I have to say that even with the bugs, Bethesda has done one of the best jobs on arranging DLC for their games. I feel like their method where DLC as a sort of short story format is release every few months after the game is pretty perfect.
I wish more companies had done something similar like Valve with L4D and 2K with Bioshock.
The real question- is this a display of the good side of the force or the dark side of the force?
Not just "a" dark corner but the *hundreds* of dark corners in your home.
Sorry I ment to qualify on Xbox.
But for some reasons known and unknown these types of games (see also: TeamFortress2 and Monday Night Combat) never quite flourish. And in the end they seems to die due to a small player base or the company not quite being able to support them.
Alright I apparently have an under-appreciation for how often MDs still prescribe antibiotics in cases where:
1. they know its a virus but somehow get talked/badgered into giving antibiotics and
2. giving antibiotics for an unknown/generic symptoms, as Viremia pointed out.
1. they know its a virus but somehow get talked/badgered into giving antibiotics and
2. giving antibiotics for an unknown/generic symptoms, as Viremia pointed out.
But my question still remains-- is it really true that in the post-80's decades, treatment-resistant diseases are due to the reasons above OR is the resistance far more specific to appropriate treatment regimes? The article suggests with gonorrhea, resistance is conferred through mutations with selection by 3rd gen drug and one horizontal gene transfer from a commensal neisseria.
"Reduced susceptibility to cephalosporins results from the combined effects of several chromosomal gene mutations, including mutations in penA, the gene that encodes penicillin-binding protein 2 (PBP2); penB, which affects drug entry through an outer membrane protein channel (PorB1b), and mtrR, a repressor of the MtrCDE-encoded pump. A novel DNA cassette with multiple penA mutations (mosaic penA) is common in strains with reduced susceptibility to cefixime; the cassette may have been acquired through horizontal transfer from oral commensal neisseria."
I agree that the entire problem is cause by a variety of factors, but its interesting to figure out which factors cause what type of resistance.
Jesus with that Doublefine game at 1.5 million 0_o, I guess our conversation occurred only hours too early.
Yeah but doctors have not been giving patients antibiotics for viruses, especially STIs, for the past 20 years. The majority of anti-drug resistant bacteria/viruses are now resistant to formerly appropriate treatments (as is the case with this article), not gaining novel resistance from improper treatment (so gonorrhea did not gain resistance to antibiotics because it was being treated with HIV-antivirals).
I would love if BF3 just adopted Reach's matchmaking system and team/party grouping. I never realized how much I loved such a simple design until I had to work with BF3's crappy one.
I think a large majority of the blame can also be placed on patients who don't take all of their medication and take old medication when they have a relapse of the same disease. I am willing to bet this has played a large part of disease evolution...killing off just enough, but not all.
Doctors and scientists have known about this for years, but doctors in particular are still required to treat a patient. Would YOU actually tell a sick person, "I'm sorry we can't give you this drug because it my select for a stronger bacteria/virus, so you'll just have to suffer."
It wasn't a fluke. Those *3* people where cured (well 2 by 100% and 1 by 70%) using T cells modified with a lentivirus (a very stripped down version of HIV) caring a gene that encodes a receptor for their particular cancer. Its a big advance but now there will be a cautious scaling up of the patient number to make sure there are no adverse effects.
The gene they used can also be found in health cells as well so it will be interesting to tack those patients over a couple of years.
Except in the case of stomach ulcers (which you link) it was other physicians and scientists who did not believe one of their own. Not a greedy company holding back a cure. That is why Dr. Marshall had to drink the bacteria himself to prove to the others it was bacterial based and because he could not experiment on people (very difficult to get approval).
Apon a re-read, yes you can't eradicate or "cure" cancer in a population like say smallpox because its a disease associated with cell division and growth not an external pathogen.
And yeah I understand you don't need a stem cell any somatic cell will do. But I read your original comment too fast, but it because it not quite clear what you mean by "can never cure". I now get you are talking about never being able to eliminate every single stance in life of a cell being mutated.
However it maybe that humanity will develop better techology that can make occult tumor formation never become life-threatening much like a lot of viruses and bacteria in my body right now never bother me one bit. In that sense, cancer would be cured.
Your idea assumes the original mutations that cause the cancer are in a person's stem cell population. This is not true of a lot of cancers as Dr. Lizardo points out.
Here, here! Came for the sci-fi, comeback for the science!
Don't worry I thought the same thing too for a long time. Now the new animal that so far as we know that does not get cancer is the naked mole rat. I think Gizmodo did a thing on it [gizmodo.com]
So the story gets weirder.
I study the immune system and its role in cancer formation and I can say its not diet that is the primary factor in keeping the immune system from fighting cancer.
Its the fact that cancer comes from the human body itself and therefor lack a lot of the markers the immune system uses to identify "invaders" like bacteria, viruses or parasites. To the human immune system, a vast majority of cancers looks like a normal cells.
Cancer can also trick the immune system into help it grow again using methods that are not diet related and in fact are more similar to wound repair.
Finally, if a diet less than what you describe weakens the immune system so much then why are more people not sick at a clinically detectable level every single day (or at least week) of their lives?
@Qball26 its like your scientists and physician-researchers (over 90% paid for by your tax dollars via the NIH/NSF) are working hard in labs every day & night for YOU, the taxpayer.
I would think the eldritch gods would have no fear of such things, but there have several real clinical advances in the past 5 years. Maybe not the cure you want, but headway is being made in the research communities.
I fear it is mainly the media who over-hype findings and constantly talk too much about "a new cure" instead of just running the story as an advancement in research and understanding.
No. Afterall why did corporation create/develop a vaccine against a virus that causes cancer?
Can you name a single treatment or cure for a cancer that did not succeed but you thought it should have? I bet I can find scientific literature or explain myself the scientific reasons it did not work instead of "evil corporations".
Furthermore if disease is so profitable, why develop a chickenpox vaccine or a flu vaccine? Why not just create medicine that relieves symptoms but results in a chronic condition?
