If you look in the second paragraph, they say they used multiple-displacement amplification (MDA). This method reduces the amount of times that any copied DNA is re-amplified, allowing them to significantly reduce the issue you bring up.
There was an even more impressive example of synthetic biology taking on HIV treatment. The design involved re-engineering HIV to excise the retrovirus rather than integrating it into the genomes of infected cells:
What you see as a disparity, researchers and pharmaceuticals see as a honeypot. A cure for any form is a win for someone, but make no mistake that solid tumors are on a few institutions' big targets.
There's a few different approaches going on right now including (1) studying mechanisms of how tumors become drug resistant, (2) stimulating the immune system to better target the tumors, and (3) figuring out how to make those solid tumors spongy again.
> Would this operate better if it weren't on any 802.11 frequency, but another with less noise
Well, there main unlicensed bands used by hardware today are 2.4 (Full up), 5.8 (Filling), and 24.1 GHz (Relatively clear). If you want to get into other frequencies, you're going to need to license them ($$$). If you want to work with the frequencies already available, you're going to need to plan a little, since different frequencies have different speeds and penetrance.
Wirless meshs are neat in some aspects, a more guerilla approach to internet for sure, but you're definitely going to have an easier time dealing with bandwidth and noise if you just roll out your service over insulated wires.
> I would think dense wireless networks in urban areas could work
You've basically described mesh networks. There are a number in cities across America, but are normally run by enthusiasts.
The trouble is, in dense urban environments, there's a lot of noise to overcome, and if you don't work around that, your network will fall apart. Especially a problem with the coming 802.11ac routers which will crowd up the 5 GHz band that is current the target for backbone links in the wireless networks.
> Mortality rates between the drug-positive group or specifically, the cocaine-positive, morphine-positive, or cannabinoid-positive groups were not significantly different from the drug-negative groups (P < .3)
A number of 8.9 to 15.7 deaths per 1k live births doesn't necessarily imply a protective factor, especially when considering all the variable factors and a much smaller sample size compared to the drug negative group.
Also, caffeine isn't mentioned once on there, sure you don't mean cocaine?
> There are a bunch of books about this that you can get on Amazon. A good one I read is Overdosed America. But if you search on Amazon for 'statin' there are a lot more books that are specifically about this.
Make an argument here and cite your sources here, I'm not going to read a book just so I can respond to your post in half a month...
> The academic literature generally isn't a reliable source for information about pharmaceutical drugs, unless it's one of the NIH trials or another trial sponsored by an independent entity
How's a paper in a top tier medical journal[1]? It's paywalled, but if you actually care enough to read the information on the other side, I can grab you a copy. It's even registered on clinicaltrials.gov[2].
> I'm sure Ben Goldacre's new book probably covers the same stuff though.
This is one that I am somewhat familiar with. He makes plenty of good points with regards to transparency of information and reducing reporting bias, but you can't leap from that to the biggest drug on the market right now having zero efficacy.
> Plant-based medicines tend to be fairly forgiving about dosage. E.g. you're probably not going to get sick from eating any reasonably amount of oyster mushrooms, at least as long as they're fresh and you cook them properly.
False[4]. The end effect of consuming the plant material is a chemical ended up in your circulation at a given concentration. If that concentration is too high, you'll see adverse effects. If it's too low, you won't see any effect. At least in pill form, you know your dose and have quality assurance about that fact.
And we're ignoring the potential case of the process of cooking the food destroying the active compound...
> - It has zero to negative efficacy, at least for the for the vast majority of people taking it, and virtually no efficacy for the rest.
Citations? This is a pretty big claim for a FDA-approved drug that was the most profitable drug on the market as of 2011[1].
> - You can get generics that are equally 'effective' for virtually free.
As of last year, yeah, this is a fairly recent development that if you don't follow pharma, you'd be unlikely to know.
> - It's vastly less effective than even the most minimal of lifestyle interventions.
Generally statins are prescribed in combination with recommendations of dietary restriction.
> - If for some reason you really wanted to take those chemicals, you could just get them for free in your diet anyway. E.g. from red rice and I think certain other fungi.
You're thinking of a different active ingredient, monacolin K, which is also sold in pill form (Lovastatin[2]) and found in red yeast rice and oyster mushrooms. A quick literature search found Lipitor to be more efficacious[3] (Double blinded, placebo controlled, n = 1049).
Keep in mind that, as with all drugs, both are dose-dependent and have unpleasant side-effects when taken in combination with certain drugs, foods, and certain patient populations, such as pregnant women and those with liver disease. Hence why it's recommended to check with a doctor who is well versed in this matter, rather than self-prescribing at unknown dosages.
What worth would the 3d simulations produced by Blender's physics engine be? I'd imagine that they wouldn't even compare to those produced by full MD simulations, which are already of debatable correctness depending on the size of the system, force field + parameters, time step, solvent, etc...
Last I checked, it wasn't clear whether the amyloid plaque buildup was a cause or side effect of Alzheimer's. Has the understanding of this changed in the past four years?
It's also an extremely important medical condition to treat. If you show promise of a breakthrough in treating Alzheimer's, you can save hundreds of thousands of minds every single year. With the upcoming wave of elderly in the US, the cost of untreated Alzheimer's is predicted to skyrocket.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_displacement_amplific...