MonDie

oops

His education... or history of mental illness. Apparently mania may actually aid academic progress, at least until the later years when the disease progresses. http://psychcentral.com/lib/intelligence-linked-to-bipolar-disorder/

How does the insurer know the true cost of it if it's a new procedure? Perhaps that explains their reluctance to cover it. They could reimburse the researchers for a fraction of the standard treatment's cost, with the ratio depending on the relative prospect of success.

It looks like Quinnipiac University (where I got the article) is in the USA, but I haven't seen it mention study recruitment as an issue yet. From the citations and the hyperlink it seems to be a paper in their library from 2003-2004. It does say on the page numbered 707 that some insurers have agreed to cover trials funded by the National Institutes of Health, such as the National Cancer Institute. Perhaps in most instances they're able to draw all the subjects they need from just those insurers, but what about exceptionally rare conditions or non-NIH funded trials?

INSURANCE ROULETTE: THE EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT EXCLUSION & DESPERATE PATIENTS by Natalie L Regoli http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/pdf/SchoolLaw/LawReviewLibrary/34_22QLR697(2003-2004).pdf I've begun reading it. Although it has a legal focus, it has me wondering about the effect of such health insurance exclusions on scientific advancement. From page numbers 703 and 707, it looks like experimental treatments aren't covered even if they're part of an FDA funded trial, unless your condition is life threatening. This makes sense for the insurer since they want you to get better in the most monetarily efficient way possible. Indeed they only cover them for life threatening conditions because they fear litigation (707-708, Insurers cite outside pressures...). I'm unsure of the article's age, but I saw this same exclusion twice in my current health insurance plan. How do experimental researchers get patients on-board if their health insurance refuses to cover it? Does the funding organization pay for the procedures out-of-pocket? Wouldn't science progress more rapidly if the insurers would at least cover these experimental treatments with a higher copay -- why do insurers make such an all-or-nothing distinction?

An organism only needs to be good enough, not perfect. Do you think this is partly why genetic variation is tolerated? I'm reminded of the concept of mutation load. http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v16/n6/full/nrg3931.html

I hate this thread.

Graeme M, you can give subjects a choice, and the RP tells which choice they're about to make before the time they reportedly made it. I think this "choice" represents the "spontaneous act" you're looking for. Wolpe & Rowe 2014 have a different criticism. The reported time of decision might not be accurate, and they may need to develop more objective measures of the timing of the impulse to move. So... is our sense of free will erroneous, or is it our sense of timing of mental events that's wrong? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4064703/ The rest of this post is personal speculation, and a researcher in the field may be able to refute it. Anway, IMO, it's a problem that the brain wasn't wired for Libet tasks, but for tasks more like the following. A pellet will be shot at exactly 300 seconds, and I want to block it. However, it takes x milliseconds for the photoreceptor signals to reach my occipital lobe and for my brain to process them, and y milliseconds for the impulse to move to reach my arm. Might some built-in offsets be adaptive? Maybe there's a forward offset for movement impulses, causing me to judge the movement impulses as occurring late, and to thus send these impulses sooner. Thus an internal offset regarding the timing of mental events corrects for the external offset that is due to neural transit times. Maybe such an internal offset not only exists, but incidentally affects other judgements as well, like judging when a decision was made. They won't know until they have the more objective measures that Wolpe and Rowe speak of.

I'm jealous. Look into DD-WRT. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD-WRT

Bilaterians are triploblasts and triploblasts are bilaterians. Bilateria subdivides into deuterostomes and protostomes, or in molecular-based phylogeny there are two protostome clades: lophotrochozoa (contains mollusca) and ecdysozoa (contains arthropoda), but they are all triploblastic bilateria. The basal bilaterian Acoela might be an exception, I do not know.

Moving from proximate to ultimate, wouldn't it be better to have two of your most important organs? Imagine having an extra, back-up heart!

Perhaps the brain is a case in point that symmetry isn't always ideal. Lateralization means specialization by one hemisphere, for example the one controlling the dominant hand. Laterization is strikingly demonstrated by the polarities observed in split-brain patients. The nervous system forms from the ectoderm along with the tooth enamel and skin. I mention this because the triploblasty, the additional mesoderm, of bilaterians would suggest that the gastrula was still evolving. Someone who's taken anatomy could probably pick away at my reasoning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

The edit window remains open.

I can't determine whether it's safe. I usually check for safety and trustworthiness in the MyWOT comments section. Remember that we should be able to participate without following links.

In the USA, nicer grocers have vegetable racks for about one-fifth the store, plus a frozen veggies isle. Walmart and Target have little beyond the frozen veggies, but they supply more than food.

Of course children die from obesity, but that's very rare. Deaths from obesity about equal deaths of children under 5 from starvation, thus more life-years, if not more people overall. edit: TheTimes isn't much better, and I can't find this December 2012 "study" it speaks of. I liked the ScienceDirect article, but it doesn't support the claim that obesity kills more. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272523109000471

Your telegraph article said, worldwide, more than three million lives per year. The World Food Programme article says 3.1 million children per year. If you do the math from the CNN article, it's apparently double that. Maybe they're defining "child" differently. Either way I sunk your battleship.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/17/italy.food.summit/ "UN Cheif: Hunger kills 17,000 kids daily" -- CNN http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats World Food Programme "Hunger Statistics" "Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million each year"

Aside from the quality of your sources, obesity only kills the aged. Starvation kills children. More life-years are lost.

From your stomach's perspective, you can't get the apple's saccharides without digesting the apple flesh as a whole. From your tongue's perspective, the apple is what's delicious, and the sugar is merely what makes it delicious. You're eating the apple, not the sugar.

According to the article, premorbid IQ is normal. They only had higher arithmetic skills despite having higher grades overall. Thus the proposal that hypomania helped them focus on school.

Air is even more addictive. Are we talking saccharide sugars or cane sugar and beet sugar? Pure sucrose should be distinguished from the saccharides in your fruits and veggies.

Nobody cares what turns you on! You didn't contribute, or present anything that can be discussed. The default position is that cheerleaders are of normal intelligence and academic aptitude.

I know I've seen somewhere a uniform of short skirts with tights on underneath, like many ballerinas. Maybe it was just the cheerleaders at my old school making it school appropriate. It's not worse than a bathing suit, is it?

Classical conditioning may apply to human sexual arousal, suggesting the possibility of at least temporary amplified or lessened desire from reinforcement or lack thereof. I maintain my position.