Copper and Alzheimer's

It seems to me that there is usually a study somewhere done by somebody that will show anything you eat, breath, touch or even just look at will cause something terrible to happen to you (or the universe in general).

If I live to 80, I really won't give a s*** if I suffer some decrepitude or whatever since that's enought time to do everything I wanted to do and can afford and there is not a lot I can do about by that time anyway.

Cheers
 
You might be the stupidest claimed PhD I've ever encountered. I fully understood your response. Your response was solely made to try and pat yourself and your colleagues on the back while dismissing anything that someone else who isn't in your little PhD club might have to say.

And no, I did not say observing climate changes it. Being as smart and all knowing as you are compared to someone like me who is looked upon by you as someone who needs an instruction card on how to breathe, you should in all of your infinite wisdom know exactly what I was saying in that we lack a control in regards to our climate. Because you're so smart and all.

Enlighten us almighty enlightener!!

You are assuming that a control strictly means a second system not subject to the effect under study. This is wrong. It's ideal if you can do that, but it is almost always impossible in an observational science. An alternative is to study variations in the effect at hand, and this often is possible in an observational science. This is a form of control that you have completely dismissed. It's how astronomy is almost always done, and always has been. It's also the crux of your argument about climate. They really are analogous, and that you don't see that means you're not understanding.

You won't admit you overlooked something in a million years, so I'm not going to wait around for it. I have better things to do than argue with SGOTI who thinks he knows a lot more than he does. Now, back to actually doing some science. That's more than you've done lately, isn't it?
 
"The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642


Edit: quotation marks added by me as a quotation from the article.....
I really don't get your point.

I wouldn't use NPR as a reference for science, nor would I use Fox News either. Most of the information easily available to us on global warming is published by those that wish to effect some kind of political change. Some people wish to support man-made climate change as a theory so they get money to replace petroleum; others wish to deny it so they don't fund these projects, or so the money goes someplace else. This theory is so politicized that it is really difficult to get good information to make sound voting decisions. Politics or the courts, both sides claim they have the correct information for gain.
 
Which is impossible with no control. It's not like we have another planet Earth at a Lagrange point, where we can watch what happens with no humans present.
Not really. The lack of a control certainly makes it more difficult. There are various global climate models that are put forward. The better ones correctly anticipate climate changes, the others don't. The theories are based on models and there isn't one, single "climate change model".

It's sort of like the weather forecasts we get. We use different weather models than we used some time ago because the data and the models are better refined. We don't have controls that allow us to "replay" the weather either, just let the various models run with the same inputs and see which one gives the output that most closely matches the weather in a locality. These models could use improvement, people are working on it, new weather models will supercede current ones.
 
There are number of houses with plastic plumbing, or use filters for their drinking water. Also, depending on where a water softener is located, that might capture a bunch of copper ions as well. There should be reduced Alzheimers in those homes compared to the ones with standard plumbing. An epidemiological study could be done that could support or refute this theory. Probably be a very messy study too.
 
No, it didn't. Do you have documentation of a significant portion of twenty somethings suffering from Alzheimers? There will always be outliers to the norm. A case here, or a case there does not a trend make.

Yeah, you don't know what early onset Alzheimer's is.
 
I really don't get your point.

I wouldn't use NPR as a reference for science, nor would I use Fox News either. Most of the information easily available to us on global warming is published by those that wish to effect some kind of political change. Some people wish to support man-made climate change as a theory so they get money to replace petroleum; others wish to deny it so they don't fund these projects, or so the money goes someplace else. This theory is so politicized that it is really difficult to get good information to make sound voting decisions. Politics or the courts, both sides claim they have the correct information for gain.

That's pretty much my point Capn, good ole Al Gore has said that the science is settled concerning man made global warming, in his mind, and in the policies he and other global warmists are pushing there is no room for the possibility they are wrong. Al just recently compared "deniers" to homophobes, racists and slave owners...
 
Yeah, you don't know what early onset Alzheimer's is.

