That was me.  The USB driver for the Kensington keyboard
apparently interprets being dropped on the floor as a
request to open the identity page in Netscape and change it.

Not surprisingly the Medpage article contains more
information that the JAMA abstract. This causes me to
suspect that I detect some
spin in abstract. The vitamin groups were heavier
smokers or at least had higher nicotine levels so
more cancer would be something one should
expect amongst those groups.

Quote

Mayne also pointed out that the Norwegian researchers used a biomarker
that reflects recent exposure to nicotine (cotinine), and this was
slightly higher in the folic acid/vitamin B12 groups.

Baseline cotinine levels in current smokers were 27.1 μg/L and 27.6 μg/
L in the two folic acid/vitamin B12 groups and 25.7 μg/L and 25.5 μg/L
in the non-folate groups.

"So, it is conceivable that, by chance, these two groups had longer
duration smokers with greater smoking intensity (greater pack-years of
exposure to tobacco)," she said.

Unquote

This old non-smoker will continue on his regimen which
includes high folic, high cobalamin, and high betaine.

Trig

Wow, in 6.3 years, 77 months, 10 percent of the people in the study
got cancer and 15 percent died?   That strikes me as a huge
percentage.  They had heart disease, so what else is in their history?