John Cuthber

In the 60s people would have said the same sort of thing about space travel. We had all those starving people... OK but space research brought us satellites which, inturn let us map things like global temperature and ozone levels. Without the "pointless" space research you wouldn't even know that the world was in trouble. Just because you can't see the advantages of research doesn't make it a bad thing.

"There has never been, as far as I'm aware, any significant research into this area." Perhaps you should have looked into it before making that statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremelanotide but seriously, you didn't think people would have been looking for working aphrodisiacs? Why on earth not? Also, can you possibly get it into your head that I'm not trying to prevent this? What I'm trying to do is stop bad science. "Nor is it valid to bring up the topic of erectile dysfunction (although after many years of taking aspirin I can categorically state that I have never encountered the issues you speak of) - and to somehow attempt to use this as a means to discount the effect." You may have noticed that I didn't raise this as anything to do with the cause of your findings. Moontanman did so. I'm the one who said "Having said that, the supposed effect isn't about erections so... "

How about "Billions of years and religion's opinion on the matter is unimportant."

It is interesting to note that while homosexual behaviour is known in many species, homophobia has only been recorded in one. This suggests that the latter behaviour is much more "unnatural" than the former.

Several "gay genes" have been discovered so it's not arguable.

"Also it is you, and not I who suggested the importance of doing a full scale formal trial. (A trial which you have subsequently dismissed as 'pointless'.) " No, a proper trial wouldn't be pointless. However the one that you suggested that I did would be pointless. That's why I'm not going to bother. " A pill that anyone can already buy for pennies is likely to be of little interest to a great many funding bodies. " I think that it's fair to say that at best aspirin doesn't work this way for everyone. However if it were proven to have this effect then it would trigger research into other similar chemicals to see if they worked better, for a wider selection of men and so on. The funding companies are quite prepared to spend money on these sorts of thing. they are called "lead compounds" (lead as in the verb rather than heavy metal). Perhaps most importantly "Anyway I get it that you don't like this idea " Nope, not at all, and I can't see where you got the idea that I don't like the idea. I'd be delighted if this were true. What I don't like is the notion that you can forget about science, and make a claim without proper evidence. You have made the extraordinary claim that a widely used drug has a clear effect that nobody noticed. Where is your extraordinary evidence? Also are you sure about "Nor did I deride you from not doing an experiment. "? Given that you wrote the following. " I cannot understand why you will not even contemplate trying it - and would prefer instead to just sling as much mud at it as you possibly can? " "even though you have shown a willingness to do so without even as much as trying it for yourself" "Just refusing to try it, dumping on the idea and coming here to complain about why you don't like it (although that is still far from clear at this point)" I explained why it would be pointless- it wouldn't be double blind for a start. Incidentally, the effect of aspirin on the blood is largely on the clotting. Clearly useful if you have a heart attack. As I understand it, if anything it tends to increase blood flow which, paradoxically, will reduce erections. What holds them up is restricted outflow. If you increase the flow they disappear. Having said that, the supposed effect isn't about erections so...

"The base for logic for almost 2000 years has been the logic of aristotle," Not entirely, it hasn't. He got too many things wrong. http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-bio/#H8

at any significant rate

I think you are right, but it would be better to rewrite the sentence.

They say they made the change to save money so I don't see a lot of wriggle room with the idea that they paid less. The fact that they mentioned the change in the way in which the service was delivered strongly suggests that the change was relevant (though I grant that with modern reporting there's no guarantee of that). That rather implies that, before 2003 this event wouldn't have happened. So they pay less and end up with a state of affairs where a lifeguard gets sacked for saving someone. In my book, that's they paid less and got less.