I'm guessing it's AD that, just a wild guess here, onsets early? Is the person over 40? That's on the back side of the life curve. Not early in my book. Anything past 40, you're most likely more than half way done with life. That's not early in life. Early in life is more than half remaining. So where's all these 20 and 30 year olds with AD that it's an issue?
 
I'm guessing it's AD that, just a wild guess here, onsets early? Is the person over 40? That's on the back side of the life curve. Not early in my book. Anything past 40, you're most likely more than half way done with life. That's not early in life. Early in life is more than half remaining. So where's all these 20 and 30 year olds with AD that it's an issue?

My old man's Alzheimers likely started when he was my age.
 
My old man's Alzheimers likely started when he was my age.

And I'm pretty sure you are on the other side of 40 from me. I expect things to start breaking (even moreso than now) starting next year for me. Which is why I don't think of anything your side of 40 to be "early."
 
That's pretty much my point Capn, good ole Al Gore has said that the science is settled concerning man made global warming, in his mind, and in the policies he and other global warmists are pushing there is no room for the possibility they are wrong. Al just recently compared "deniers" to homophobes, racists and slave owners...
I still don't get your point, or how it fits in with Alzheimers theories.
 
I still don't get your point, or how it fits in with Alzheimers theories.

His point was that politicians and some scientists prematurely announce "this is the way it is, the science has spoken." Wait a few years, "uh, yeah, what we said a few years ago, we were wrong."

When that happens a few times, people aren't as likely to believe the next announcement. It seems that it's always X that causes Y, then it's not X but X1 then not X1 but X2, then not X2 but X3...

Rather than being the first to announce something, how about just be correct about it?

I know the process is to eliminate all the Xn possibilities to arrive at the correct conclusion, but while eliminating them as possibilities, maybe don't announce them as the cause.
 
Last edited:
His point was that politicians and some scientists prematurely announce "this is the way it is, the science has spoken." Wait a few years, "uh, yeah, what we said a few years ago, we were wrong."

When that happens a few times, people aren't as likely to believe the next announcement. It seems that it's always X that causes Y, then it's not X but X1 then not X1 but X2, then not X2 but X3...

Rather than being the first to announce something, how about just be correct about it?

I know the process is to eliminate all the Xn possibilities to arrive at the correct conclusion, but while eliminating them as possibilities, maybe don't announce them as the cause.
Went a funny way to make a point. He should have stated it as you have.

As for being correct first, nothing would get done. Most announcements start in the scientific papers and someone picks up on it, often the university marketing department sending out a press release that others pick up.

Einsteins's theories are "more correct" than Newton's theories. If Newton didn't publish, there would be no foundation for Einstein to build upon. Theories are published all the time; those that make correct predictions tend to be used; those that don't make correct predictions are discarded or modified, but they do need to be announced in some fashion so that they can be debated and tested. Most of the time, the announcement is in some journal.
 
Sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees.....

Thank you EdFred, unfortunately the politicians rarely admit they were wrong, especially when it involves billions of dollars and there is no settled science, only some scientists that are arrogant or outright dishonest and charlatan politicians.
 
Sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees.....

Thank you EdFred, unfortunately the politicians rarely admit they were wrong, especially when it involves billions of dollars and there is no settled science, only some scientists that are arrogant or outright dishonest and charlatan politicians.

Again, I myself have overturned scientific dogma a decade old. Any scientist will admit they were wrong when confronted with convincing data. What constitutes "convincing" is debatable, and scientists have ego and are human like the rest of us.
 
So, in reading the article, I am left witn any number of questions....

Assuming the ultimate research indicts copper piping, does it isloate between copper itself and the lead from solder that was used in said piping for many decades? Likewise, what about the leaching of chemicals from PVC piping & the glues used to join the pipes - is copper more or less harmful?

It may very well be that copper is one factor among several. Or it may turn out to be a rabbit hole. We have certainly seen other conclusions/theories debunked many years later. Heck, some folks belive that floridated water is harmful....

I also take note that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Personally, I'll wait to see more of the the science on this one.
 
Why be a scientist at $150k per year max salary when you can go to Wall-street and steal millions as a banker or stock broker or trader or a number of other positions.
Because trading stocks might be boring to a scientist? Or maybe the scientist is smart enough to realize that for every person getting rich on Wall-street there are plenty getting nowhere?
 
