Letters to the Editor
david78209
Published Letters: 33
-
"...look the same under an electron microscope"???
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You don't identify bacteria by their appearance under an electron microscope. Bacillus anthrax and its nonpathogenic relatives such as Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus thuringiensis all form spores, but they probably all look about the same in electron microscopy. Different strains of the same species probably differ even less.
In 2003 that two Berkeley scientists suggested a way to differentiate spores of various Bacillus species using light microscopy.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/02/10_spores.shtml
Though this 2003 press release doesn't say yea or nay, I doubt anyone has worked out a way to tell the spores apart with an electron microscope. If there were an accepted way of doing that, I think the report would mention it and compare the two methods.
The way you identify spores is to culture them and do various tests, mostly biological and biochemical, on them.
If somebody cites electron micrograph appearance as evidence that Bacillus spores are Bacillus anthrax, I'd say he's showing mostly his gullibility.
-
Glenn, have they ever asked you to appear on Meet the Press?
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Or on Face the Nation, or any of those Sunday morning pundit-fests? Have you accepted? It seems they could also ask Markos, Atrios, Joshua Micah Marshall, Sam Seder, or plenty of other strong voices from "Progressive Blogistan" if they wanted a little true balance.
Are they afraid you'd call them out on their lies, such as conflating what they and their right wing friends/minders/keepers want with what "the American people" want? It looks that way.
-
Antidepressants aren't "scheduled" at all
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Schedule I is stuff that's always illegal -- heroin, marijuana, etc.
Schedule II is legal but in most states requires a special written prescription. Morphine and other heavy-duty pain medicines are Schedule II, and so are amphetamines and similar stimulants (including, perhaps inappropriately, some medicines used mostly to treat attention deficit disorder, like Ritalin).
Schedule III includes medium-duty pain medicines. Tylenol with codeine PILLS are Schedule III -- but Tylenol with codeine LIQUID is Schedule V. That's not quite as odd as it sounds, if the liquid is dilute enough that you'd have to drink huge amounts to get a dangerous buzz.
Schedule IV includes Darvocet, Valium, and Xanax.
Sometimes you'll find one drug that's been pushed up to Schedule II mostly because it has become a popular drug to abuse, while equally strong drugs that haven't happened to develop a 'street following' are still Schedule III.
Marinol, which is THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is now Schedule III. I think it got 'demoted' from Schedule II out of boredom. Apparently it rarely gets sold illegally, perhaps because it seems to be more expensive than street marijuana.
Antidepressants, such as Paxil, Prozac, and Elavil, aren't 'scheduled' at all, though in the USA they do require a prescription. The same goes for most anti-psychotic medicines used to treat schizophrenia, like Thorazine and Haldol. The same also goes for antibiotics, blood pressure pills, pills for cholesterol like Lipitor, birth control pills, and Viagra.
As a doctor who worries about civil liberties, I'm happy somebody keeps track of the Schedule II prescriptions, ambivalent about any tracking program for Schedules III, IV, and V, and opposed to Big Brother poking his nose into the non scheduled stuff.