It's interesting to note that you say there's no need to shout. Shouting got you to answer the question: nothing else had. It's also interesting that you say that you don't have the time and resources to do a useful experiment, but you deride me for not doing a pointless one. People sometimes take aspirin for a short while as a result of things like toothache or colds. While it's true that most people who are prescribed aspirin are told to take if long-term I think many people who take it are not getting it prescribed- they just buy some at the chemist's or the supermarket. "My answer to your question therefore, is that even if anyone had noticed this before, I would guess that they faced a similar dilemma to me.Where exactly do you discuss matters of this nature - and who would you even speak to if you wished to?" Your doctor. If I found myself in your position I'd certainly ask my doctor- not least because I'd ask if there was anything I could do to improve the effect. Also as I said: there's a precedent. Viagra was discovered by accident (I know it's not the same effect- but the issues are pretty similar) . People really did report the effect even though it would have been embarrassing. And finally, you might want to read this again and see who is slinging mud. "In any case I cannot understand why you will not even contemplate trying it - and would prefer instead to just sling as much mud at it as you possibly can? (Although with little effect up to this point.) I can only assume that perhaps you either lack the libido, or the opportunity to try? Should this be the case however, this is certainly not something I feel qualified to help you with. Nonetheless, if this is not the case, then why not try it - in whichever way you feel is most scientifically rigorous and appealing to you? I confess though that I have never previously thought the act of lovemaking as a science. However if you wish to treat it as such, I''m sure you will gain many useful insights in the course of your observations. (With notebook and slide-rule in hand no doubt!)"

Much as I'd like to stop and list Maggies' failings I can't really blame her for that one, she didn't invade the Falklands: Galtieri did. In any event, by that stage she was a politician rather than a scientist. It may well be better if politicians were to sort out their differences in a boxing ring, but the fact remains that including doctors and scientists in that list but leaving out religious leaders is somewhere between bizarre and biassed.

"First I don't have the resources, or the time, or the money to run a proper full scale test." Others may, but what you asked was that they avoided that sort of test. "Somehow I just don't see this being an attractive funding proposition for any of the research bodies I know of, or have worked with in the past." Have you seen how much money Pfizer made from viagra? "Thirdly, with the greatest of respect, you really are still just being a wet soggy towel over the whole matter, and have maintained your naysayer credentials intact from the outset." And I will continue to maintain my naysayer attitude until you answer one simple question How come nobody noticed this before?

Since, as you say, you don't know about dimensional analysis, why did you claim to use it? "No valid support at all, both religion and science may be the same as dimensional analysis in where natural units disappears." "The point is when you point the finger at "anyone" especially when you hold positions as a scientist, doctor, leader and etc, people follow you... " You missed preacher off the list of people likely to be followed. Was there a reason for that? As far as I know, no scientist or doctor has ever started a war.

Just a thought but, if that was the first time we saw the Higgs, does it mean that, for the first time ever, the Higgs boson saw us. I wonder what it thought?

What I think is that they paid less: they got less: someone nearly died.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/ALDRICH/Z544825?lang=en&region=GB Other variable take off heads are available.

It looks like they employed a company that got it wrong too.

Why not just cut out the middleman and save money then?

" If we know the elements of orange juice, why the natural and the artificial juices taste so different? " because a better fake would be more expensive. Also, the elements are not the whole story. There's the question of their arrangement into compounds and the relative proportion of those compounds.

Because it avoids the issue raised in the OP: "But where to draw the line between what is good for the company, and what's good for humanity?" There is no "company".

"I will get back to you with the mind-blowing truth as soon as my pyramid comes back, as it has currently been sent away for repairs." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law "That's probably because there was a problem with his pyramid. Might not have been properly charged with energy. Or it could have been faulty and the energy could have escaped. Did anyone think to call in a pyramidologist to diagnose the fault?" How did they get the energy to "charge" the Egyptian ones? Also, odd as it may seem, Runcorn in the 1980s didn't have a lot of "pyramidologists" to call in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runcorn

Nothing to do with health and safety: a lot to do with ambulance-chasing lawyers and stupid interpretations of rules. http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm

So that's why you don't get a company to do that sort of thing. You make it a local government responsibility. Governments are big enough to effectively self-insure so this sort of thing is much less likely to arise. This problem was entirely foreseeable back in 2003.

So, lets be clear about this. You want to explicitly fail to do a proper study of the effect.