Orgasmic reading

Hahahahaha. No grant money. Ive repeatedly shown you peer reviewed evidence that mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans induces a fatal wasting disease in mice/monkeys, Lo ruled it to be the cause of death in 6 people who died of mysterious infections, found it no healthy controls and the Nicolsons have found it in 50% of CFS/Fibromyalgia patients. Probably Karma, I mean why dont you apply for a grant to study this, considering many people are suffering?

Here is a summary of Dr. shyh ching Lo's work

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html

2 grant decisions back, no money

Sorry to hear that, Tara. Getting funding these days is a real crap shoot. I hope you at least got some useful feedback from your reviewers.

Ugh! Sorry to hear about the funding issues - lots of that going around. All you can do is hang in there and resubmit.

Re the post: the first article is fascinating and terrifically well-written by Regina Nuzzo. A superb cross-section of the current state of neuroscience on this joy of the autonomic nervous system.

I am not so interested in the methods of inducing a positive neurological association in the brain as how this random induction of a positive stimuli results in a distorted perception of the world itself. I am sorry to hear you are having grant troubles, I personally like to fund my own research. The mechanisms are present to allow for social bonding between partners and the induction of social bonding with randomness seems to lead to all other types of issues.

Bad grant news is a bummer. Money's tight all over, it seems; NIH just froze NRSA post-doc salaries for the second year running, too.
(http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/site/c.eoJMIWOBIrH/b.3886305/)

Too bad about the "lack of funding", Tara. Well, not really...

As I have pointed out in many previous threads on this menial little blog of yours, we are headed for very "lean" times, financially. Of course, on one hand, that is certainly worrisome; however, I cannot deny that I am absolutely thrilled when I consider that all the undeserving morons currently doing "research" will face greater scrutiny. The only hope for such morons is our collective inclinations toward ever-increasing fascism. The lack of scruples of the corporation and the immense greed of our civic leaders has landed us in an extremely precarious financial situation...ripe for fascism, indeed, so there is still hope for folks like you, Tara. Your corporate masters will not go quietly into the night...but go they must, for our country is bankrupt.

Kevin

Oops...
for previous commentary on our current financial situation and its relationship to "research" funding, go
HERE

Kevin

I see that Very Nice People have come out to comment on your unfortunately wasted hard work. Always lovely to see basic consideration among human beings. Along with a complete lack of understanding of "karma".

Now excuse me while I go pull my tongue out of my cheek.

Kevin wrote: "we are headed for very "lean" times, financially."

And exactly how will a financial crisis in the mortgage and other credit markets change the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS?

Your thoughts are just a wadded-up confused ball of string, aren't they?

To Tara: Sucks that you didn't get the grants. Next time - onwards and upwards.

"Your thoughts are just a wadded-up confused ball of string, aren't they?" says the sock puppet...

What an appropriate name for someone with so little to contribute the discussion...if you had bothered to read any of my previous comments on this blog pertaining to the similarities between the "credit crisis" and the HIV/AIDS debacle, you'd see that I am far from confused. In fact, you just might see that I've made valid predictions, particularly regarding how things would play in the financial markets, which is certainly more than can be said for the predictive value of most HIV prognosticators.

Regardless, let me put it into simple terms for you, Sock Puppet, for I certainly don't want to add to your own very real confusions (it must be tough to be a sheep now that the slaughter has begun):

Both HIV research and our financial markets are rife with corruption and fraud. As a result, both are currently producing dishonorable outcomes that are characterized by rapidlyprivatizing "the gains" while socializing the considerable losses. The business model is invariably the same whether you are considering the social merits of gigantic pharmaceutical companies or fly-by-night mortgage lenders.

If you can't understand this very simple explanation that I've provided, well Sock Puppet, I must admit that I am not surprised. Most Americans are incapable of even a modicum of critical thinking, especially those of you that have been indoctrinated into an academic environment that has more in common with a corporation than with traditional institutions of higher learning.

But make no mistake, idiots like you and Tara, who choose to remain unawares, are indirectly responsible for maintaining such high-levels of corruption, particularly in human health research. The least of charges that one might levy against you is that you are woefully complicit in your ignorance. Nevertheless, to get back on point, Tara's recent funding plight is hardly worthy of anyone's sympathy. After all, she has made it quite clear that she does not respect the sanctity of objective scientific inquiry. No, her many past posts, maligning those who support open debate, are nothing if not a celebration of the academic status quo, which we've already established is rife with greed and corruption.

As I said previously, I'm thrilled to see such weak-minded and unscrupulous "researchers" finally getting their comeuppance....

