Malacandra.me

Latest Posts

Amazon Kindle Fire review

It seems like ages since Amazon introduced us to the $199 Fire at a hectic New York City event, but in truth that was only about six weeks ago. Maybe our perception of time is warped because we've been hearing talk about this 7-inch Android tablet for months now. Maybe it's because Amazon launching a tablet seemed like such a natural thing to do after Barnes & Noble paved the way with its Nook Color. Or, maybe it's just because the gadget Amazon shipped looks nigh-identical to the 7-inch BlackBerry PlayBook that we've had for, well, ages.

For whatever the reason, what Amazon has delivered is a device that is intimately familiar yet mysterious -- a simple, minimalistic exterior design hiding a flashy, seemingly quite trick customization that's sitting atop a decidedly ho-hum Android Gingerbread build. Our questions leading up to this review were many: How will it handle sideloading? Are the battery life and performance better than the PlayBook? Can a tablet that costs two hundred bucks stand a chance against those that cost two and three times as much? C'mon baby, click on through to find out.

Continue reading Amazon Kindle Fire review

Amazon Kindle Fire review originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments
comments

Virtually Speaking Sunday 9est/6pst—Avedon Carol and Sam Seder

Virtually Speaking Sunday 9est/6pst

by digby

The great Avedon Carol and the legendary Sam Seder discuss developments of the week, highlighting issues neglected or misrepresented on the Sunday morning broadcasts, drawing from their work of the prior week and the wickedly funnyBobblespeak Translations Informative, thoughtful, passionate. Follow them @avedon_says @samseder @bobblespeak
Listen live and later on BTR

Call in number to speak with the host(646) 200-3440

comments

Future Shock and Awe

Future Shock and Awe

by digby

Listening to Newtie blather on about foreign policy last night reminded me of his gooey, wannabe relationship with the military over the years. I wrote about it back in March of 2003:

Last week I wrote a post about the likelihood that Newt Gingrich is heavily involved in the actual war planning for the Iraq invasion. I had no proof other than some gossipy items in newspaper columns. However, I have since been informed that Newt has had almost unequalled influence in long term strategic military planning for many, many years.

And, when he introduced the Generals to his intellectual mentors in the early 1980's he began a revolution in military affairs that is playing itself out in the Iraqi desert at this very minute.

Last November, Newt spoke to the U.S. Joint Forces Command about the future of the military in the 21st century. He spoke of fast paced deployments, joint services, men on horseback with cell phones commanding B52’s, “The Bridges at Toko Ri” and “The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean" and a whole lot of other stuff. It’s quite a speech and he’s given many just like it for the last 20 years.

… in 1979 as a freshman congressman … My dad retired as a lieutenant colonel, and here is a brigadier general [Donald Starry] in the United States Army asking me to advise on the core pattern of how you fight a battle. I promptly said to my staff, "Hold the phone calls, postpone my next appointment…He said, “We have a real problem.” I whipped out a legal pad and said, “Now to understand what we're doing, let me share with you a framework so you can advise them." I was thrilled. Back then, this was pretty powerful, and he pulled out a little flip chart from his attaché case, and for 45 minutes he walked me through every battle doctrine.
[…] Now, the thing that actually sold me was when he left he had taken notes that would begin a dialogue which continued until 1987. I advised the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command from the spring of 1979 through the fall of ’87 on Army battle doctrine. Oh, and I guess in that sense the only elected member of Congress to have ever done anything quite like that.

He says in the same speech:

…my stepfather who was an infantryman who was stationed in Orleans, France, and he took me to the battle field for the Verdun, and we spent a weekend with a friend of his who had been drafted in 1941, sent to the Philippines, served in the Bataan Death March and spent 3 1/2 years in a Japanese prison camp. And at the end of the weekend of Japanese prison camp stories at night and Verdun battle fields during the daytime, I had this sense that this stuff's all real. People die, and not just in Tel Aviv malls, but, as we discovered on September 11th, in our biggest cities.

So I come down here with a passion which is the equivalent to the passion some of you may have felt in combat…


One supposes that those who have actually been in battle might feel differently, but there you have it. In any case, Newt has been advising the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) for many years, (where he also spent a lot of time talking politics apparently.)
He remains very active in military matters since he left office in 1998:

(June 18,2002)Command leaders briefed Gingrich, who was accompanied by the Commander in Chief of U.S. Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, U.S. Army Gen. William Kernan and Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, British Admiral Ian Forbes, at the JFCOM Joint Warfighting Center.

