Lone Star Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 First off, it cannot be that simple. But wait there must be more to it. Like when the dye was injected, immediately after the injury, dose of course, length of time before results etc. Blue mice, smoo mice. We already have blue people. They are called the Blue people of Tennessee. They have an anomoly in their blood that gives them a blue hue. This condition is known as argyria, and was caused by drinking a solution of colloidal silver in water. This 'cure' was touted as the 'cure all' that would fix just about anything that ailed you.... The condition is permanent.
chaser Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 ...Useful article from a medical point of view? Not even a little bit.... Dwayne I have to respectfully disagree. You know what researchers call The New England Journal of Medicine? "The People" magazine of research. I don't know who funded this particular study, that's irrelevant (usually, not always- but I usually check). My point is, after what is published goes out, many of those studies are replicated by thousands of scientists. Why? Because there may be something worth further research. ....I really hate pseudoscience reporting. Dwayne Me too. I would not say there is no merit at all in this study. But you never know from what mistakes others have made, or small steps, breakthroughs come out, or further ideas may generate.
Happiness Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 The only question that I have is WHO would ever think of injecting a mouse with a spinal injury with the same blue dye as a M&M. Some peoples imagination with always amaze me. I heard once the spca went after a lady who dyed her dog pink with beet juice wonder what they would say about this.
DwayneEMTP Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 I have to respectfully disagree. You know what researchers call The New England Journal of Medicine? "The People" magazine of research. I don't know who funded this particular study, that's irrelevant (usually, not always- but I usually check). My point is, after what is published goes out, many of those studies are replicated by thousands of scientists. Why? Because there may be something worth further research. Me too. I would not say there is no merit at all in this study. But you never know from what mistakes others have made, or small steps, breakthroughs come out, or further ideas may generate. I would disagree with your belief that publication equals replication. Actually in the scientific community one of the major failures today is that there is almost no replication happening. There is a lot of money for original research, for getting your name in the paper for your school or company, but when was the last time you heard someone get famous because they duplicated someone else's breakthrough? Publication gains a lot of money for schools and scientists, but creats almost no verification. Also, I think you misunderstood my original point. Does it sound as if this is worthwhile area for study? sure. Anything that will increase functionality of those with spinal issues is a good thing. I wasn't dissin' the study, but the reporting. I absolutely abhor statements such as "The mice that were injected with the die walked again." All of them? Immediately? No serious side effects? Bullshit. I hate these articles because ignorant people consider them "knowledge" when in fact this article is no different than reading about Sasquach (sorry ak) in the Enquirer. It's a bunch of sensational nonesense that will get many desparate people all excited that perhaps there is a cure just around the corner. See what I mean? I don't really have any opinion of the research with the exception that I have little respect for a scientist that sits for interviews with idiots. Good to have you back here girl! Dwayne
chaser Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 The only question that I have is WHO would ever think of injecting a mouse with a spinal injury with the same blue dye as a M&M. Some peoples imagination with always amaze me... It is not random. The molecule P2XP seems to kill ATP in spinal cord injuries, the introduction of BBG (the blue dye) may help with this, and help cells destroyed.
Christopher.Collins Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 So... looking at this mouse makes me wonder if we should rule out a blue M&M addiction before assuming cyanossis?
chaser Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 I would disagree with your belief that publication equals replication. Actually in the scientific community one of the major failures today is that there is almost no replication happening... Dwayne Actually, there are many researchers who try to validate previous results ( and who receive funding and grants). Or many researchers who extrapulate results from previous findings to further their own research that might vary in a slight way. ...I absolutely abhor statements such as "The mice that were injected with the die walked again." All of them? Immediately? No serious side effects?...I hate these articles because ignorant people consider them "knowledge" when in fact this article is no different than reading about Sasquach (sorry ak) in the Enquirer. It's a bunch of sensational nonesense that will get many desparate people all excited that perhaps there is a cure just around the corner. Dwayne Yes, I hate this also, that is the "People Magazine" part of research. Results are thrown out before there is further tangible proof the results are valid, and people jump out to make a quick buck on a miracle cure. Sometimes for very bad results. And, BTW, good to see you too Dwayne!!
spenac Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Sorry I have not had time to reply as I have been scraping all the blue M&M's. Anyone know a faster way? I figure get it ready in case and ad it to my zombie whacker pack, right next to the morphine.
Lone Star Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) I would disagree with your belief that publication equals replication. Actually in the scientific community one of the major failures today is that there is almost no replication happening. There is a lot of money for original research, for getting your name in the paper for your school or company, but when was the last time you heard someone get famous because they duplicated someone else's breakthrough? Publication gains a lot of money for schools and scientists, but creats almost no verification. There have been many cases of instructors/professors/teachers/scientists (pick your term) that have lost their jobs because they've not been 'published', or it's been X_________(insert time frame here) since they've been 'published'... I absolutely abhor statements such as "The mice that were injected with the die walked again." All of them? Immediately? No serious side effects? Bullshit. I have to agree here Dwayne. They make it sound like Jesus curing the lame. One magic shot, and the mouse went from being a paraplegic to up and walking again, with no 'supportive measures' needed. Hi, Billy Mays here! Are you tired of sitting around in that wheelchair? Tired of having to have people constantly having to tend to you 24 hours a day? Have I got the answer for you! I hate these articles because ignorant people consider them "knowledge" when in fact this article is no different than reading about Sasquach (sorry ak) in the Enquirer. It's a bunch of sensational nonesense that will get many desparate people all excited that perhaps there is a cure just around the corner. Bigfoot ain't real? Obviously sir, you haven't met my ex-wife! *post edited for gramatical content* Edited July 29, 2009 by Lone Star
Michael Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 None of the uninjected mice walked again? Bullshit. Okay, okay, not exactly "walked," but were let off with 30 days community service. Close enough.
Recommended Posts