Because trading stocks might be boring to a scientist? Or maybe the scientist is smart enough to realize that for every person getting rich on Wall-street there are plenty getting nowhere?

The scientist needs to realize that it is very difficult to get rich with the "progressive", "pay your fair share", confiscatory income taxes here in the US. Generally, the Harvard MBA types get rich off the scientists backs, all the while convincing them that the MBA business acumen is much more important to success than doing the work and creating the innovation. If only the scientists were as smart as they think they are, I'll throw engineers in with the scientists also.....
 
The scientist needs to realize that it is very difficult to get rich with the "progressive", "pay your fair share", confiscatory income taxes here in the US. Generally, the Harvard MBA types get rich off the scientists backs, all the while convincing them that the MBA business acumen is much more important to success than doing the work and creating the innovation. If only the scientists were as smart as they think they are, I'll throw engineers in with the scientists also.....

Most scientists don't have the knowledge to run a business any more than most MBAs can make a discovery. In drug discovery? Lots of things are tried, but very few actually pan out. The scientist is really an expense for the big pharma companies.

The statement is contradictory, unless the tax laws are different for the MBA and the scientist, since it was stated that the "...Harvard MBA types get rich..." While "the scientist needs to realize it is difficult to get rich with the...confiscatory income taxes here in the US".
 
Being a scientist gives one tremendous freedom and job satisfaction. Doctors treat disease, scientists cure disease. Something to be said for leaving the world a better place than you found it.
 
Being a scientist gives one tremendous freedom and job satisfaction. Doctors treat disease, scientists cure disease. Something to be said for leaving the world a better place than you found it.
IME, that and the potential for fame among colleagues is far more important to most "scientists" than fortune.

And most folks drawn into the engineering ranks are very risk adverse which makes them unlikely to succeed on Wall Street IMO.
 
Last edited:
Being a scientist gives one tremendous freedom and job satisfaction. Doctors treat disease, scientists cure disease. Something to be said for leaving the world a better place than you found it.

Are you serious? You're eliminating natures ability to control Mankind's population making it an overpopulated planet filled with hate and pollution and running out of fresh water. You're destroying the world making it a living hell, not making it a better place.
 
Are you serious? You're eliminating natures ability to control Mankind's population making it an overpopulated planet filled with hate and pollution and running out of fresh water. You're destroying the world making it a living hell, not making it a better place.

Scientists don't make hate. I really don't know how any thinking person can come up with that. Hate started way back when our ancestors were something closer to chimpanzees.

The population started to grow back when people learned to make weapons to get more meat than scavenging a leopards kill, grew faster when people learned they could store excess food, when the domesticated plants and animals, and so forth.

Yeah- Mike Steingar is personally responsible for all the ills of the world.

Edit- scientists also provide methods for controlling the population without resorting to murder. Many countries are seeing population declines thanks to this work.
 
Last edited:
Scientists don't make hate. I really don't know how any thinking person can come up with that. Hate started way back when our ancestors were something closer to chimpanzees.

The population started to grow back when people learned to make weapons to get more meat than scavenging a leopards kill, grew faster when people learned they could store excess food, when the domesticated plants and animals, and so forth.

Yeah- Mike Steingar is personally responsible for all that.

Yeah, but it took 50,000 years to get the first billion people. When science started making bigger advances, the next billion only took 100 years, then 30, then 15. That's the problem.
 
Yeah, but it took 50,000 years to get the first billion people. When science started making bigger advances, the next billion only took 100 years, then 30, then 15. That's the problem.

So you guys are blaming Mike for that? I made an edit while you were posting, you may want to read that.
 
Scientists don't make hate. I really don't know how any thinking person can come up with that. Hate started way back when our ancestors were something closer to chimpanzees.

The population started to grow back when people learned to make weapons to get more meat than scavenging a leopards kill, grew faster when people learned they could store excess food, when the domesticated plants and animals, and so forth.

Yeah- Mike Steingar is personally responsible for all that.