During those early years in congress he was also heavily involved with some other big thinkers, the authors of the popular bestseller, “Future Shock,” Alvin and Heidi Toffler. He introduced his good friends to the above mentioned General Starry in 1982 and they soon came to have an almost unimaginable influence on a certain group of military planners in creating a new military doctrine called alternatively “third wave” and “information warfare.”
This doctrine relies on the Tofflers' thesis that the United States is in the midst of a transition between the 2nd wave industrial society and the 3rd wave information society. This concept is the single biggest influence on Newt Gingrich’s “vision” and the military is the one place where Gingrich seems to have been taken very seriously as a planner and long term strategist from very early in his career. (At one time he had 5 active military officers serving on his congressional staff, a fact which raised eyebrows but since he was the Speaker nobody said much about the obvious conflict of active duty personnel directly involved in the political process.)

After the Gulf War the Tofflers wrote “War and Anti-War: Summit at the Dawn of the 21st Century,” in which they claimed that the first Gulf War was the first war to occur between the 2nd wave and 3rd wave of civilization and was the greatest military victory in history. There were
dissenters
but many in the military began to plan along the lines that the Tofflers suggested developing a theory called Information Warfare.

In its most benign form it is merely a doctrine for attacking and defending the ever more important information systems (i.e command and control.) But the concept became merged with another doctrine called the Revolution in Military Affairs or RMA that includes the ideas of small, fast “niche” special forces, “information driven” airpower, psy-ops and propaganda and as Don Rumsfeld called it “Exquisite Intelligence.” And these ideas are the basis for Rumsfeld’s military transformation, including his personal favorite “effects based warfare.”

To 3rd wave military enthusiasts, Information Warfare is the thrilling notion that:

"Information dominance is superior situational awareness applied to seize and maintain the initiative, influence the enemy's actions, and induce operational paralysis while denying your adversary the ability to do the same."
In other words, war as mind fuck. “Shock and Awe,” falls into the Information Warfare doctrine with its psy-ops goal made possible by information driven precision weapons. IW relies upon the assurance that, in the face of proper information (i.e. the massive superiority of the offensive force) that logically the enemy will not fight. Well...
The target of information warfare, then, is the human mind, especially those minds that make the key decisions of war or peace and, from the military perspective, those minds that make the key decisions on if, when, and how to employ the assets and capabilities embedded in their strategic structures.
Newt put it more prosaically in a speech at the Hoover Institute last July:

…their [old] answer has been to design campaign plans that are so massive - I mean the standard plan in Afghanistan was either Tomahawks or 5 divisions, and that's why Rumsfeld was so important. Cause Rumsfeld sat down and said, "Well what if we do this other thing? You know, 3 guys on horseback, a B-2 overhead." And it was a huge shock to the army. I mean, because it worked. Now I'll tell you one guy who does agree and that's Chuck Horner who ran the air campaign.

You can still find people out there who are warriors who came up during the Reagan years, all of whom will say flatly to the Secretary of Defense, "The right model is simultaneous, massive, immediate combined air and land forces, period."


Now, many people see much of the Afghan campaign as a failed strategy, particularly the battle of Tora Bora, which was roundly condemned for its misjudgment of the Afghan “allies” and a failure to put adequate troops on the ground. (Sound familiar?) This was the battle from which Osama bin Laden was believed to have escaped. The guys on horseback with cell phones didn’t quite get the job done.

After Operation Anaconda was proclaimed a victory, (why, we do not know) Junior turned to Condi and said “what’s next?” Immediately, the planning began in earnest for the invasion of Iraq. News reports said that Rumsfeld and crew initially believed that the operation would only require 50-60,000 troops, in keeping with the rapid deployment of “niche” special forces theory. And although they were ultimately persuaded that a much larger force was needed, events of recent days suggest that the adjustment was badly planned and then micromanaged.

