Drug Eruptions

Question: I Need further help with a Drug Eruption that cause problems with my penis? Well, after 2 weeks of being in and out of the hospital, being sent home with different pain killers and antibiotics all week, I finally went to a urologist, and he summed up my problem before he even seen my penis, and so far I believe he is right ,especially after seeing photos on the internet. My took Naproxen for a pain i was having in my side, and next thing i know Im itching, and red all over, and it attacked my penis. Over the last 2 weeks, no sleep at all, in pain, and my penis has been losing skin and breaking out, probably because of all the different drugs ive been on. The urologist today told me i am having a drug eruption to the naproxen, and all i can do is wait it out. He told me to soak for a few moments in some soapy water twice a day, and put neosporin on it. Would any of you agree? Just would like one more feedback on this. This is what my penis looks like but much worse, http://dermatlas.med.jhmi.edu/derm/indexDisplay.cfm?ImageID=-1098782160 Now, my dermatologist put me on prednisone, and the urologist told me to stay on that, but other than that, does anyone suggest anything else? You just dont know the pain ive been through.

Answer: well sounds like you might be having some sort of allergic reaction. benadryl can be bought over the counter, but it makes you drowsy.. really helps with itching. non drowsy medication includes loratadine (claritin), also able to buy over the counter.

Question: Do you have experience treating skin eruptions with Skin Irritation #94 (Homeopathy)? If you do or you could suggest other homeopathic treatments, please let me know. I do not use any OTC remedies or Rx drugs, so please no advice to go in that direction. I am in a great deal of pain right now. I have had this skin problem on my right index finger that I suspect is a Candida problem and am treating myself with a yeast cleanse system. It is worse when my hands get hot and/or wet from the dishwater, so I use gloves but the heat still penetrates. My joints in that hand are really hurting as well. It comes and goes in severity and occasionally I have a sharp stinging pain.Grapefruit seed extract seems to help the rash,but I have to use it straight and undiluted (or else it doesn't work),which burns the skin around it a little,but then it comes back. I cannot get in to see a doctor till Monday, so I wondered if anyone has treated symptoms like these with Skin Irritation #94 or Cantharsis (Spanish Fly), and if you think Arnica will help dull the pain. Thanks for your help. Thank you jewelair! I do already take 2 tablespoons each day of raw apple cider vinegar on my raw cabbage salad. I'll continue too. Again, thanks!

Answer: I used to get a rash on my right ring finger. It sounds to be different than what you are experiencing, but maybe this will work for you. Mine would itch a lot and develop little tiny blisters. I found that taking about 2 tsp of apple cider vinegar a day helped.

Question: Side effects? Please help!!!? I have been taking clonazepam for about 8 months now. I have been taking zoloft for about 4 months. Recently I was diagnosed with a fixed drug eruption which is a persistant rash on the skin that i had for months. I used the cream perscribed and it was gone in a week. Now even more recently, I've been getting extremely itchy everywhere on my body. Almost to the point where I scratch myself raw. I shower at least once every day. Nothing else has really changed. Why all of a sudden am I getting itchy. I've been on these meds for months now. Please help. Thank you i have a sleep disorder that has been taken care of with the clonazepam (oct.08). I just started getting itchy all over within the past 2 weeks. I've been doing the same things since December. I would have to say its the medication combination...but why all of a sudden? The medicines work!

Answer: Let me answer this with another question. What would Jesus say?

