as usual

[joeoconnell]

don't forget our mantra ... " further study is needed "

[Dr_WHO]

Remember what they said in Woody Allen’s movie Sleeper. I think it applies to cancer research

Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."

Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.

Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?

Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.

Dr. Melik: Incredible.

[joeoconnell in reply to Dr_WHO]

i remember Tigers milk , my wife used to make it for me every morning. that was years ago. i had forgotten that

[Hidden in reply to joeoconnell]

Are you being facetious, Joe?

[BrentW]

Please don't take the following to heart; it is just a thought.

I had two papers accepted for publication this week -- subject to a few, cosmetic revisions, that is. (I think that's not bad, as I usually try for three per year and my last one, on the formation placement and palaeoenvironment of the Middle Miocene Los Atajos Member, Trinidad, was published as long ago as January.)

One of those accepted was about an apparent association of the foraminifer Elphidium umbilicatulum with the bivalve Mytilus edulis in temperate wetlands in eastern Canada. I would love to take this further, perhaps transplanting some barren Mytilus edulis clutches into low energy areas to see if they too develop a population of Elphidium umbilicatulum, or perhaps excluding predators from high energy areas to see if clutches there can do likewise if protected.

The second was about controls on modern bathyal foraminifera NW of Tobago, and deciphered the impacts of eddies and wakes in the Guiana Current to the lee of an island within the Orinoco plume. I would love to see if this pattern is replicated to the lee of Grenada.

If you have followed me so far, is it wrong of me to say that further research is needed for us to fully understand the phenomena I have noted? Or should I have waited until I had the knowledge from the further research? If so, what about the questions raised by 'that' further research? And so on. Would you have me wait until I have a complete knowledge of the universe and all that is in it before I publish at all? Is that not what you are asking of cancer researchers?

[Hidden in reply to BrentW]

Hold on a second, Brent. Uhh, what was that again? I once studied the mealy mouthed muthahumping barnacle beetle. Nobody took me serious! I think "further research is needed". (All in good fun)

Joe

[pjoshea13 in reply to BrentW]

Brent,

There are many topics that interest men with PCa - e.g. lycopene. There are now 452 PubMed hits for <prostate lycopene>. All we want to know is whether there is probable benefit. There is never going to be the type of large-scale study that would satisfy Dr. Myers, & I would think that accrual might be problematic. So what to do?

An August meta-analysis (latest of 16) ends with:

"Further studies are required to determine the mechanisms underlying these associations."

That's a big improvement, I suppose, since it does not undermine the conclusion.

The conclusion, for those interested [1]:

"Our data demonstrate that higher dietary and circulating lycopene concentrations are inversely associated with PCa risk. This was accompanied by dose-response relationships for dietary and circulating lycopene. However, lycopene was not associated with a reduced risk of advanced PCa."

-Patrick

[1] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

[joeoconnell in reply to BrentW]

hardly a day goes by that they are harping something that is going to deal with cancer always ending with further study is needed. they raise your hopes and they lower um. day in day out. that was the point i was trying to make, but you want to use it to inflate your ego or something. i think you will choose never to see my point. i'm impressed with your scholarly attitude

[joeoconnell in reply to joeoconnell]

my comments above were in response to Brent