Perhaps most importantly, their exquisite intelligence was very selective:

Intelligence officials say Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon civilians ignored much of the advice of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency in favor of reports from the Iraqi opposition and from Israeli sources that predicted an immediate uprising against Saddam once the Americans attacked.
I do not know how much Gingrich has been involved with the war planning since 9/11. There have been numerous reports that he has been advising Rumsfeld and we know that he is a member of the Defense Policy Board. But, even if he isn’t, in his own way, he has been as influential on the thinking in military affairs as any of the neocons (which he isn't, really) and his influence is being felt today and will continue to be felt for many, many years to come. He’s the man who brought pop futurism into the American military and got a lot of people to believe that we can run the world militarily without having to commit human beings in great numbers to face the enemies that result from such adventures.
I have no great quarrel with the Tofflers. They are pop futurists and they have had an enormous influence on the way we think about change and the information age. But, it is truly amazing to me that their thesis has become a serious basis for military planning. While these concepts are intriguing and give one plenty of food for thought about how the future will play out, they are also extremely limited. Their prescriptions for how to deal with new challenges in a non-military sense are almost entirely utopian nonsense and have no practical application. There is no reason to believe that their thinking about military strategy is any more realistic.

In “Creating a New Civilization, The Politics of the Third Wave,” the Tofflers define their ideas as this:

“The way we make war reflects the way we make wealth and the way we make anti-war must reflect the way we make war.”
I know that I will always be grateful to Newt Gingrich for introducing that kind of clear thinking into our military back in 1983. We can only be more secure as a result.

This is the new would-be Anti-Mitt. Thank God his personality is so toxic that he's unelectable.

.

comments

Sunday Fun by David Atkins

Sunday Fun
by David Atkins

Hope everyone is enjoying their Sunday. I'm stuck with 12 hours of work today myself, but not too busy to get a kick out of this:

Sure, a lot of people will contend that this is all a sideshow of a two-party good cop-bad cop system designed to screw the middle class. But then, a lot of people took a good long look at George Bush and Al Gore and said to themselves, "hey, not too much difference there. How bad could it get?"

The answer: bad. Really, really bad. And the jokers on the GOP stage are far worse than Bush, if such a thing is even possible.

comments

Your moment of zen

Your moment of zen

by digby

That's Gateway pundit Jim Hoft and Atlas Shrugged Pamela Gellar at Occupy Denver. You can google their blogs if you would like read their hilarious commentary. Here's Pam's title:

DREAM DATE WITH VIDEO! PAMELA AND JIM CRASH OBAMA-ENDORSED #OCCUPYDENVER HOBO CAMP

Or you can just enjoy the spectacle of Hoft's dancing. He's not really that bad.

.
comments

Chaining ourselves to the third way

Chaining ourselves to the third way

by digby

Leave it to Third Way to characterize screwing the middle class and the poor for decades to come as "moderate." But that's what they call their proposed plan for the Supercommittee. And I'd guess that if the Supercommittee manages to come up with a deal, it will look something like this:

“A grand bargain is ideal but a distraction. ... With that falling apart, the whole supercommittee could fall apart,” says Jim Kessler, Third Way’s vice president for policy. The group’s “break-glass” plan contains $426 billion in new revenue — compared with the $1 trillion that Democrats are currently demanding — without raising marginal tax rates, in hopes of appeasing Republicans. It also contains $556 billion in cuts to mandatory spending, but with relatively minimal reductions to entitlement benefits, in hopes of satisfying Democrats. It also has about $420 billion in defense cuts — a substantial figure, but less than the $600 billion in cuts that would be triggered if the supercommittee fails. Finally, it leaves some of the most contentious issues — like the future of the Bush tax cuts and major changes to Medicare and Medicaid — for later. “This is not our ideal plan ... but there are a limited amount of moving pieces that can be used,” Kessler explains. He casts the plan as an alternative between “go big” and “don’t do anything at all,” saying that it’s a false dichotomy that excludes a more moderate compromise.

There are some parts of the Third Way plan that supercommittee Democrats and Republicans have already put on the table: It lowers the mortgage-interest deduction, which Republicans have floated. It uses chained-CPI for calculating Social Security benefits and raises Medicare premiums for wealthier beneficiaries, which both parties have considered. A full outline of the entire plan is available here.