Question: Do you belong to the "new Church of Global Warming"? "Aliens Cause Global Warming" A lecture by Michael Crichton California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA January 17, 2003 My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy. I have a special interest in this because of my own upbringing. I was born in the midst of World War II, and passed my formative years at the height of the Cold War. In school drills, I dutifully crawled under my desk in preparation for a nuclear attack. It was a time of widespread fear and uncertainty, but even as a child I believed that science represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics-a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values-international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be avery good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great hope for our troubled and restless world. But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free. But let's look at how it came to pass. Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live. This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion. One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called "Rare Earth" theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone. Again, there is no evidence either way. Back in the sixties, SETI had its critics, although not among astrophysicists and astronomers. The biologists and paleontologists were harshest. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard sneered that SETI was a "study without a subject," and it remains so to the present day. But scientists in general have been indulgent toward SETI, viewing it either with bemused tolerance, or with indifference. After all, what's the big deal? It's kind of fun. If people want to look, let them. Only a curmudgeon would speak harshly of SETI. It wasn't worth the bother. And of course it is true that untestable theories may have heuristic value. Of course extraterrestrials are a good way to teach science to kids. But that does not relieve us of the obligation to see the Drake equation clearly for what it is-pure speculation in quasi-scientific trappings. The fact that the Drake equation was not greeted with screams of outrage-similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example-meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough, pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks. Now let's jump ahead a decade to the 1970s, and Nuclear Winter. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported on "Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations" but the report estimated the effect of dust from nuclear blasts to be relatively minor. In 1979, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report on "The Effects of Nuclear War" and stated that nuclear war could perhaps produce irreversible adverse consequences on the environment. However, because the scientific processes involved were poorly understood, the report stated it was not possible to estimate the probable magnitude of such damage. Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon," which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer. The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called "Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions." This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate. At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows: Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe… etc (The amount of tropospheric dust=# warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance…and so on.) The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on. And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but concluded they were catastrophic. According to Sagan and his coworkers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute. But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later. This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold. The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the the effect of nuclear winter. I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: "Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish." Hard science if ever there was. At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now? Ehrlich answered by saying "I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…" I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women. There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light. Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees. And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y…the list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. But back to our main subject. What I have been suggesting to you is that nuclear winter was a meaningless formula, tricked out with bad science, for policy ends. It was political from the beginning, promoted in a well-orchestrated media campaign that had to be planned weeks or months in advance. Further evidence of the political nature of the whole project can be found in the response to criticism. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good." The nuclear winter team followed up the publication of such comments with letters to the editors denying that these statements were ever made, though the scientists since then have subsequently confirmed their views. At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb." Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant. I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends. That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended. What happened to Nuclear Winter? As the media glare faded, its robust scenario appeared less persuasive; John Maddox, editor of Nature, repeatedly criticized its claims; within a year, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading figures in the climate model, began to speak of "nuclear autumn." It just didn't have the same ring. A final media embarrassment came in 1991, when Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a "year without a summer," and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that "it should affect the war plans." None of it happened. What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke. In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen. This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent. In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people. Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke. As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed. As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard? And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it? To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs. This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands. Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds? Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd. Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam? Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about. Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it. I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure. But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area. The answer to all these questions is no. We don't. In trying to think about how these questions can be resolved, it occurs to me that in the progression from SETI to nuclear winter to second hand smoke to global warming, we have one clear message, and that is that we can expect more and more problems of public policy dealing with technical issues in the future-problems of ever greater seriousness, where people care passionately on all sides. And at the moment we have no mechanism to get good answers. So I will propose one. Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science. Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this. I believe that as we come to the end of this litany, some of you may be saying, well what is the big deal, really. So we made a few mistakes. So a few scientists have overstated their cases and have egg on their faces. So what. Well, I'll tell you. In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists? Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to? When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down. Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic. Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church. Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science. Thank you very much.

Answer: Nope!!!!!

