JayB

I just scanned through the comments briefly, but it seemed as though decommissioning the upper stretch of the road above the washout would require...repairing the roadbed..in order to permit the passage of the heavy equipment necessary to do so. In other words, you'd have to fix the road in order to properly decommission it. It also seemed as though the fix-then-decommission plan is the *preferred* alternative over at the WTA? Rather than fixing or bypassing the washout and *not* subsequently decommissioning the rest of the road? Please correct me if I'm mistaken, since I didn't have time to read through all of the comments carefully. Also - any word on the cost for a proper decommissioning versus what it would cost to restore access to the campground?

I've used the slime tire skins and they seem to help.

It'd be a laughable conceit par excellance to suggest that anything involved in that outing was gnarly in any objective sense, but there were a few elements in there that established some boundary values on my personal yardstick. Contemplating the situation prior to moving away from the belay was one of them. Hopefully that'll remain the most consequential feeling 4th-class-traverse-to-decent-pro that I ever have to deal with. De-tilted. View from the belay

I'll trot this one out again...

I've found myself wanting to commend SC for his analysis here contra Jim in the same way that I found myself wanting to congratulate KFed on his parenting skills contra Brittney...

Your bias toward scientific studies is blindig you to new possibilities. I have dowsed for water. It was a mind blower. Can't explain it tho so it must have been a hallucination right? I pity you your narrow perspective. Seriously. It is sad in its limitations. "A mobile element based phylogeny of Old World monkeys Abstract SINEs (Short INterspersed Elements) are a class of non-autonomous mobile elements that are <500 bp in length and have no open reading frames. Individual SINE elements are essentially homoplasy free with known ancestral states, making them useful genetic systems for phylogenetic studies. Alunext term elements are the most successful SINE in primate genomes and have been utilized for resolving primate phylogenetic relationships and human population genetics. However, no previous termAlunext term based phylogenetic analysis has yet been performed to resolve relationships among Old World monkeys. Using both a computational approach and polymerase chain reaction display methodology, we identified 285 new previous termAlunext term insertions from sixteen Old World monkey taxa that were informative at various levels of catarrhine phylogeny. We have utilized these elements along with 12 previously reported loci to construct a phylogenetic tree of the selected taxa. Relationships among all major clades are in general agreement with other molecular and morphological data sets but have stronger statistical support. "

" FASEB J. 2005 Jun;19(8):960-2. Epub 2005 Mar 22. Identification of mTOR as a novel bifunctional target in chronic myeloid leukemia: dissection of growth-inhibitory and VEGF-suppressive effects of rapamycin in leukemic cells. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) has recently been described to be constitutively activated in Bcr-Abl-transformed cells and to mediate rapamycin-induced inhibition of growth in respective cell lines. We have recently shown that rapamycin down-regulates expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a mediator of leukemia-associated angiogenesis, in primary CML cells. In the present study, we analyzed growth-inhibitory in vitro and in vivo effects of rapamycin on primary CML cells and asked whether rapamycin-induced suppression of VEGF in leukemic cells is related to growth inhibition. Rapamycin dose dependently inhibited growth of primary CML cells obtained from patients with imatinib-responsive or imatinib-resistant disease as well as growth of Bcr-Abl-transformed imatinib-resistant cell lines. Moreover, we observed potent cytoreductive effects of rapamycin in a patient with imatinib-resistant Bcr-Abl+ leukemia. The growth-inhibitory effects of rapamycin on CML cells were found to be associated with G1 cell cycle arrest and with induction of apoptosis. In all cell types tested, rapamycin was found to down-regulate expression of VEGF. However, exogenously added VEGF did not counteract the rapamycin-induced decrease in proliferation. In conclusion, rapamycin inhibits growth of CML cells in vitro and in vivo and, in addition, down-regulates expression of VEGF. Both effects may contribute to the antileukemic activity of the drug in CML."

It's also worth noting that in your post one could substitute "dowsing rods" for homeopathy, and "gas deposits" for "treatment" and maintain the same level of logical and scientific rigor. I implore you to make an equally impassioned defense of dowsing as a "complimentary" method that belongs right alongside the methods of modern geology at the next conference or job interview you attend.

