CharonY

Again, people use all kind of beliefs as basis for religion. I do not see evidence that people ever used relative knowledge to do so. At best it would be a weak justification, but only after people already decided to believe in something. Take evolution, for example. Some religions (such as Catholicism) integrated it into their belief system. Others (such as creationists) just deny it. The level of evidence does not play a role (and it does not get much more firm than that). So lack of evidence is unlikely to hold a lot of sway either way.

And I ask again, what would be different from the current situation? And why do you think would it lead to an increase?

Then what relevance does it have whether science figure out how it may have worked?

That has little to do with the science behind it, though. People choose to believe in things without scientific evidence already. How does it change from the situation as it is right now?

There is basically an unlimited amount of things that we don't know. Including things that we don't know that we know. It is part of the scientific enterprise to look for them and, at times, not coming up with an answer. We keep pushing boundaries, but ultimately that is all we can hope for. I do not see why the origin of life would take a special spot in that regard.

I would argue that you could also apply a utilitarian view on that matter. As a corollary to reducing poverty one could e.g. expect a reduction in crime, which could seen as a societal benefit for everyone, for example. Similar arguments could be made for public health and other matters.

A few general pointers first. The initial degradation often occurs in an extracellular space, though smaller oligosaccharides can be transported into the cells first. These intial degradation steps tend to be hydrolysis reactions, and thus generally do not release byproducts other than the cleaved sugars. Sugar metabolism itself does not release methane per se, though. It is more closely connect to respiration, in which a carbon body (rather than O2) is used as terminal electron acceptor. Methanogens in the human gut include (IIRC) are mostly arachaea including Methaninobrevibacter and Methanospaera species. Overall, methanogenesis is, in a way, a bit of a niche metabolic pathway. An excellent overview on bacterial species and metabolism is the Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Based on your questions I note that you are actually interested in many levels of bacterial interactions, which is very difficult to put into a simple view due to the intrinsic complexity. Ultimately basically all metabolic possibilities are somehow realized in bacteria and even in a limited niche there are complex metabolite flows. So it can be difficult to find your way through. Do not be discouraged, though as it is a fascinating topic.

Immunotherapy for various cancer types is currently a hot topic with some promising results. They have to be highly adapted, and some variations require developing and tailoring them for each patient. While promising, it still remains to be seen whether they can be successfully used as a generalized therapy for certain cancer forms.

Actually many bacteria are able to utilize oligo- and even polysaccharides, so it is not necessarily a special feature of these genera. Also, humans can also digest certain poly- as well as oligosaccharides. The basic requirement is to have enzymes that can break down the long chain sugars into monosaccharides that then can be fed to the respective sugar metabolism pathways. So there is not a general pathway for oligosaccharides but it depends on the type carbohydrate chain you start out with. Or in other words, if you lack those enzymes, the respective oligo- or polysaccharides become indigestible. For example, sucrase hydrolyses sucrose (a disaccharide) into fructose and glucose. The latter can then be utilized directly.

Well, Pfitzer beat them to the race in the US, so I guess there is a question whether it is worthwhile to do so (I have no idea, though). One thing of note, however. There has been a recent warning in Canda that there may be increased risk of hemolysis if Bexsero is used with Soliris, a treatment for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

It is a bit silly though. On the high end most countries have a couple of kids that perform extremely well. That has never been the big issue. However, raising the broad population is where the heavy lifting comes in.

Well, as you know the ultimate answer is that Novartis or now GSK has not moved forward with fulfilling the requirements for vaccination below 10 years. In the light of the vaccination division changing hands it is very likely that it got stuck in limbo a bit (especially as another vaccine for that age group has recently been approved by the FDA). The relevant bit is probably to point out that the FDA and EMA have broadly similar approaches to risk evaluation and management. I should clarify that the study in question was submitted and approved in the EU. For the FDA I cannot find updates, so it could be waiting on either side.

Why? The other submissions would be part of a separate (extended) approval process. I.e. that part is either not fully submitted or still under revision, or may potentially be dropped (e.g. if there is not desire to market it for use in younger children in the US). The most likely scenario, however, is that they used the study to hit the EU market with an altered vaccination schedule. What you probably also should be aware of is that Novartis (the company that developed Bexsero) has been integrated into GlaxoSmithKline, which may have changed or delayed expansion of their product reach. So what you see there are business and regulatory issues, but not really safety concerns.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, and I should/would have linked the info if I wasn't in a rush and had the info in a linkable format. But here is the approval letter that should explain things. As you can see, it went through an accelerated pipeline (due to already being approved in the EU and fulfilling all the requirements) and had the additional studies deferred. One should be done by now and a second by 2018.