Question: Do you find this to be true?? Please explain!!? So you must be ready because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect Him Matthew 24;44 The final generation will be the one that witnesses the blossoming of the "fig tree." (Hosea 9:10) Israel returned as a nation in 1948 ,fulfilling God's promise to Abraham. Israel is always referred to as the "fig tree" and Christ taught that Israel's forefathers were the first fruits in his fig tree. There will be wars and rumors of wars. (Mark 13:7) The last 100 years have seen more wars than any time since creation. An army called "the Kings of the East" will march into the Middle East at the battle of Armageddon and have the Euphrates river dry-up before them. (Rev. 16:12) Dams built in the 1970s have given Turkey the ability to dry-up the Euphrates. In 1990 they stopped the river for a month to fill a reservoir. Now you can see why Turkey must be part of the Islamic camp....to make way for the three different attack routes the Russians and Arabs will utilize in their Magog attack on Israel. There will be Earthquakes in diverse places. (Matthew 24:7) Earthquakes have increased in frequency and intensity some 2,000% since Israel returned to the land in 1948. An end-time global government will arise and break the world into ten regions described as the "Revived Roman Empire." (Rev. 13:1-2 & 17:12-13) The same year Israel returned to the land a group known as the "Club of Rome" signed what was called the "Treaty of Rome" creating the European Union that plans to divide the world into ten regions. The Pope has called the E-U the "Revived Roman Empire." Signers of the treaty were quoted as saying: "We felt like real Romans that day....Purposely recreating the Roman Empire." Jerusalem will be trodden-down by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles has come to an end. This is to happen just prior to the return of Christ. (Luke 21:24) The Israelis recaptured Jerusalem in the 1967 war. The generation alive at the time Israel returns to the land will not all pass away before all things, including the return of Christ with his saints, are accomplished. (Luke 21:29-32) Pending. Depending upon the scripture reference a Biblical generation may be anywhere from 40-70 years. We are more than 50 years into that time frame. During the Great Tribulation, God will have to shorten the daylight hours because the sun will be scorching man. (Rev. 16:8-9) Global ozone depletion is being blamed for the blinding of kangaroos in Australia as well as penguins and polar bears at the So. Pole where animals are also developing cancerous tumors. Children in So. America are being told to wear sun glasses while most of the krill off the tip of So. America are gone. This is the bottom of the food chain. Paint is oxidizing faster than normal in Australia where sperm counts in men have dropped precipitously. Frogs are mutating and dying in No. America where skin cancers and cataracts are up 50-75%. The UN, reports that some areas of the Earth have lost nearly all ozone. The ozone hole is now 3-times the size of Europe and nearly continuous volcanic eruptions are exacerbating the situation. Scientists are experimenting with ways to grow more algae in the oceans because of the death of large areas of plankton and algae. They are responsible for 1/4th of our oxygen supply. NOTE: The antichrist will come from the same people who destroyed Jerusalem...the Romans. (Hence, the Revived Roman Empire) Storms will become increasingly worse. (Luke 21:25-26) There have been record numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and tornadoes beginning in the 1990s. (Sustained winds routinely top 200MPH now.) Famines and Pestilence will be commonplace. (Luke 21:11 & Rev. 6:8) There have been more deaths from famine since 1950 than any other time in history. Old diseases are gaining the upper-hand and new diseases are appearing regularly that have no cure. The Antichrist will bring a 7-year peace and protection pact for Israel but that when they say "Peace and safety" that sudden destruction will come upon them. (1 Thes. 5:3) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose name means "Gift from God," has stalled the peace process with the Palestinians by demanding "Peace with safety and peace with security" prompting Saddam Hussein to turn to Europe, (the Revived Roman Empire), to join in the peace process. The end-time apostate church will be clothed in scarlet and situated on seven hills.(Rev. 17:3-6 and 9) The Roman Catholic church uses scarlet, sits on the seven hills of Rome, has the nickname "Babylon," has a pope that says the church has fallen into irreversible apostasy, most of it's leaders don't acknowledge Christ as Messiah. The pope has expressed fears his successor may be the false prophet. The "Revived Roman Empire" will be a seven-headed beast that is scarlet in color with ten horns. The apostate church will be symbolized as a woman riding the beast. The E-U will use the same image on it's single currency known as the "Euro." The image they minted on the first E-U coin was of Charles V. (The first emperor of the Roman Empire). Knowledge shall be increased and man will run to and fro about the face of the Earth. (Daniel 12:4) Man's knowledge took 1,450 years to double the first time. It now doubles every two years and science is forecasting that in the 21st Century it will double every few months. If Christ does not return no flesh will be saved.(Matthew 24:22) Nuclear weaponry makes this the first generation capable of annihilating all life on Earth. The Antichrist will allow the Jews to rebuild the temple and renew sacrifices. (2 Thes. 2:3-4) Gershon Solomon and the Temple Mount Faithful have found the red heifer ashes necessary to purify the new temple, may have located the Ark of the Covenant, have computerized all "Levitical Priests" names for temple service, attempted to lay the cornerstone on the Temple Mount and have recreated nearly all implements necessary for temple worship. In fact, a snail used for the blue line on the bottom of the priest's garment returned to Israel for the first time in 2,000 years when they began to work on the garment. Also, the first red heifer in two thousand years has been born in the Holyland. Jerusalem will become a burdensome stone and a cup of trembling to the world just prior to Christ's return. (Zec. 12:2) What is holding-up the peace process in Israel is the insistence that the Jews will never give-up or even share Jerusalem. Look for war! Russia will lead an Arab confederacy in an attack on Israel. (Ezekiel 38:14-16) Presently, every nation mentioned in the Bible as being part of the attack is aligned with Russia and is being armed by them or China. In the last generation men will be proud and boastful, lovers of themselves and pleasure rather than lovers of God and that children will be disobedient. (2 Tim. 3:1-5) Look at modern America! The end-time population will not repent of their sorceress, from the Greek word "pharmakea" from which we get the word "pharmacy." So, they will not repent of their drug abuse. (Rev. 9:21) Drug usage is on the rampage worldwide and up 141% among American teens. In the "last days" people will not want to hear sound doctrine. (2nd Tim. 3) Turn on most TV preachers today! There will be signs on the sun, the moon and in the stars. (Luke 21:25) Look at the accomplishments of the space age. A strong delusion will accompany the end-times. (2 Thess. 2:11) The New Age belief that man is God is the same lie satan told in the Garden of Eden. Author Unknown Page By Mary JOnes 2004 God Bless and thank you for your opinions!! I am not trying to convert anybody i was just wondering what you believe!! God Bless!! http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/LASTDAYSPRO… mrsaddictive lol!! No actually I have a 3 yr old son and I live for God and i am in his word always!! It helps you to have a closer relationship with Him!! God Bless!! Well i am glad some of you are getting why i posted it!! God Bless!!

