If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Trebuchet Magazine)   The cure for cancer remains undiscovered. But hey, at least scientists have discovered that wine goes well with meat   (trebuchet-magazine.com) divider line 22
    More: Obvious, cure for cancer, Monell Chemical Senses Center, Cell Press, postgraduate students, heart  
•       •       •

1415 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Oct 2012 at 10:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-09 09:23:55 AM  
Blog posts like this are what happens when people who believe they have quick wits and originally snarky thoughts are permitted space to do what they think those things look like.

The "magazine," I suspect, is what happens when you gather enough of those people into one collective.
 
2012-10-09 10:18:10 AM  
Possible wine snob thread?

i212.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-09 10:39:05 AM  
um, there is a cure....it ain't pretty, but my dad and my cousin both had cancer and now don't, so what would call that?

My dad doesn't have a prostate anymore and my cousin doesn't have his white blood cells anymore but still. They are cancer free.
 
2012-10-09 10:40:00 AM  
oh yeah, and my brother-in-law only has one testicle now...but no cancer.
 
2012-10-09 10:42:01 AM  

SnarfVader: Possible wine snob thread?

[i212.photobucket.com image 323x156]


Not a bad choice, but there are many superior wineries in the region. I, for one, prefer Lange, Maresh & Van Duzer. Can't complain about the view from WVV, though...
 
2012-10-09 10:51:49 AM  
Delicious again Peter.
 
2012-10-09 10:54:02 AM  
The "Cure" for cancer is in your diet, your environment and in your genes, Medicine is only a rear guard action.
 
2012-10-09 10:58:21 AM  

TabASlotB: SnarfVader: Possible wine snob thread?

[i212.photobucket.com image 323x156]

Not a bad choice, but there are many superior wineries in the region. I, for one, prefer Lange, Maresh & Van Duzer. Can't complain about the view from WVV, though...


I will certainly put those on the list to try. Thanks for the suggestions.
 
2012-10-09 11:05:44 AM  
Wine does go well with meat. It also goes well with non meat dishes. It also also goes well with wine.
 
2012-10-09 11:06:05 AM  
FTFA:Turkey: Kofteburger

The Kofteburger is the McDonaldization of kofte, a type of Turkish kebab made with mint and parsley. So authentic that even the bun is sprinkled with parsley, the Kofteburger has been a hit with Turkish customers, and as one American visitor put it, "it's good but it doesn't taste like a burger...it tastes very...Turkish."


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-09 11:07:58 AM  

SnarfVader: TabASlotB: SnarfVader: Possible wine snob thread?

[i212.photobucket.com image 323x156]

Not a bad choice, but there are many superior wineries in the region. I, for one, prefer Lange, Maresh & Van Duzer. Can't complain about the view from WVV, though...

I will certainly put those on the list to try. Thanks for the suggestions.


My pleasure. Anything north of The 'Couv worth checking out when I make it back to the Northwest?
 
2012-10-09 11:12:11 AM  
Is there anyone but me who brings Pinot Noir to Thanksgiving dinner not because they like it particularly, but because there isn't anything else that goes with the food served?
 
2012-10-09 11:14:38 AM  

SwiftFox: Is there anyone but me who brings Pinot Noir to Thanksgiving dinner not because they like it particularly, but because there isn't anything else that goes with the food served?


Drink the wine you like ... pairing selections aren't usually anything to codify. I love a deep red like a Merlot at anytime, but especially with food. Wine tasting is about you, so drink what you enjoy. Someone else's idea of a wine that exemplifies a food's flavor and vice-versa is just making a judgement call on what he, himself, enjoys.

:cheers: and drink merry!
 
2012-10-09 11:25:38 AM  
Zinfandel goes with everything, including excessive drinking.
 
2012-10-09 12:00:22 PM  

TabASlotB: SnarfVader: TabASlotB: SnarfVader: Possible wine snob thread?

[i212.photobucket.com image 323x156]

Not a bad choice, but there are many superior wineries in the region. I, for one, prefer Lange, Maresh & Van Duzer. Can't complain about the view from WVV, though...

I will certainly put those on the list to try. Thanks for the suggestions.

My pleasure. Anything north of The 'Couv worth checking out when I make it back to the Northwest?


The Rusty Grape in Battleground is pretty cool. They have very hood artisan pizzaon site too. I personally like Three Brothers in Ridgefield the best out of our local wineries.
 