But there are potential dealbreakers throughout, particularly in light of the GOP’s aversion to tax increases. The proposal eliminates an estate-tax exemption that builds on the Bush tax cuts, for instance. And it raises some $50 billion in revenue through eliminating subsidies to ethanol, coal, oil and other energy industries. Although the Third Way lifted many of those energy revenues from Coburn’s own plan, the Oklahoma Republican is still something of a fiscal outlier within his own party. When Coburn tried to eliminate ethanol subsidies this year, it sparked a fierce backlash from other Republicans.

When you look at the actual plan you see that the big ticket item is the chained CPI change, which raises money by "changing" the tax brackets on everyone, but mostly by cutting Social Security. The largest single line item is that one. But they also raise a lot of money by cutting Medicare and Medicaid (I don't know why that article says they aren't included) and lowering the mortgage interest deduction, which seems an odd choice at a time when the dead housing market is still a huge drag on the economy. They also do a major hit on federal workers by forcing them to pay in much more for their pensions (also known as a pay cut.)

The revenue side for business is all chump change. The energy sector which has reported record earnings in the past couple of years is hit with about 50 million in subsidy cuts (a rounding error to them.) The rest of the "loophole" eliminations, like the subsidy for corporate jets, comes to just 14 million.

The defense cuts are good, but impossible to achieve. They offer up the usual obsolete weapons systems that anybody with a brain wants to cut. Maybe they'll happen this time, but these are sacred welfare programs for white males and are, therefore, usually untouchable. They do include a big savings for the troop pullouts from Iraq and Afghanistan and a 50 billion in savings for "outsourcing" military work to civilians under the pretense that this will save money.

The achievable big cuts and and the big revenue in this plan comes from the chained CPI, a sneaky, underhanded accounting change that will result in average people bearing the brunt of this austerity while the political leadership in both parties can strut around patting themselves on the back for getting "shared sacrifice" and making the "tough choices". I think this is the one thing that the Republicans and the Democrats both want.

Here's the thing. We shouldn't even be talking about this until unemployment is under control. Here's Robert Reich:
That automatic trigger seems likelier by the day because at this point the odds of an agreement are roughly zero.

Here’s the truly insane thing: The triggered cuts start in 2013, a little over a year from now.

Yet no one in their right mind believes unemployment will be lower than 8 percent by then.

The cuts will come on top of the expiration of extended unemployment benefits, the end of a payroll tax cut, and continuing reductions in state and local budgets — all when American consumers (whose spending is 70 percent of the economy) will still be reeling from declining jobs and wages and plunging home prices. Even if Europe’s debt crisis doesn’t by then threaten a global financial meltdown, this rush toward austerity couldn’t come at a worse time.

In other words, what will really be triggered is a deeper recession and higher unemployment.


At this point, I think you have to ask yourself, cui bono? Michele Bachmann may have let the cat out of the bag last night:

Michele Bachmann: ... The Great Society has not worked, and it's put us into the modern welfare state. If you look at China, they don't have food stamps. If you look at China, they're in a very different situ-- they save for their own retirement security. They don't have to pay FDC. They don't have the modern welfare state. And China's growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with The Great Society, and they'd be gone.
.
comments

American Academy of Pediatrics on the Delta Airline Video (and a petition for you to sign)  [Greg Laden’s Blog]

Below is a letter from the Amerian Academy of Pediatrics to the President of Delta Airlines. Apparently, Delta Airlines has decided to continue to show the video in question.

Dear Mr. Anderson,

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) objects to the paid advertisement/public service message from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) being shown throughout the month of November on Delta's in-flight programming. The ad urges viewers to become informed about influenza and how to stay well during the flu season without resorting to the influenza vaccine.

While hand washing and covering sneezes are parts of a larger strategy to prevent the spread of influenza, influenza vaccine continues to be the best way to protect against the disease. It is especially important in enclosed settings where disease droplets can easily spread to passengers sitting in close quarters, especially infants and children and those with special health care needs.

The AAP and many other child health organizations have worked hard to protect children and their families from unfounded and unscientific misinformation regarding vaccine safety. The influenza vaccine is safe and effective.

By providing advertising space to an organization like the NVIC, which opposes the nation's recommended childhood immunization schedule and promotes the unscientific practice of delaying or skipping vaccines altogether, you are putting the lives of children at risk, leaving them unprotected from vaccine-preventable diseases. Diseases like influenza can have serious consequences. From September 2010 to August 2011, 115 children died from influenza disease, most of whom were unvaccinated.

