jimmydasaint

I know it's crazy but at least the holidays are good Tree. Love the radio station link mate. Have been looking up the music that I grew up with (UFO, Ted Nugent, Oasis, Verve and Underground Dub and Reggae)

OK - no bites huh? I asked two questions but they merged into incomprehensibility or inconsequentiality. Let me try again: 1. Co-evolution must involve different selection pressures - any ideas on which pressures? 2. Evolution has worked at multi speeds in the past. Is it possible that evolution of 'master switches' of genes allows Nature to put the foot on the evolution accelerator pedal?

Wow!! I am humbled by such talent and such a wide range of knowledge in this Forum. As a postgrad with a couple of post-docs behind me, I feel so thick here. However, my teaching schedule is to teach Yr 9's Monday, Yr 7, 9, 10, 11 Tuesday, Yr's 12, 9, two bottom set Yr 11's on Wednesday, Yr 12, Yr 11, Yr 9, Yr 10 on Thursday. Yrs 7, 9, 11, 8 on Friday. I think the people with the most to learn are the teachers, not the students. CERTAINLY true in my case. Good luck to all of you.

As you know the yucca plant has a unique method of pollination - and it is quite recondite: http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0902a.htm The selection pressures on both the pollinator and pollinated are slightly different - for example, the yucca plant does not have to survive predators. The method of evolution of both the yucca plant and its moth has been termed co-evolution - a marvellous term! The question is that the mechanisms by which co-evolution occurs are mysterious although theories exist. I just wanted to stimulate discussion on the possibility that epigenetic factors exist where the co-evolution of species can occur in a short time scale. Reading material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution http://www.jstor.org/pss/3298524 Epigenetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

JC, on 26 July 2009, the Independent produced the following figures: http://lifeandstyle.independentminds.livejournal.com/616420.html I take your point about the worst case scenario for the spread of a mutated and highly dangerous virus. However, when the spread of flu is mild, then the approach should be to avoid panic and reassure people and not issue figures of a potential 65,000 deaths from the virus (in a worst case scenario). If it does mutate then the obvious signs would be very high death rates, which are not present as yet.

OK i-alien, let's say I go along with that line. The deaths are highly unfortunate and sad for the families that have contracted the flu. However, most, if not all, of the people who died had underlying health conditions. Most people who were ill recovered. If Tamiflu use becomes widespread, what's to say that it will not start off strains of the virus that are resistant to Tamiflu? So now you have two problems - resistance to the antiviral drug and also the spread of mutated forms of flu? I would be interested in how lethal mutations will react to Tamiflu using in vivo models. Any ideas?

That's what I thought at first but the mild flu we had in Britain includes a sore throat, exhaustion and cold virus symptoms- I know because I had it, followed closely by my wife and children. Compare this to nightmares, insomnia and nausea...I don't know...

It seems that a high number of children have been reporting side effects after taking Tamiflu. Apparently, these include nausea, insomnia and nightmares - pretty frightening if you are a child! Should these antivirals be modified and more extensively tested, and is there a need for Government to legislate for more thorough clinical testing before letting them loose on children? Your comments please. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090731/tuk-swine-flu-drug-has-side-effects-6323e80.html

You have to do your reading, but I guess school's out now. Nevertheless, please work your way carefully through this : http://www.biologymad.com/ A2 Biology and especially the Genetics, Inheritance and Variation Section. If there are any problems, just holler.

My mistake about Freunds but in humans the original point still stands - soluble antigens are unlikely to be used for immunogenic responses in experimental animals, or humans, without immunopotentiators. In humans, I am not sure what is used as a carrier - is it Aluminium salts? Yes just found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15315845?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

I apologise in advance to Obama supporters. I admire his talents and had high hopes that a Middle East settlement would finally be pushed through using his undoubted intelligence and (up until recently) diplomatic skills. Yet you guys seem to have consensus politics in exactly the same way as the UK with no substantial policy changes from Government to Government. In other words, America is in a Butskellite quagmire.

I agree that in vivo studies with controls are a must, but experimenters have to start somewhere. I spent a lot of time extracting antigens in vitro because access to in vivo methods would have required further purification steps by HPLC or column chromatography. It was too messy to perform in vivo. I was testing in vitro as a precursor to in vivo work. I had no idea that some papers were published without review - that seems slack. IMHO it is easier to use electrotherapy which can be made portable and allow patients some form of motion rather than IV drips of colchicine. I don't know the reason though. This is where it gets a bit more controversial. For viral diseases, the evidence seems to be entirely anecdotal and uncontrolled. However, I don't know...I was reading about Jung at the weekend, and he was prepared to use methods which would be considered highly unscientific but he seems to have considered them acceptable as long as the patient was cured. I think of my dear old Mum who has diabetes type II and if electrotherapy claimed to work for her, I would seriously consider it. However, the claims made for viral treatment are on shaky foundations and it is difficult to find any controlled studies, let alone any double blind studies. I suppose the jury is still out for electrotherapy of viral diseases.

