Glider

Perhaps a good idea to wait a few days then. Beyond tasting nice, Vit C tablets won't make any noticable difference to your illness. Whilst Vit C levels are associated with immune function, this is (as far as I know) only in the direction that Vit C depletion impairs immune function. If your levels are ok, then taking more won't do any good. It won't prevent illness and it certainly won't cure it. Vit C suppliments are fairly harmless, but as far as I remember, you shouldn't take more than around 500mg per day unless you really need to. Really high bolus doses of ABs can knock out gut bacteria and cause diarrhoea, which can be quite severe if the doses are high enough, but it's unusual to be on that high a dose for a course of treatment. Doses like that are usually used to combat things like acute post-op infections. How high a dose are you on? If you are on a level that's causing gut problems, the effects only should be temporary and your gut should settle down and re-establish its own balance once you've finished the course. I doubt you'd need probiotics, but I can't see Actimel or its equivalent doing any harm. If you are suffering from the effects of high dose ABs, it's probably as well to consider that you will not be digesting stuff as well as usual and stick to a simple (easily digestible) diet for a while. It sounds like you're not having a good time at the moment. I hope you feel better soon. PS. I just had a look at some notes online, and I found that high doses of Vitamin C can also cause stomach ache and diarrhoea in some people, so it may not be a good idea to take 1000 mg tablets if you are already suffering from those problems.

Yes, have a wander about in the fresh air if you feel up to it. Normally makes me feel better.

Yes, I have. What do you need?

I'm not sure this is strictly true. For example, a neuron may fire, but it's effect is not always exitatory. It may be inhibitory (increasing the AP threshold in the next neuron). We also have neurones that signal when they're 'off' (e.g. the 'dark' current in retinal cells). We also have temporal and spacial summation and long term potentiation. We also have retrograde messaging where information is sent chemically back up an axon. I'm no expert on computers, but I doubt very much that computer circuits display many/any of these properties.

Some years ago, there was a faulty batch of synthetic drugs released onto the streets. This substance had the unfortunate side effect of destroying dopaminergic cells in the substantia nigra, which resulted in severe Parkinsonian syndrome which presented as 'freezing' in the same way as those people in the film "Awakenings" (the one with Robin Williams playing Oliver Sacks). Anyway, they found that L-Dopa 'awoke' these patients, but only for a while, and the periods of awakenings got shorter over time until the required dose was to high to be given safely, at which point the patients reverted to their 'frozen' state permanently. During the active period of therapy (whilst the drug was effective), these people would be more or less normal, with normal mobility, and on one such occasion, a particular patient, being an addict, 'reverted to type' and left the hospital with the intent of burgling a house so he could buy some drugs. He selected his target and broke in. Unfortunately, a neighbour heard him and called the police. It took the police some time to arrive, but when they eventually did, they found the house empty. When they searched around the premises, they had a look in the back garden. There they found the burgler, with his right arm and right leg hooked over the fence, where he had been hanging, completely frozen, for around half an hour. Needless to say, he did not resist arrest, but he couldn't be read his rights or answer any questions until he had recieved another dose of L-Dopa.

In some cases yes, but some bacteria are pyrogenic themselves; they prefer elevated temperatures. Either way, flu is caused by a virus, so YT's pyrexia won't help in this case. It's the secondary infections he has to fight (chest etc.), and he has ABs for those. The benefits of increased metabolic rate with respect to increased white cell production outweight the benefits of pyrexia alone. Temps of 104 can be harmful if maintained, and higher than that can be fatal, so controlling the fever becomes an issue.

By 'drink plenty of fluids' they mean drink more than you would normally. You get dehydrated very quckly whan you are as ill as you sound. With a temp of 104, it's best to cool down, or at least, not allow your fever to get any higher. That's too high to maintain safely for any protracted period. The problem is, it's unpleasant. With a temperature that high, you feel very cold anyway, so the last thing you want to do is to cool down. If you don't want to do the wrapping yourself in wet towels thing (which is what they would do if you were an in patient and your temp. got much higher) a couple of Paracetomol can reduce the fever. Take a couple and after about 20 minutes, you should start feeling hot and start to sweat (that shows your temperature is dropping) and then you can unwrap, which will also help keep your temp. down. Don't let yourself become chilled though. Your aim is to control your temperature around normal levels. Elevated temperature is a by-product of infection, or more accurately, of a speeded up metabolism which helps increases white-cell production. The temperature increase is not an end in itself, and in itself, does not really help you fight infection. So, you can try to keep your temperature controlled without impeding your immune function. It's a good idea to do so in fact, because elevated temperature over a period of time brings its own problems.