The AAP's 60,000 member pediatricians urge you to remove these harmful messages, which fail to inform the public about the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccine. Please do your part to help reassure parents that vaccinating their children is the best way to protect them from influenza disease, particularly during this busy travel season.


Please sign this petition.

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club


comments

Hooray for torture

Hooray for torture

by digby

In case you were wondering whether Americans have decided that the whole torture thing was misguided and wrong, think again:

Love the applause. Since this is in Spartanburg South Carolina, I'm sure most of those people think of themselves as Christians.

(Notice that the applause for Paul and Huntsman for saying that waterboarding was immoral came from just a few Paulites in the back... CBS kindly gave us a scan of the scowling audience.)

It's a shocking as ever that people who are running for president of the United States openly and proudly say they will reinstitute waterboarding. Rick Perry (who is obviously now irrelevant) upped the ante saying that the government should use "any technique we can" and declared that he would believe that until the day he dies.

There are many things they could say to appease their bloodthirsty followers on this issue without endorsing waterboarding and the rest. They really believe in it.

*And, am I mistaken or did Bachman, by dissing the CIA, also diss Saint Petraeus? Is that allowed now?

.
comments

This is Your Modern GOP by David Atkins

This is Your Modern GOP
by David Atkins

Ladies and gentlemen, say hello to Michele Bachmann:

Let's reiterate what we just witnessed: a contender and one-time frontrunner for the nomination of the Republican Party declared that America should eliminate food stamps, Medicare and the expansion of Social Security, before stating that America should emulate China's social safety net. And the Republican audience cheered her.

At some point the pearl clutchers and bipartisan fetishists are going to acknowledge that there is a political civil war in this country, that the right wing is going off the rails at an accelerated pace, and that these people represent a grave threat to democracy should they ever take power again.

It's not just the Bachmanns of the world are living in a dystopic fantasyland. The GOP base is living there, too.

comments

Does bestiality increase your risk of penile cancer? [Aetiology]

Aah, the things one learns when awake at 3AM on a Saturday night. Via a few different Tweeps, I ran across this article from Men's Health magazine, titled "Urgent Warning: Sex with Animals Causes Cancer."

I probably should have just stopped there.

But no, I read the magazine article, which states:

Brazilian researchers polled nearly 500 men from a dozen cities, and found that--we're not joking around here--roughly 35 percent of the men had "made it" with an animal. That's a problem, because screwing a horse, donkey, pig, or any other animal was found to up your likelihood of developing cancers of the penis by 42 percent.

Of course, this meant that now, I had to go dig up the actual journal manuscript. Though nothing is cited by Men's Health, a quick PubMed search using the terms "sex with animals" and "Brazil" turned up Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study, published last month in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Though the MH write-up makes the research sound ridiculous, it's not a bad paper overall. Starting out with the observation that penile cancer is common in impoverished regions in the world but relatively rare in developed areas, the authors wanted to examine one possible difference in this urban/rural divide: bestiality. So they enrolled 492 individuals who had spent their childhood in rural areas: 118 cases who had penile cancers and 374 controls who were seen at the same clinics for other issues, including check-ups and "cancer prevention" (though it's not really defined what's included in that catch-all). All participants were asked a variety of questions about their sexual history, including sex with animals and humans (frequency, number of partners, the usual drill), circumcision status, as well as other factors that might influence cancer outcomes, such as smoking status and history of sexually transmitted diseases and other health conditions.

The authors did find in the univariate analysis (basically, looking at one factor at a time) that there were several statistically significant differences between the cancer group and the control group. These included smoking, a history of sex with prostitutes, the presence of penile premalignant lesions (not surprising) and phimosis (NSFW), a condition where "the foreskin cannot be fully retracted over the glans penis." As the title suggests, they also found that having sex with animals was significantly higher in the case than the control group (44.0 vs 31.6 percent, p<.008).

When they combined risk factors into their multivariate analysis, a few factors still remained in the model. Phimosis was the big one, with an odds ratio of 10.41; SWA was down the list at 2.07 (95% CI: 1.21-3.52, p=0.007). Penile premalignant lesions and smoking also remained, with odds ratios in the middle of the other two.