Read again, and try not to twist my words as you normally do. I did not say scientists and doctors produced hate, I said they are producing a world filled with hate as that is an outcome of over crowding and overpopulating the available resource. The population of humanity was quite stable for several millenia until the advent of the Small Pox vaccine which was at the cusp of the modern medical era. With the advent of antibiotics in the 1940s, the population growth curve really headed towards the vertical side of the slope.

image.jpg

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/themes/keytheme1.htm
 
Read again, and try not to twist my words as you normally do. I did not say scientists and doctors produced hate, I said they are producing a world filled with hate. The population of humanity was quite stable for several millenia until the advent of the Small Pox vaccine which was at the cusp of the modern medical era. With the advent of antibiotics in the 1940s, the population growth curve really headed towards the vertical side of the slope.
I quoted you. What you wrote is what you wrote.

That graph looks the same if you zoom in on it for most of human history, it's an exponential curve.

Like I said in my edit, scientists also gave the means to control population. Europe as a whole is seeing population declines. China is down to under 0.5% population growth, the trend is heading down. It's still a lot of people, but going in the right direction. Even India is seeing reduced population growth.
 
Most scientists don't have the knowledge to run a business any more than most MBAs can make a discovery. In drug discovery? Lots of things are tried, but very few actually pan out. The scientist is really an expense for the big pharma companies.

The statement is contradictory, unless the tax laws are different for the MBA and the scientist, since it was stated that the "...Harvard MBA types get rich..." While "the scientist needs to realize it is difficult to get rich with the...confiscatory income taxes here in the US".


How is the statement contradictory????? You've almost answered your own question, but not quite. I'm very suspicious of a scientist that would make such a statement without even a rudimentary understanding of what is being discussed or the curiosity as to what I am talking about...

As to the concept of different skill sets for scientific discovery versus running a business, the MBA's apparently are smart enough to know their limitations as to developing scientific innovation, they hire scientists and profit handsomely. Whereas scientists are apparently not smart enough, if I follow your logic, to hire business expertise and control their own destiny and profit. MBA's are much easier to find than scientists who can truly innovate...

The fact that you call the scientist an expense for the pharma company versus pharma's bread and butter asset, shows how truly brow beaten scientists are by their MBA overlords......

think man, think....... :mad2:
 
I quoted you. What you wrote is what you wrote.

That graph looks the same if you zoom in on it for most of human history, it's an exponential curve.

Like I said in my edit, scientists also gave the means to control population. Europe as a whole is seeing population declines. China is down to under 0.5% population growth, the trend is heading down. It's still a lot of people, but going in the right direction. Even India is seeing reduced population growth.

No you didn't quote me, you said. "Scientists don't make hate" I never said they did. If you look in the article there is another graph that projects back even further thousands of years and the growth rate is rather linear and low. The trend in developed countries may be slowing, only China has ever managed negative and we condemned their methodology. In the mean time, Africa and South America are on the increase. While scientists have given us a technology for population control, they have failed to instill a morality for population control. So what we have now is those countries which don't have any population control are exporting their excesses to the nations that do. The net result is the same, the world's population will exceed the world's fresh water resources in the next 20 years or so.

The question scientists have always failed to ask is, "Is mankind ready for this?"
 
Last edited:
How is the statement contradictory????? You've almost answered your own question, but not quite. I'm very suspicious of a scientist that would make such a statement without even a rudimentary understanding of what is being discussed or the curiosity as to what I am talking about...

As to the concept of different skill sets for scientific discovery versus running a business, the MBA's apparently are smart enough to know their limitations as to developing scientific innovation, they hire scientists and profit handsomely. Whereas scientists are apparently not smart enough, if I follow your logic, to hire business expertise and control their own destiny and profit. MBA's are much easier to find than scientists who can truly innovate...