I think it is structurally close to impossible to relegate the rights to the federal level. It would already be a struggle to transfer responsibility to the state level (which I would agree, would be a good first step). That being said, I am not even sure which large countries do not have some level of decentralization of the education system. Also, I am not sure whether a central governance would be an improvement per se, as it would depend a lot on how it is actually implemented. I am not entirely sure whether e.g. state-level governance with additional federal funds would be vastly different.

To add to the parents bit: if that was to be considered, then low-income parents with low education would be in a double-bind, even at K12 level. Often they have to work more and thus having less time to spend on their children (and may not be able to assist as well, too). On top they can only afford to live in an area where the school is underfunded.

I agree, it seems to be a huge issue. There are huge discrepancies of student scores just coming from different schools and generally they correlate with how wealthy the respective district is (due to vast differences in property taxes). Even things like providing cheaper or free school meals has a huge impact. It is unlikely that a single system would fly in the US, as K12 school is managed on the state level. But I agree that at least on the state level a more even distribution of funding is desired. In fact, I would suggest that in poor areas more funding should be allocated as the benefit would outweigh the benefits of making good schools marginally better. As a whole I don't think focusing on producing the best students is the most important goal (as compared to whom?). From a societal point of view raising the average, especially by elevating low performers seems to be a better solution to social issues.

It think String is right. The FDA itself does not conduct studies, but reviews the submission of the manufacturers. Most likely the manufacturers only requested approval for the 10-25 version (which requires two injections) and not the 2-10 one. The other version (which is single injection for younger children) was either not filed or is still under review. Edit: actually I found the paperwork. Essentially it states that all the requirement for the 10-25 submission are fulfilled and thereby approved, but require two additional studies for the younger groups. The main reasons are regulatory differences between the USA and Europe, especially with regard to infant testing (i.e. you cannot just submit the data from a test group you had in Europe).

Pretty much that. I believe looking at lactose intolerance incidence in children there appears to be no significant increase over the years. However, demographic changes has to be factored in as in certain populations lactose intolerance is more common.

That may be the case, but the first question should be: "What allows the infection to spread?" Rather than "why are males more immune?". The latter contains unproven assumptions.

As I said, due the low numbers of incidences (32 out of probably a few millions, as time frames have not been mentioned) inferring differences is probably not terribly significant. Also, it can also mean that there is something different in the 32 or individuals as compared to the million or so other infections. Thus, even if you infer something, it you cannot generalize the finding. And finally, without further health data, you cannot latch on the only information you got (i.e. gender) as there may be other similarities among the 32 patients that are different from the majority of people being infected with strepotococci (genetic background? type of infection? co-infection? other health conditions?). Also, at minimum one should add how whether there are gender differences in strep infection. A simple assumption is that those infections may be transmitted by children (as they easily acquire diseases from school). And they may have more contact with mothers than fathers. Of course differences in immune responses may also play a role, but it is important to have sufficient information to estimate the relative contribution. As I said, there is not enough information in the article to form meaningful hypotheses.

It is probably difficult. Anything that is sufficient in amount to be seen may be potentially a) also used by the dog as cue or b) my have an odor in itself. I wonder if something fluorescent could work.

As an interesting side point, it appears that most people in the 1-5 million in investable assets bracket do not consider themselves wealthy (only 28% do). Passing that point, 60% consider themselves wealthy. While Trump is well beyond that point, it would indicate that otherwise wealthy people are probably having a hard time realizing the struggle of the working poor. After all, if they do not consider themselves wealthy, what category would the middle and working class fall into?

Actually, the articles says that have only been 32 cases of (I assume) Streptococcus infecting stomach (though the description is rather vague). The million is probably referring to regular infections. So while there have been more female cases, the overall number is so low that it could have been pure chance. I.e. there could have been secondary infections, immune system issues etc. Again, not enough details in the article for any level of speculation.

Possible and rather typical for what effectively is fusion food (but less pretentious). Incidentally, food is for me one of the best arguments for immigration.