Answer: Good for you! But you missed one passage from Daniel 12:4 which talks about the "end of times" when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased." Question is, what do you do now with all that knowledge??

Question: Has the world gone to Hell? All the worlds a stage, the stage is on fire Performing is the Devils demoniac choir Everyone bickers about their own ideas But little do they know what hell truly is Taunting, enjoy other peoples suffering All burning of us up, got me wondering Me in the front row, despising the show Evading all that I can and the stasis quo An evil voice over head starts laugh'n Wondering how the hell did this happen For all I know, its gone to Hell Everything has gotten stale Eruptions from mother Earth The Devil test'n what your worth Oil tanker spilling in the middle of the sea More and more children bringing home D's Drug wars, attacking like they're the Cartel Teens about to step into their first prison cell Mothers leaving kids up at the local park Woman kidnapped when it gets pitch dark H1N1 about to infect over ten thousand Sixteen year olds stripping for older men Collage dropouts surprisingly on the rise Young girls only worry about their bra size Little boys discover porn on the internet Forever changing their precious mind set Wars get'n bloodier each and every year The government trying to rule with fear Got to find out why we have this future Figuring it out is such a hellish torture For all I know, its gone to Hell Everything has gotten stale Eruptions from mother Earth The Devil test'n what your worth The media always blaming the president Coca Cola just bought out Spearmint Government bowing down to the Chinese Christens start praying on their knees Riots break out, have police enforcement Many are taking too much of a supplement And here I am watching some Raw Not caring at all of the murder I saw Its all nothing to me, just want to sleep In my dreams the devil visits once a week Telling me lies, wants me to give in and cry I don't know why, I haven't got any alibi I want the whole world to be incinerated Over populated and its got me frustrated Just want the whole world to turn to ash Maybe someday I'll get my wish as last For all I know, its gone to Hell Everything has gotten stale Eruptions from mother Earth The Devil test'n what your worth The Midwest Arsonist

Answer: another kick *** lick.and yes it has WhOoP WhoOp!

Question: the bibles a fake!? the only reason we have a bible is because some scholars wanted to scare the be-jesus out of people so the could collect taxes on time and gain power. people have an illusion that they are going to be saved. from what? dying, disease, famine? back in the day, people invented idols and deities because they could not explain thunder, lightening, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, titalwaves, locust, and whatever else came along.thank goodness for modern civilizations that can explain all these phenomenons. and for those who have seen the other side...psycidelic drugs do wonders. gee jeancomm.. you could start your own religion then seeing you know it all.

Answer: I read stuff by Dr. Seuss that makes more sense than the bible, and sometimes it doesn't even have to rhyme.