The fact that you call the scientist an expense for the pharma company versus pharma's bread and butter asset, shows how truly brow beaten scientists are by their MBA overlords......

think man, think....... :mad2:
I certainly did think. Large pharma companies have hundreds of scientists working for them, directly or indirectly. They come up with thousands of compound for screening. Most show weak activity and are dropped. Others show activity in multiple assays are are dropped due to side effects. Many of the remainder show poor efficacy in a living biological system. Getting into animal studies, others fail there due to poor response or toxicity. We haven't even gotten to clinical trials yet, where more drop out. There's scientists in all these steps monitoring the trials, running the ADME studies, etc. scientists do more than make new discoveries, they also push forward the potential product and generate the data that makes or breaks a compound. A company may get one new compound to become a drug in a year. If all those scientists aren't an expense, I don't know what is. There's also no one person that makes "the discovery". There's the biologist that builds on existing data to make a new protein screen, the computational chemists that comes up with the list of possible functional groups potentially needed on a molecule and their special location to interact with the biology, the synthetic chemist that makes the can dictate compounds, and so forth. So who's the inventor here?

Likewise, we need MBAs to determine ROI on a drug discovery project, marketing budget, and so forth. MBAs also crunch the numbers for licensing agreements. Different knowledge base than being a chemist. Most MBAs don't make the 1% either.

As for the contradiction, how is it that an MBA can become rich while a scientist can't while they both work under the same tax laws? Are the tax laws different for scientists than MBAs?
 
As for the contradiction, how is it that an MBA can become rich while a scientist can't while they both work under the same tax laws? Are the tax laws different for scientists than MBAs?

Quite simple, the product at any company is Money, Pharma companies are not excepted. Scientists just make the tools that make the money, same as a machinist at a tool and die shop. It's the MBAs that push the business side where the money is produced.
 
No you didn't quote me, you said. "Scientists don't make hate" I never said they did. If you look in the article there is another graph that projects back even further thousands of years and the growth rate is rather linear and low. The trend in developed countries may be slowing, only China has ever managed negative and we condemned their methodology. In the mean time, Africa and South America are on the increase. While scientists have given us a technology for population control, they have failed to instill a morality for population control. So what we have now is those countries which don't have any population control are exporting their excesses to the nations that do. The net result is the same, the world's population will exceed the world's fresh water resources in the next 20 years or so.

The question scientists have always failed to ask is, "Is mankind ready for this?"
It's not a scientists job to instill morality. That our job as an individual. Most people seem to let their church or government determine their morality.

I certainly haven't condemned China for what they do in their border- it's their country.

Actually, you missed some stuff. The EU as a whole has negatives population growth due to birth rate. As the other countries develop, their birth rate will go down.

Much of the population growth is just because there's more and better food, allowing people to fight off disease. Simple things like mosquito nets help as much as anything, possibly more because they are cheaper than drugs, to reduce malaria. Learning how to boil water reduced cholera and other diseases. These things probably saved more lives than vaccines.
 
Quite simple, the product at any company is Money, Pharma companies are not excepted. Scientists just make the tools that make the money, same as a machinist at a tool and die shop. It's the MBAs that push the business side where the money is produced.

Almost right. The best companies take a team approach. The workers are needed as much as the MBA.
 
......

Likewise, we need MBAs to determine ROI on a drug discovery project, marketing budget, and so forth. MBAs also crunch the numbers for licensing agreements. Different knowledge base than being a chemist. Most MBAs don't make the 1% either.

As for the contradiction, how is it that an MBA can become rich while a scientist can't while they both work under the same tax laws? Are the tax laws different for scientists than MBAs?

Ok Cap'n, first of all, an expense needs to be mitigated, reduced or better yet, eliminated. Each one of those scientists is an asset, if they produce, pure and simple. It is much easier for a manager to manage expectations if a human asset thinks of himself as an expense, a drain on the enterprise rather than an integral cog in the machine that produces billions of dollars, that asset is much less likely to expect to be compensated true to his worth. He thinks his manager is doing him a favor by employing him. (or her). Most scientists (and engineers) I know sell themselves short. Maybe they have mastered organic chemistry,maybe it's nuclear physics, yet they think that what they do is just a support role to the business guy, who "crunches numbers" , meanwhile those numbers the business guy is crunching are a product of simple addition and subtraction, if you have a phd, you can crunch those numbers and with your knowledge of how the product or process works, you can make better business decisions than some MBA in his ivory tower. Or better yet, you can hire an MBA to crunch the numbers for you, then make the decisions.