This is a misrepresentation. Rather, homeopathy as I understand it, as a disinterested outside observer, is that one dilutes the remedy only enough to make it safe. In New Zealand homeopathic medicine is covered under health plans, and a bunch of Kiwi climbers I met when I was down there used homeopathic remedies like arnica. They seemed to think it worked. Understanding how something works is not a prerequisite for using it in medicine. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to use anaesthetics in regular medicine - after more than a century there is still no scientifically accepted explanation for how exactly they work, just rules of thumb like "if it dissolves in olive oil, it may work". So rather than attacking homeopathy for not having a mechanism, it makes sense to me to test it and see what conditions it results in a positive outcome for. From what I understand it is successful in treating chronic conditions like allergies that regular medicine has a poor track record with alleviating. In short, a good complementary system of therapy to regular medicine, rather than a replacement - much like acupuncture, chiropractors, naturopathy etc. I have met people who swear by faith healing, and seem to think it works as well. Unfortunately for them, and for homeopaths, this isn't sufficient. I encourage you to put "Homeopathy" and "Law of Infinitessimals" into Google to see if I am actually misrepresenting the relationship between concentration and efficacy per homeopaths. The debate here isn't whether compounds contained within solutions sold as "homeopathic" remedies can produce an effect. The question is whether the fundamental principles which serve as the basis for the practice are scientifically valid and empirically testable. What differentiates the empiricism that you are making reference to in scientific medicine is that while it readily incorporates new therapies before the mechanism by which they work is understood - it has both methods and requirements for proving that they actually work. Homeopathy does not. Scientific medicine also provides a means of determining and understanding the specific mode of action of a particular drug or treatment, which makes it possible to improve the understanding of the disease process, as well as a rational framework for developing new treatments. Can you provide me with a single instance in which homeopathic methods have led to either? The other belief implicit in your statement is that scientific medicine will permanently reject treatments that have a proven efficacy - irrespective of the weight and quality of the evidence - simply because they are developed in another discipline. If something actually helps alleviate the suffering associated with a particular disease - or completely cures it - reproducibly in double blind clinical trials, you seem to be suggesting that: -Both research and practicing physicians will simply ignore it. -Pharmaceutical companies will dismiss the opportunity to profit from it. This could go on for a while, but it's getting late. When you develop a homeopathic remedy for the fat-virus, let me know.

I accept that this is the only thing that you've been led to believe about homeopathy, but what you have been led to believe about homeopathic medicine, and the principles that it's based upon are different. "Like cures like," and the more dilute the remedy, the more potent effect. Ergo, in order for a homeopathic remedy to work per the principles that the practice is based upon, in any case where a concentrated dose generates an effect - you'd have to see increasing effects at progressively lower doses. This has never happened, and will never happen - because homeopathy is based on 18th century folklore that has long since lapsed into fraud.

How do you personally define homeopathy? The two central doctrines are "Like cures like," and that the potency of a given compound is inversely proportional to its concentration. There has never been a single case where a homeopathic remedy worked according to the principles that the practice is based upon. In the rare cases where a "homeopathic" remedy has shown an effect, it's been a standard dose response to whatever the active ingredient in the compound is - just like any other drug. Dilute the "homeopathic" remedy and the effect diminishes in direct proportion to the dose, rather than increasing as you'd expect if the claims of the homeopaths were valid. Moreover - has there ever been a case where homeopaths have conducted empirical research and conclusively proven that one of their theories is wrong, or that a given remedy produces no effect? This happens in scientific medicine all of the time. If homeopaths have no empirical mechanism for determining what doesn't work, how confident are you that they have a sound basis for concluding that they know what does work? I'd note that open mindedness is one thing, credulity/gullibility is another. If you are really "open-minded" on this issue, you owe it to yourself to acquaint yourself with the most robust scientific critiques of the ideas that homeopathy is based upon, then decide whether you're still prepared to believe in it.

What in your mind differentiates someone practicing homeopathy from someone who believes that the root of all illness is demonic possession, and uses chants and incantations for treatment? The two are cannot be distinguished from one another in terms of their efficacy or their scientific basis.