2012-10-09 02:59:41 PM  

picturescrazy: Wine does go well with meat. It also goes well with non meat dishes. It also also goes well with wine.


Indeed it does.

Came in here to say though, it's not like every person interested in science wants to go into cancer research. As I understand it, biochem classes are BRUTAL. I know I never want to touch that subject. So if someone wants to study wine... yes, do so, bring me more delicious fermented grape juice... hopefully while keeping the costs down.
 
2012-10-09 04:13:56 PM  

SnarfVader: Possible wine snob thread?

[i212.photobucket.com image 323x156]


I was in the Willamette Valley recently and the wine tasting thing there just blows my mind. They charge as much as $20 for a tasting and will only refund your money if you buy a large quantity of wine, >$50 or more at some places. Not to mention that the prices on the bottles seem obscene.

On the other hand, in the Okanogan Valley in BC just a few hundred miles to the north the scenery is far more beautiful, tastings run around $5-10 (sometimes free) and they will give you back your tasting fee if you buy a single bottle of while. Bottles are selling for around half the price, on average.

It could be that the wine is that much better but I'm not a huge fan of pinot. To me it's all drinkable.

Comments? Why the huge disparity?
 
2012-10-09 04:52:56 PM  
Haven't we already gotten to the point where we've stopped thinking of cancer as a single disease process?
 
2012-10-09 05:00:14 PM  

Jument: SnarfVader: Possible wine snob thread?

[i212.photobucket.com image 323x156]

I was in the Willamette Valley recently and the wine tasting thing there just blows my mind. They charge as much as $20 for a tasting and will only refund your money if you buy a large quantity of wine, >$50 or more at some places. Not to mention that the prices on the bottles seem obscene.

On the other hand, in the Okanogan Valley in BC just a few hundred miles to the north the scenery is far more beautiful, tastings run around $5-10 (sometimes free) and they will give you back your tasting fee if you buy a single bottle of while. Bottles are selling for around half the price, on average.

It could be that the wine is that much better but I'm not a huge fan of pinot. To me it's all drinkable.

Comments? Why the huge disparity?


Tasting fees in the Willamette Valley have skyrocketed. Part of it is that the Valley has made a name for itself, drawing an increasing tourist population; these are people from whom one can extract extra money via tasting fees. You can really save yourself a bundle if you get out of the main Dundee corridor without sacrificing much in quality.

As for the Okanagan Valley versus the Willamette Valley, there are a lot of differences. The climate is an obvious one. The OV is more of a high desert-type region. These regions, including the nearby Columbia Valley in Washington, often excel in growing the varietals that produce the "bigger", "fruitier" types of wines that are often more broadly palatable: e.g., Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Riesling, Chardonnay, Syrah. There's less of a brand appeal to the Okanagan Valley name, so prices are far more likely to be reasonable.

Pinot Noir--like its devotees--can be more temperamental and demanding. Since the WV has focused heavily on that varietal, their non-Pinots can sometimes be rather pedestrian.

Don't worry about what wines you're "supposed" to enjoy; just like with scenery, you like what you like. As much as I like Sideways, it created a slew of new wine snobs.
 
2012-10-09 06:26:34 PM  
Didn't we have a bunch of cancer cures before? Some made by scientists, others by teenage hotties?
 
2012-10-10 04:36:04 AM  
@pocketninja

'Blog posts like this are what happens when people who believe they have quick wits and originally snarky thoughts are permitted space to do what they think those things look like.'

Yeah, guilty as charged. And sure, the 'no cure for cancer' was a deliberate ploy to appeal to the guys at Fark who pick the headlines that go onto the Fark list. It's a Farkism, and it was justified in this case.

Why? Why ridicule science and scientists when, as BusyChillin points out, there have been massive advances in cancer treatments? Did I write that piece specifically for Fark? No. Was I being deliberately snarky when I wrote it? Yes.

Universities in Europe, where this research was undertaken, are funded by public money, those old taxpayer euros that everyone grumbles about. I love universities, and I'm really happy they get funded by government, otherwise they just end up being the research arm of huge corporations which are far more interested in finding a way to copy their competitors' antacid formula than they are in finding a cure for aids, for example. I don't blame them for that either - pharmaceutical companies exist to make money, not find cures for diseases. Universities and independent research are supposed to do that.