Kevin

Kevin, I agree, Ive repeatedly shown her peer reviewed evidence that mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans (see my first post) is pathenogenic in humans and she has ignored it, she couldnt care less this microbe is spreading through the population destroying the lives of young people. There is clear correlation with illnesses like CFS etc and this microbe.

It's no wonder Montagnier in his book Virus doesnt understand why scientists like Tara conduct more research on the only microbe that kills every animal injected. Her whole persona is defined by calling others "Kool aid" drinkers and she's never dare do a blog post that would upset the Hoofnagle (neanderthal) brothers! Thats what it's all about, kill an entire generation because she's a card carrying member of the "anti-crankery" club.

Not to pick on Tara, but, in general, it would be good to defund 30-40% of the scientific "researchers" at major Universities. They really don't do much. Often, they write papers for the mere sake of writing papers. Nobody reads them. The work has no tangible benefit whatsoever. Moreover, as a purely intellectual exercise the work woefully deficient, too.

There's a lot of dead-weight in academia. Perhaps, the time is ripe to start pruning.

Mountain Man, I'm curious. Are you in a position to make such a sweeping statement about science done in academia? I'm honestly not being sarcastic, but wondering just where your perspective comes from.

I admit my own ignorance on the subject, so please correct me if I make any erroneous generalizations. (Deep breath):) But isn't there value in having a large community of researchers, nationally and internationally? And aren't papers the primary way of disseminating and critiquing the results of research?

I can certainly see that in such a large and diverse group there are going to be less productive members. But how would you define "tangible benefit" and "deficient"? Many useful and productive avenues of research become so only in hindsight. Conversely, what seems to be an interesting and novel hypothesis may prove to be a dead end, but only after enough work has been done to determine that.

The present system may well need improvement, and I defer to those like Tara and perhaps yourself who actually have direct experience of it. I only offer my opinion as a layman: that a big, diverse, quarrelsome, messy research community is better. Better able to provide multiple checks on individual errors, verify individual success and most of all offer differing, even redundant lines of research.

We do not know the future in any but the grossest details. It seems better to have a system that offers a large number of options for the problems that are already here... and the ones yet to show themselves.

Aloha Wright,

Thanks for writing. Let me respond with an analogy:

Here's a recent piece--Veteran Loch Ness Monster Gives Up

It's about this seemingly intelligent, accomplished guy who spent the past 40 years searching for Nessie. Guess what? He couldn't find her. He now blames global warming:)

This 40-year fruitless hunt is exactly what most scientists are doing at Universities. Except they (the entrenched honchos) are getting well-paid research grants to do it. So, it's a pretty good living at failures (if you can get the gig).

They now have powerful molecular tools to look at microscopic "stuff," so there's a lot of busy work to do. But they have no ability to interpret the significance of what they are looking at. Of course, they are constantly hoping to find a new, exotic, deadly pathogen, because, well, those are the money-makers. You get publicity, you get grants, you get press, you get publications rushed into Science or Nature, you may hit it big with patenting a test to find "it" or a drug to treat "it." That's the name of the game.

But, ultimately, it's an intellectual Ponzi scheme, no different than an inner city kid, who loves to play basketball, is really good at it, but for some reason is banking everything on making the NBA. Not likely too happen. A lot of future misery to follow.

These scientists should give up early, maybe go into engineering, and try to find jobs in the private sector.

Mahalo, Wright

Thanks for the response, Mountain Man. I agree that the fella in your example is pretty out there. But I question if he's really that typical.

It would be great if there was more monitoring and accountability, so researchers spent less time and resources on psuedoscience. But I see such individuals as that: individuals who are a minority, albeit a visible and often vocal one. Again, what is your basis for claiming that this "is exactly what most scientists are doing at Universities"?

There will be such people in any area of human society, unfortunately. They should be discouraged, disciplined, weaned from their woo when possible. But you are never going to completely eliminate them.

You also seem to imply that "busy work" is trivial at research facilities. From hearing what Tara and other scientists have to relate, I gather that a lot of research is dull, repetitive work that takes enormous amounts of cumulative effort to show results. And it can take years of practical experience to be able to gain "the ability to interpret the significance of what they are looking at." Or even for.

Live long, MM

I am surprised as such probably. As all. is interconnected the nervous terminations, a brain, power impulses.

It's no wonder Montagnier in his book Virus doesnt understand why scientists like Tara conduct more research on the only microbe that kills every animal injected. Her whole persona is defined by calling others "Kool aid" drinkers and she's never dare do a blog post that would upset the Hoofnagle (neanderthal) brothers! Thats what it's all about, kill an entire generation because she's a card carrying member of the "anti-crankery" club.