You're practically sprinting backwards from your original statement, so I'll accept that as a retraction. I can work with that. Yes, addicts have a role in their recovery. And we can also agree that the sky is, occasionally, blue. Good on ya. This: "The real question, as far as I am concerned, is to what extent an absence of "willpower" or impulse control is hard-wired into us, and whether or not it's possible to overcome any inborn deficits in this area. I don't think that we have any answers that apply equally well to each and every individual, but I think that as a society we have to assume that people are responsible for their actions (unless there is a clear reason to conclude otherwise on account of profound retardation, insanity, dementia, etc), and that sane people can learn to overcome any deficits that they were born with in these areas - but that some people will require infinitely more help to do so." Was part of my original statement, but...whatever. Hopefully any addict that happens to read this will be sure to consult their homeopath before attempting any mode of addiction cessation....

"This is why addicts inevitably self destruct. Most addicts at the latter stages of their disease progression desperately want to stop, but they cannot. For the lucky few who are able to actually recover, what starts that process is usually some serious consequence, such as incarceration (which often involves medical detox) that forceably separates them from the drug of choice, then puts them on a path of gradual behavior modification, self awareness training, and group support." There are literally millions of people walking the streets who have quite smoking, for example - who quit cold turkey. How well you think that this narrative matches their experience?

I also said - right below this - that it's not clear how much impulse control, etc - that we are responsible for, and how much is inborn. It does seem clear that denying the addict any role or agency in quitting - however they became addicted - is retarded.

Despite your copious opinions, you apparently don't know shit about addiction. Thats OK. It's only been characterized as a disease state with a strong genetic component by the AMA for more than 25 years. How were you to know? Classic JayB. Always the last kid to get the memo. Calling addiction a "disease state" and recognizing that it has a genetic component doesn't preclude the addict having any role or agency in his or her recovery though, does it?

"And even if you think that's OK because head injury patients can't be assumed to be thinking straight, then it seems illogical to be charging this guy with assault." Oops. Forgot to add comments. Fine with the restrains - often warranted in cases of intoxication/head-injury, but silly to press charges since the assumption is that the guy is/was impaired.

To me it's fairly clear that an absence of willpower and/or poor impulse control is behind most unhealthy behaviors that we have absolute control over. These include what and how much we eat, what drugs we put into our bodies and when, etc. The real question, as far as I am concerned, is to what extent an absence of "willpower" or impulse control is hard-wired into us, and whether or not it's possible to overcome any inborn deficits in this area. I don't think that we have any answers that apply equally well to each and every individual, but I think that as a society we have to assume that people are responsible for their actions (unless there is a clear reason to conclude otherwise on account of profound retardation, insanity, dementia, etc), and that sane people can learn to overcome any deficits that they were born with in these areas - but that some people will require infinitely more help to do so. Insisting that people are responsible for their actions doesn't preclude helping people who are struggling to control a given behavior. However, it's hard to imagine a scenario where cultivating an element of self-control isn't part of the help that they provide, even if that's as simple as taking their medications once a day. Having said all of that - in a former job I worked with a woman who just could not seem to control her weight. She was probably one of my favorite people in the office, since as a former opera singer she brought an element of class, grace, and cultivation to the cube-farm that most of the other denizens couldn't come anywhere near. As time went on she started missing more and more work, as the health problems associated with her weight became compound and overlapping. I think that she was on permanent disability by the time I left, and the watching as a helpless bystander while she literally ate herself to death was very sad. A girl that I grew up with had the opposite problem. Between 9th and 10th grade she went from fit and althetic to skeletal, and never seemed to get better. I was one of many people who went to the school nurse urge some kind of intervention, most of her friends tried to intervene as well, but there wasn't much that anyone outside of her family could do. I'd often see her hunched over on an excerise bike when I was visiting from college and hitting the gym at the local YMCA, and she'd still there two hours later when I was leaving. Whatever she was suffering from, it clearly wasn't a lack of willpower or discipline. A friend of mine passed along word that she died a few years ago. Both were in dire need of, and deserving of help. It seems to me that any effective help would require showing them how to take the steps necessary to overcome whatever problems they had - inborn or otherwise - that were making it extremely difficult for them to eat properly and maintain the kind of weight they'd need to to survive.