Finally, just because I know many of you out there are curious, they also break down those who have SWA by types of animals they, um, frequent:

The animal types most often cited were mares (N = 80), followed by donkeys (N = 73), mules (N = 57), goats (N = 54), chickens (N = 27), calves (N = 18), cows (N = 13), dogs (N = 10), sheep (N = 10), pigs (N = 6), and other species (N = 3).

Yes, chickens for 27 of them. I don't even want to know, but I'm sure if I did, I could find out somewhere on the Internets. Please, don't educate me on that one. They also note that almost a third of the men reported "SWA with a group of men." I'm leaving that one alone as well (especially as that one wasn't any different between cases and controls, so it didn't seem to be an important variable for penile cancer development).

So how do they explain these findings? Their discussion is a bit odd, in my opinion, and narrows in on the SWA finding to the exclusion of their other significant risk factors. Of course, coming from my background, my first thought regarding SWA and cancer jumps to infectious agents. They acknowledge in the introduction that the human papillomavirus (HPV) is associated with about half of penile cancers. Other species of animals can also be infected with papillomaviruses, such as the rabbit of jackalope mythology. A previous study identified five potentially novel papillomaviruses in Australia, just by doing skin swabbing. As such, it's certainly safe to say that we know very little about the diversity of these viruses that exist in other animal species, much less their cancer-causing potential. It would be fascinating to look at tumor samples from the men in this group who were known to have sex with animals, and see if any novel viruses (papillomas or otherwise) could be identified.

However, they don't limit their suggestion to only zoonotic infections. That's when it gets a bit weird to me, as they say things like:

Speculation exists regarding cancer status as an infectious disease in humans [24,25], as studies have suggested that tumor cells can be transmitted from one mammal host to another within the same species [26,27]. PC is frequent in equines [28], but transmission of malignancies between animals and humans has not been reported.Virology does not consider possible viral movement from animals to humans except in cases of zoonosis, such as rabies or pandemic forms of bird or swine flu. However, the hypothesis that the HIV epidemic resulted from simian-human virus transmission has not been fully explored.

Um, huh? First, the citation they use for the HIV claim is from 1999--indeed, at that point there was still a lot that was unknown about cross-species HIV transmission, but that was 12 years ago! The field has moved on since then. I'm baffled as to what they mean by their first sentence--as far as I know, "Virology" doesn't consider anything--"Virologists" do, and why would this not be a zoonosis? Though I think direct transmission of cancer cells (like in the case of the Tasmanian devil transmissible cancer) would be unlikely, transmission of microbes which could lead to cancer development is certainly plausible and well within the realm of virology/bacteriology/etc. In my opinion, it's infinitely more likely than the idea they also suggest of more directly carcinogenic animal secretions.

There were also a number of limitations in the paper. Though they grouped frequency of sex with prostitutes into a "more/less than ten times" dichotomous variable, I don't see any similar "dose" analysis for the frequency of SWA in their models, even though they did ask the men about this. They make one statement that "long-term SWA (>3 years) was reported by 64% of the PC patients and 46.6% of the controls (P = 0.044)." This difference was statistically significant at the usual cutoff (p< .05), but it doesn't appear that they studied this further--why not? If you have a typical dose-response relationship (the more times the men had sex with animals, the more likely they were to develop cancer in the future), that would strengthen their case for a connection between the two. They also didn't ask about sexual orientation or the nature of the self-reported past STDs. Are any of these participants HIV positive, for example?

Anyway, with these limitations in mind, it does appear that Men's Health got it mostly right: don't have sex with animals if you value your penis. But it's unfortunate that they just go for the sensationalism and ignore the more important variables from a public health standpoint, like "don't smoke" and "if you have abnormal penile conditions, you may want to get those checked out, k?"

References

Zequi SD, Guimarães GC, da Fonseca FP, Ferreira U, de Matheus WE, Reis LO, Aita GA, Glina S, Fanni VS, Perez MD, Guidoni LR, Ortiz V, Nogueira L, de Almeida Rocha LC, Cuck G, da Costa WH, Moniz RR, Dantas Jr JH, Soares FA, & Lopes A (2011). Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study. The journal of sexual medicine PMID: 22023719

Antonsson and McMillan, 2006. Papillomavirus in healthy skin of Australian animals.

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club


comments

‹ First  < 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 >  Last ›