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment." Of course I'm sure you can find articles and websites that say something different, but as someone has already pointed out, anyone can write any old load of rubbish on a website. The references I have given you are the reliable ones. If you're still not convinced, go to a big university library and ask the staff to help you look up the articles. I have a PhD in biochemistry, I work for the UK National Health Service and I have never had anything to do with a pharmaceutical company. and by the way the reason I know all this is because I researched it for a close relative who had cancer and was looking into treatments. oh and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetrile wow by chance I've just found the review to end them all http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

don't get nightmares but if I drink heavily I wake up in the early hours feeling really 'panicky', with fast pulse etc. No idea why I'm afraid

maybe when people are paying for healthcare they're more fussy about doctors' education

if it's speed you're after, move to the UK, skip the 1st degree and graduate in 5 years?

my advice would be don't judge the quality of a course just by the minimum predicted grades they quote. Some of them will ask for low predicted grades so that they can interview as many people as possible and choose the ones they really like. Some offer high grades so they get less applicants and they have less decisions to make. The best places will be more concerned with your interest in the subject rather than whether you got an A or B. (I got offered 3 Ds and it was an excellent course). Go to as many open days as possible and see if you like the 'feel' of the place. Make sure it's a department with some decent research going on - you get better lectures that way. If you're going on an open day, have a good look round the city at the same time. London is the ultimate 'big city'. However it is horrendously expensive and can be a lonely place. Any past student will tell you, the best social life is not in the biggest city!!! Sheffield is a good example of a campus-based (=social) uni in a decent sized city in an affordable and interesting area. And good for science!

by the way we don't do the whole 'major/minor' thing in the UK. 3 years of science all day and you're done. It's great. Of course people should be encouraged to have a broad education, but to me it's patronising for subjects to be enforced at degree level, when degrees themselves aren't compulsory. For me, that is the point at which you are an adult and have the maturity to choose to either specialise or not study further.

Yep the best known cannibalistic tribe in Papua New Guinea is the Fore group. They ate their dead at funerary feats until it was banned in 1957. I think they thought it was kind of rude to throw your relatives in a hole and let them rot. Anyway they suffered from an epidemic of a prion disease called kuru (not the same as CJD but caused by the same thing). Presumably one person just happened to have a sporadic case of prion disease, got eaten, spread it and so on. I think it became the leading cause of death at one point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29