Unfortunately technologists, with a few notable exceptions, relegate themselves to a subservient role to the MBA who partied his way through school, and is out partying while you burn the midnight oil making him money.

The people who make it to the 1% understand that it is very difficult to get there via a salary because in short order, more than half that salary can end up going to income taxes, fed, state and local, payroll taxes and other taxes. People who run the business on the other hand take their compensation by outright ownership in addition to a salary. Gains on ownership are taxed at a much lower rate and not subject to payroll taxes. A million dollars in salary nets less than $500,000 in most states, a million in capital gains can yield in the area of $800,000 after taxes, IF you choose to cash that gain in.... if you don't cash it in you don't pay the tax.

You seem like a pretty intelligent guy Capn, think about it, maybe instead of worrying about the cost of 100LL, you could be tooling around in a G650.
 
I always liked Ian Malcom's quote in Jurassic Park when it comes to science.
(paraphrased)
"You were so busy worrying about whether you could do it, that you never stopped to think about if you should."

Followed up with

"What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world."

I can't say that I disagree. I think we've gone too far with science and saving people.
 
Ok Cap'n, first of all, an expense needs to be mitigated, reduced or better yet, eliminated. Each one of those scientists is an asset, if they produce, pure and simple. It is much easier for a manager to manage expectations if a human asset thinks of himself as an expense, a drain on the enterprise rather than an integral cog in the machine that produces billions of dollars, that asset is much less likely to expect to be compensated true to his worth. He thinks his manager is doing him a favor by employing him. (or her). Most scientists (and engineers) I know sell themselves short. Maybe they have mastered organic chemistry,maybe it's nuclear physics, yet they think that what they do is just a support role to the business guy, who "crunches numbers" , meanwhile those numbers the business guy is crunching are a product of simple addition and subtraction, if you have a phd, you can crunch those numbers and with your knowledge of how the product or process works, you can make better business decisions than some MBA in his ivory tower. Or better yet, you can hire an MBA to crunch the numbers for you, then make the decisions.

Unfortunately technologists, with a few notable exceptions, relegate themselves to a subservient role to the MBA who partied his way through school, and is out partying while you burn the midnight oil making him money.

The people who make it to the 1% understand that it is very difficult to get there via a salary because in short order, more than half that salary can end up going to income taxes, fed, state and local, payroll taxes and other taxes. People who run the business on the other hand take their compensation by outright ownership in addition to a salary. Gains on ownership are taxed at a much lower rate and not subject to payroll taxes. A million dollars in salary nets less than $500,000 in most states, a million in capital gains can yield in the area of $800,000 after taxes, IF you choose to cash that gain in.... if you don't cash it in you don't pay the tax.

You seem like a pretty intelligent guy Capn, think about it, maybe instead of worrying about the cost of 100LL, you could be tooling around in a G650.
Fact of society is we can't all be owners. In a pharma company, many of he upper managers are PhDs that got an MBA. Next time you look at an annual report, look at the credentials of the officers. many had "PhD" after their name. The MBA isn't a difficult degree to obtain.

As for the scientist being an expense to be eliminated, that is true. Look at what WuXi does- they do the R&D for big pharma. Most discovery chemistry in pharma has been outsourced to them, AMRI, and other companies. I don't agree with the process, I actually like your point of view better, but that isn't the world we live in.

As for owning a company, love to do it. Wish I had the great idea. For a pharma company, one still needs to get the idea to the point of making a viable molecule. This means the owner scientist needs to assemble a team, get the lab/office space, equipment, etc. this takes capital, so s/he goes to the venture capital market. Once they get. A viable molecule, it needs to get throng clinical trials-more capital needed. At this point, the scientist sells off to a big pharma that has the resources for the trials and marketing it the drug makes it. The scientist that did most of the work gets a couple of million, the VC that merely provided some money gets hundreds of millions.

Sounds like your complaint is more against the tax laws and should probably be raised in spin zone.
 
Back
Top