Not a doctor - I work in basic research - but my wife is an ER doc. I can't claim that my conversations are entirely representative, but to a person their greatest source of exasperation is the amount of easily preventable suffering and death that rolls through their doors on a daily basis. It's not that most MD's aren't aware of the benefits of diet and excercise, or that they don't promote either to their patients - it's that human nature being what it is, there's a significant number of people who are either unwilling or unable to eat well, excercise regularly, and moderate their addictions. Most people who make the kinds of changes necessary to live a more healthy life ultimately do so not because a medical authority figure tells them to, but because they want to, so it's not clear to me that the medical community is at fault here. When one of them rolls through the door after having sustained a massive heart attack from congestive heart failure, or a stroke because of the high-blood pressure they've never gotten under control - the time for life coaching is over and their role is to keep them alive by "treating the symptoms." Unlike homeopaths - they actually have the means to do so effectively. How this state of affairs represents a profound moral failure on the part of physicians is beyond me. My main gripe with homeopathy and other bits of quackery is not their critiques of how physicians practice - it's that their "disciplnes" are the medical equivalent of creationism. The central principles that they have been founded upon are false. With the advent of techniques that are capable of empirically proving or disproving their claims, they've crossed the boundary from benign folklore into flat out frauds. If you think that an overreliance on pills and surgery is an ethical problem for physicians - then what kind of ethics are involved in charging fees to dispense concoctions formulated according to folklorish nonsense that has no scientific basis whatsoever? How about people that continue to "treat" their patients in this way even when they have a condition that can be safely and effectively treated by a proven rememedy that would require them to see a real doctor? If this is ethical conduct, then so is faith-healing.

Just don't let those allopaths near him with their autism inducing vaccines and whatnot...

I'm pretty familiar with the history of American medicine and the efforts to reform and regulate it, from the late colonial period to the advent of the Flexner Report (~1910-1912 if I remember correctly). There may have been some professional rivalries in play, and you certainly can't ever rule out greed when you are dealing with humans - but most of the efforts to impose a rigorous and uniform set of standards for anyone practicing medicine came about because "allopaths" thought that the state of medical care/training in the US was a national disgrace. Most of the impetus behind reforms came from physicians who had been trained in the leading institutes in France/Scotland (~1800-1850) and Germany (~1850-1900)and wanted to import the standards and practices that they observed while in Europe. This was also the era of the Progressive Movement, and there were quite a few people involved in medicine in some capacity or another who were inspired to apply the philosophies associated with this movement to their own field. One of the main arguments that they used to sell these changes to others in their field was that they wold provide a means by which they could more clearly differentiate themselves from the Homeopaths and every other species of professional quack selling their services at the time. I think that they also understood that the requirements that they were advocating for training, licensing, etc would put many of their rivals out of business, or at the very least put them at a disadvantage. I happen to think that this also provided a significant benefit to the public, but I can see how the various quacks might take exception to such changes. Speaking of "dirt," anyone remember the efforts to impose something vaguely resembling the regulations that drug companies have to abide by on the purveyors of homeopathic/naturopathic remedies, etc? If those folks were so confident in their remedies, you'd think they'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that they were both safe and effective...

I'm all for the preservation of individual freedoms, and will support the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want to each other in private - but it seems as though this falls squarely in the realm of public spaces where there are competing perogatives that have to be reconciled. If someone wants to dress up in a Klan outfit and burn a cross on their own front yard while painting a swastika on their garage door - more power to them. If they want to do the same in a public restroom, then clearly the situation is different, as their doing so would infringe on the rights of others to use public facilities without being subject to certain nuisances, threats, acts of intimidation, etc...

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private Tue Jan 15, 11:15 PM ET ST. PAUL, Minn. - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy. ADVERTISEMENT Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport. The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy." That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote. The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued. The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal. "The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief. The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy. Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_re_us/craig_appeal_1

I think that your argument here would be quite a bit stronger if the patient populations that homeopaths and "allopaths" were treating were identical in terms of the nature of the conditions that they were presenting with, their acuity, and the nature of the medical intervention required. When people collapsing from strokes, presenting with organ failure, major trauma, life-threatening infections, etc are rushed to the homeopaths - then you'll have a valid basis for comparing the relative mortalities of homeopathy and scientific medicine.

Maybe Not.. lqMjDyHbhXk