True

This makes it less likely to have been hypoglycaemia.

You're missing a category; 'Minimum required'

Yes. it sounds very much like the beginnings of a panic attack.

No. I choose not to. Don't do it.

I do? Are you sure?

The dominant theory is that the voices people hear are their own inner voices (which we all have), but in these cases, they fail to recognise them as such. It's a part of the 'split' characterising schitzophrenia.

Which ones? What the hell are you on about?

There are no pictures taken through the retina to my knowledge. The images were taken through the lens & cornea by a camera that had been placed where the retina would be, had the eye still been in the body. I saw them in a book, although I can't remember which one now. It was years ago.

Do not mis-quote me. It's very annoying. No, it was a general request to anybody wishing to express a view on the subject, not to use the social sciences as exemplars of 'non-sciences' or 'pseudosciences', without at least being specific as to which social science they are referring. As I said, the term 'social sciences' is an umbralla term encompassing many disciplines. To lump them all together in order to provide an example of 'non-science', or even of 'corrupted science' is inaccurate, misleading and fuels existing stereotypes. Yet, so many 'hard' scientists are social scientists. As for the public, in general, they don't know the difference between a Psychological Scientist and a Psychotherapist and rely on stereotypes for their definitions of the social sciences; "Anything with Psych at the beginning must be all the same" (pretty much the same mentality that caused an anti paedophile mob to burn down the house of a paediatrician). I think it should be reasonable to expect people in this forum who are prepared to comment on the social sciences, or to wield them as examples of anything, to have a slightly deeper understanding of them than that.

Social science is an extremely broad term, and inacurate; the term is 'social sciences' because it encompasses several disciplines, though admittedly, some are more disciplined that others. In any event, please be careful how you use it, and particularly, how disparaging you are towards it, particularly if you don't really understand it.

I think the question is premature. I think it should wait until people have worked out a purpose for life before death.

No. This is because all we recieve are electro-chemical impulses and it is not possible to capture, digitally or otherwise, the ultimate perception. People have managed to capture the image that the lens projects to the retina though. It's surprisingly poor (and upside down), which is an indicator of the amount of work the brain does to produce the finished percept. As for the relationship between the eye and the brain, the eye (or the retina, to be precise) is actually part of the brain.

Just for the sake of pedantry: Nerve transmission rates depend on the fibre. For example, small non-myelinated fibres (e.g. C fibres) have a transmission rate of around 0.2 - 0.5 metres per second. Large myelinated afferent and efferent fibres have transmission rates of around 300 - 400 metres per second.

Any time. Stats are not as bad as people say. Most useful things, when misused, will bite you in the arse. Common sense (specifically, the lack thereof) can make a worst enemy of most friends. For example, using a really useful mains powered razor in the bath, or slapping a horse on the arse when it didn't know you were there.

Well, this is where the whole 'ridgid science' thing breaks down. There are really only two ways of specifying effect size for an a priori test (as you say, it's easy enough post hoc). You can either read around previous studies in the area and see what effect sizes they generated, or you can take a best guess; based on what effect you are looking for, what effect size would it be reasonable to expect? Either way only gives you an estimate, but estimates are the only option, because clearly, you cannot calculate the size of an effect you haven't even tested for.

EQ tests are at the very best, questionable. To begin with, attempts to define "Emotional Intelligence" are shaky, to say the least. Attempts to measure it (i.e. the vast majority of instruments that exist, online, in magazines and in pop Psychology books) suffer many psychometric problems. Moreover, the strongest correlations between items on any EQ test and established tests exist between those measuring personality traits (e.g. Introversion, extroversion and neuroticism). This suggests that tests of EQ are largely measuring only existing personality traits and then calling them 'Emotional Intelligence' which makes them spurious. The worrying thing about them is that they are being hawked by private companies using such hype as "...for jobs of all kinds, emotional intelligence is twice as important as IQ plus technical skills. Emotional intelligence is more than 85% of what sets star performers from the average" (http://ei.haygroup.com/default.asp). 'Popular' books also tend to make outlandish claims, such as: "Empathy and other qualities of the heart make it more likely that your marriage will thrive. Lack of those abilities explains why people of high IQ can be such disastrous pilots of their personal lives". (Golman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Such claims are completely unsupportable.

Moreover, as they tend not to live for too long after retirement, they are also significantly less of a drain on pensions, long-term care for the elderly and so-on.