I am trying to stay relatively neutral here. However, I am trying to find some merit in this treatment for people who may have no other conventional option left. For example, there is a reference here to a Nanotechnology Symposium here and apoptosis of tumour cells: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040311071327.htm Also, a reference to the following: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10/4359967/04487107.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4487107&authDecision=-203 but if it ain't Nature or Cell then I guess it does not cut the mustard eh? Oh, hang on mate, will this count as an in vivo study? It is not controlled though which is an error par excellence but the reviewers seemed to accept the findings: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070802100748.htm As for the mechanism by which the disease is arrested, the following is stated in the Discussion: I think the 'alternative' therapies of today may become mainstream and conventional tomorrow.

I agree with you on some of what you have said -i_alien. However, note that some of the contra-indications have been discovered in post marketing stages: I take your point that underlying medical conditions have not been mentioned but I still feel a bit wary of the consequences.

I have heard about the possibility of 65000 deaths in the UK alone as a consequence of re-infection in the winter with the H1N1 strain of the flu virus. The devastating symptoms of the 'strong' form of the flu scare the hell out of me to be honest. http://m.telegraph.co.uk/article/5828423/ However, do we all walk around with face masks on? Or do we use Tamiflu. A quick search of the contra-indications of oseltamivir seem to leave me with the thought that I may have to just take my chances... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir

Mokele - surely one should not dismiss apparent alternative theories out of hand before further investigation has been performed. I have found one reference amongst many others which are peer-reviewed and seem to have some merit in terms of experimental science. IMHO, it is important for people who use these theories to provide testable hypothesis and then control their experiments, as you have mentioned. However, if it works then we have observed phenomena which are reproducible. Halfway to a theoretical explanation, in my view. Excellent thread which deserves more attention. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2396465 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8617998 http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/worp/abstract.00021763-200705000-00015.htm;jsessionid=KpVDhgPDPZJkJ2LGhPRr0WpQPsqGGhl93JjC1tMssrWzHVTV8Qgw!1032775582!181195628!8091!-1 (Abstract only)

Thanks for that answer GDG. I don't think, IMO, that many researchers or clinicians would ever administer soluble antigens without a suitable immunopotentiator- for example Freunds adjuvant, IIRC. And yes, it would make sense that the lymphatics will present antigens suitably to the specific arm of the immune system. However the other advantage of intramuscular injection, apart from slower, more gradual delivery of the suitable chemical, is that it can be administered far more easily to a patient in any position without having to turn the patient around for suitable large veins. I have found some advantages and disadvantages below: http://www.tbrhsc.net/clinical_partners/base_hospital/cme/2008%20IM%20Study%20Guide.pdf

Thanks for this find CharonY - as always, top bracket stuff. I hope the winter does not exacerbate flu symptoms too much.

I'm still watching the Fame series but will check them out. A hilarious way to spend a Thursday. Cheers mate.

Wonderful stuff. This is Gervais at his best. I saw one of his charity gigs on the gogglebox and the material in it was not as good as his FAME shows. In fact, I was disappointed at the weakness of his material in his charity show. He must save the best for his commericially sound gigs because these had the superb timing and genuinely good gags (with a few politically incorrect jokes about cancer patients).

Of course there is a long way to go, from mouse studies to actual clinical trials and then awaiting the results. I agree with you. However in the light of the following, I think it is critical to proceed with clinical trials as soon as possible: http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_what_is_alzheimers.asp

IMHO, there is nothing that SJG said that is in the slightest unorthodox. If I remember correctly, and CDarwin has summarised these arguments, the hypothesis about evolutionary change has to be based around whatever fossil records there exist. However, it is somewhat ridiculous to suggest that biological theory can be based upon political principles of upheaval and revolution, resulting in rapid change. In fact, policies that were based on Marxist philosophy relied upon the original work of the philosopher and logician Hegel. He saw life as a struggle between opposites : 'thesis' and 'antithesis' which then resolved in a 'synthesis.' http://www.hegel.net/ IIRC, Marx and Engels work was not holistic in nature and its dialectical materialism seems to be based upon practicalities of economic theory and the materialistic idealism that would state that the current system is destined to be the best. As a work of Science, it barely explained the mysteries of Nature which even a man of Hegel's talent could not explain. The 'Marxist' Science which has been performed in the light of a Marxist ideology was actually more Lamarckian in tone and has been termed Lysenkoism. This man, Lysenko, was an idiot and embarked upon bizarre Lamarckian science without an empirical framework, eventually leading to crop failures in the Stalinist USSR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism To attempt to put S.J. Gould, an accomplished scientist and polymath, in the same light as apparent liberal science shows huge ignorance of the scientific method itself. I don't think S.J. would have been so obtuse. As to the O.P., I have not read anything which rejects punctuated equilibrium as being against scientific orthodoxy. It is a working hypothesis based upon evidence.

GDG, can you please back up your statement with an appropriate reference. IMHO, both routes are effective at inducing immune responses, although the IV route is faster. IMHO, again, the intramuscular injections are easier and have become established custom and practice.

Nice find cameron. Another identifiable marker of hypertension and a means of possible diagnosis, I guess. Another reason to modify my diet to reduce caffeine, sugar, salts and fats. Hang on, that IS most of my diet!