Question: pimples. how do you get rid of 'em!? well, i just had my first massive volcanic eruption on my chin, of all places, and i didn't have any pimple medication on hand. i called a friend and he said try to put toothpaste on your pimple to dry it out; but it only made it worse. then another friend said, try noxzema and leave it on overnight; again to no avail. i went to the drug store and couldn't find any pimple medication without salicylic acid in it which i'm extremely allergic to. so i went home and looked in the bathroom cabinet to see what i can apply to the ever growing volcano. neosporin + pain relief. neosporin + pain relief? hmmmm neosporin kills bacteria right. my volcano has bacteria. well, i dabbed a little bit of neosporin on the tender volcano. dang, it worked. i don't know how but heck it worked. so what gets rid of your pimples? Anne C: I agree with you. Lack of sleep is one of the culprits for the volcanic eruption. I didn't get any sleep this weekend because I was glued to the weather channel anxiously watching Hurricane Gustav approach and make its landfall in New Orleans. I'm glad the levees held up.

Answer: Most simple way I can think of is wash your face frequently, have a good oil control astringent, and oil control film. Most times, we get pimples because of excessive oil and dirt. Sometimes though, it has to do with your genes. If that is so, try to go to a dermatologist. My cousin has a major pimple problem. A procedure was done to prevent a volcanic pimple's pus spread out to form baby volcanoes on his face.=P Hope this helps.

Question: My guitar hero 4 song list rate plz? 1.Childs Play A.The Hand That Feeds - Nine Inch Nails b.Bulls on a Parade - Rage Against the Machines C.Dani Califorina - RHCP d.Dead! - My Chemical Romance e.Crawling - Linkin Park Encore.Move Along - All American Rejects 2.High School talent show A.Thank for the Memories - Fall Out Boy B.Light up the Sky - Yellowcard C.The Pretender - Foo Fighters D.Wait and Bleed - Slipknot E.This is Halloween - Marylin Manson Encore.Riot - Three Days Grace 3.Your First Real Gig A.Paraniod - Black Sabbath B.School's out - Gwar C.We Three Kings - Steve Ouimette D.Shout at the Devil - Mötley Crüe E.Last Resort - Papa Roach Encore.Stockholm syndrome -Muse 4.Dont Screw it A.Perfect Drug - Nin B.Nothing For me Here - Dope C.Holy Diver - Killswitch Engage D.Welcome Home - Coheed and Cambria E.Almost Easy - Avenged Sevenfold Encore.Killing Loneliness - Him 5.Good Luck A.American Idiot - Green Day B.Payback - Slayers C.Thunderstruck - AC/DC D.Girls not Grey - AFI E.Ladies and Gentlemen - saliva Encore.Six - All that REmains 6.Good God Save Me A.Puppet - Thousand Foot Kruntch B.Sum 41 - March of the Dogs C.Higher - Creed D.Down With the Sickness - Disturbed E.Nirvana - Heart shaped box Encore.King Nothing - Metallica 7.Finger blisters A.I Hate Everything About You - Three days grace B.Bark at the Moon - Ozzy Osbourne C.Laid to rest - Lamb of God D.Arterial Black - Drist E.Ace of Spades - Motorhead Encore.Seventeen - winger 8.No hope A.The Devil Went Down to Georgia - Steve Ouimette B.One - Metallica C.Eruption - Van Halen D.Deadbolt - Thrice E.Revolution DeathSquad - Dragonforce Encore.Wasted years - Iron Maiden

Answer: I'm depressed that you have high-quality classic rock thrown in with the trashy crap music of today.

Question: How do you get rid of a throbbing volcanic pimple? well, i just had my first massive volcanic eruption on my chin, of all places, and i didn't have any pimple medication on hand. i called a friend and he said try to put toothpaste on your pimple to dry it out; but it only made it worse. then another friend said, try noxzema and leave it on overnight; again to no avail. i went to the drug store and couldn't find any pimple medication without salicylic acid in it which i'm extremely allergic to. so i went home and looked in the bathroom cabinet to see what i can apply to the ever growing volcano. neosporin + pain relief. neosporin + pain relief? hmmmm neosporin kills bacteria right. my volcano has bacteria. well, i dabbed a little bit of neosporin on the tender volcano. dang, it worked. i don't know how but heck it worked. so what gets rid of your pimples?

Answer: i use Neosporin for my eruptions, too. Amazing! Great minds think alike.