But universities get funded on the basis of how much research they *publish*. Not on how useful their research is. Again, a good system. But subject to abuse. The abuses occur when this kind of chickenshiat 'research' into how wine makes fatty meat taste better gets sent out to magazines like mine (ok, 'website' if you prefer the term, and that it counts as 'published research'. Back in the day, research had to be published by 'peer reviewed journals' to count towards a university's research assessment. Now, it just has to go out in a press release and get 'published' by any website dumb enough to copy/paste the article into their news section.

And of course, the websites are happy to do that, because fresh content ups their google rating and gives them the warm glow of having contributed to the world's 'news', without having had to do anything awkward like journalism or dialectic.

So when I see this kind of cynical rubbish, I'm happy to attack it. Not because science sucks, but because cheap attempts at diverting chunks of public money toward undeserving institutions pisses me off.

And as for the wine discussion, who knew that was coming? Yup, Pinot Noir is about the best option for a meal involving huge amounts of turkey, especially the leg meat, imho. Although if you can stretch to a bottle of Chablis, that's damned fine too (although I guess that's horribly expensive in the US. Bad enough here in Europe).
Subby.
 
2012-10-12 12:13:13 PM  

TrebuchetEd: @pocketninja

'Blog posts like this are what happens when people who believe they have quick wits and originally snarky thoughts are permitted space to do what they think those things look like.'

Yeah, guilty as charged. And sure, the 'no cure for cancer' was a deliberate ploy to appeal to the guys at Fark who pick the headlines that go onto the Fark list. It's a Farkism, and it was justified in this case.

Why? Why ridicule science and scientists when, as BusyChillin points out, there have been massive advances in cancer treatments? Did I write that piece specifically for Fark? No. Was I being deliberately snarky when I wrote it? Yes.

Universities in Europe, where this research was undertaken, are funded by public money, those old taxpayer euros that everyone grumbles about. I love universities, and I'm really happy they get funded by government, otherwise they just end up being the research arm of huge corporations which are far more interested in finding a way to copy their competitors' antacid formula than they are in finding a cure for aids, for example. I don't blame them for that either - pharmaceutical companies exist to make money, not find cures for diseases. Universities and independent research are supposed to do that.

But universities get funded on the basis of how much research they *publish*. Not on how useful their research is. Again, a good system. But subject to abuse. The abuses occur when this kind of chickenshiat 'research' into how wine makes fatty meat taste better gets sent out to magazines like mine (ok, 'website' if you prefer the term, and that it counts as 'published research'. Back in the day, research had to be published by 'peer reviewed journals' to count towards a university's research assessment. Now, it just has to go out in a press release and get 'published' by any website dumb enough to copy/paste the article into their news section.

And of course, the websites are happy to do that, because fresh content ups their google rating and gives them the warm glow of having contributed to the world's 'news', without having had to do anything awkward like journalism or dialectic.

So when I see this kind of cynical rubbish, I'm happy to attack it. Not because science sucks, but because cheap attempts at diverting chunks of public money toward undeserving institutions pisses me off.

And as for the wine discussion, who knew that was coming? Yup, Pinot Noir is about the best option for a meal involving huge amounts of turkey, especially the leg meat, imho. Although if you can stretch to a bottle of Chablis, that's damned fine too (although I guess that's horribly expensive in the US. Bad enough here in Europe).
Subby.


Since you actually seem to have the capability to alter the content on Trebuchet, maybe you can link to the actual publication:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982212009451
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.017

It might actually make your piece mildly informative instead of a valueless screed against "chickenshiat 'research'". I have no love for journal or university press offices overselling research results to capture 15 minutes of hype--I think it's often orthogonal and broadly counterproductive to the long-term perceived value of scientific research--but your diatribe on Trebuchet attacks the researchers, not the press agency or the uncritical muppets that cut and paste the releases in their sundry publications.

The research article is quite short, but it does explain the questions they were trying to answer. You can actually look up the RO1 grant held by the senior author of the paper here and see the "legit" studies that have also been published from their work. The asinine idea that this research publication isn't potentially valid or valuable because it doesn't fit into some box of "useful science" in your mind--and the corresponding idea that the research institutions involved are "undeserving" of their funding--is identical to the jackassery thrown around by the Sarah Palins of the world who look for 'funny' grant titles and assume they can properly evaluate the relevance and impact of the work.

Maybe Trebuchet is too frivolous or inconsequential a medium for an insightful article on the perceptions and realities of scientific press release practices in regards to the ever-tightening funding climate?
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report