I know I've been absent for a while, but I swear I'm not dead. It's been a hectic 2 weeks of finals, but I'll be done for the semester and back here after Thursday.
In the meantime, as I said: I'm not dead!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Beating Obesity
An interesting article about obesity was recently linked on Rational Arguments. It's worth a read, especially considering all the misunderstandings people have when it comes to obesity and weight management.
Last week, we had a few lectures about nutrition and exercise, and how the body reacts to lifestyle changes when people try to lose weight. To put it simply, your body can be a real prick when it comes to trying to lose weight. Granted, if you want to lose weight, you certainly can, but it's not always as simple as changing your diet. You might lose some weight that way, but it's going to take a lot more to continue to lose weight, especially if you want to keep that weight off. Either way, your body will put up quite a fight by lowering its energy needs so that even though you're taking in fewer calories, you still won't lose as much weight as you hope/expect.
Obesity is a major problem in the US right now, and it's a more complex problem than people want to admit. Yes, it would be great if it were as simple as going on a diet for a few months, but long-term benefits require greater long-term commitments. And when the obesity problem starts in childhood, it's going to be even harder to get those children to change their unhealthy habits when they reach adulthood. The article isn't trying to make excuses for obesity, but it does well in explaining the more complex nature of the obesity epidemic we're experiencing right now.
Last week, we had a few lectures about nutrition and exercise, and how the body reacts to lifestyle changes when people try to lose weight. To put it simply, your body can be a real prick when it comes to trying to lose weight. Granted, if you want to lose weight, you certainly can, but it's not always as simple as changing your diet. You might lose some weight that way, but it's going to take a lot more to continue to lose weight, especially if you want to keep that weight off. Either way, your body will put up quite a fight by lowering its energy needs so that even though you're taking in fewer calories, you still won't lose as much weight as you hope/expect.
Obesity is a major problem in the US right now, and it's a more complex problem than people want to admit. Yes, it would be great if it were as simple as going on a diet for a few months, but long-term benefits require greater long-term commitments. And when the obesity problem starts in childhood, it's going to be even harder to get those children to change their unhealthy habits when they reach adulthood. The article isn't trying to make excuses for obesity, but it does well in explaining the more complex nature of the obesity epidemic we're experiencing right now.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Science Reporting
Pretty much the only evening news show I watch is NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. It's usually pretty good reporting, and I'm a big fan of Brian Williams. I've always enjoyed his appearances on late night talk shows -- I sometimes wish he'd ditch that whole serious reporting thing and do his own late show!
Anywho, tonight's show had a segment about the environmental effects of the recent volcanic eruption(s) in Iceland. It was doing well until Anne Thompson, the "NBC News Chief Environmental Affairs Correspondent", threw out this particular gem:
You're right, a single volcanic eruption is going to spew enough sulfur dioxide into the air to reverse global warming. Before I could even start to laugh at this idea, immediately after she stated this, it cuts to Richard Wunderman of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, who says:
Why would she even pose the question like that if the next person is going to refute it? To me, it seems like she's leaving the possibility open and acting as though this one particular expert says no, but people are still wondering if this is our cure-all for global warming! With a subject like global warming, it seems to me that she shouldn't have left the idea lingering such that people might start thinking that these volcanoes are going to solve climate change. It would have been much better to tack on something like "but climatologists say that these small effects are not significant enough to impact global climate change" before cutting to Wunderman's clip.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I strongly believe that the media as a whole does a piss poor job when it comes to science reporting. It's always about painting this picture of a big controversy that doesn't actually exist (e.g. the false notion that vaccines cause autism). It's incredibly frustrating to watch.
But you be the judge and check out the clip:
Anywho, tonight's show had a segment about the environmental effects of the recent volcanic eruption(s) in Iceland. It was doing well until Anne Thompson, the "NBC News Chief Environmental Affairs Correspondent", threw out this particular gem:
But [Sulfur Dioxide]'s reflective properties can also cause global cooling, leading some to wonder if this isn't the silver lining in the volcanic cloud. Could it actually help reverse global warming fueled by man-made carbon dioxide, CO2?
You're right, a single volcanic eruption is going to spew enough sulfur dioxide into the air to reverse global warming. Before I could even start to laugh at this idea, immediately after she stated this, it cuts to Richard Wunderman of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, who says:
And it's pretty hard to reverse that [global warming] without reducing the greenhouse gases like CO2.
Why would she even pose the question like that if the next person is going to refute it? To me, it seems like she's leaving the possibility open and acting as though this one particular expert says no, but people are still wondering if this is our cure-all for global warming! With a subject like global warming, it seems to me that she shouldn't have left the idea lingering such that people might start thinking that these volcanoes are going to solve climate change. It would have been much better to tack on something like "but climatologists say that these small effects are not significant enough to impact global climate change" before cutting to Wunderman's clip.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I strongly believe that the media as a whole does a piss poor job when it comes to science reporting. It's always about painting this picture of a big controversy that doesn't actually exist (e.g. the false notion that vaccines cause autism). It's incredibly frustrating to watch.
But you be the judge and check out the clip:
Monday, April 12, 2010
Science-Based Medicine
I added another link to my sidebar at the right: Science-Based Medicine. This one is similar in its overall theme and content to NeuroLogica, and Steven Novella posts on SBM as well.
A highly recommended you check out this post about Dr. Werner's explanation of homeopathy. It's several months old now, but it's definitely worth reading. As for Dr. Werner's video itself... it's certainly a must-see video, but for very, very different reasons. Enjoy!
A highly recommended you check out this post about Dr. Werner's explanation of homeopathy. It's several months old now, but it's definitely worth reading. As for Dr. Werner's video itself... it's certainly a must-see video, but for very, very different reasons. Enjoy!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (SGU)
I'm not really sure how I've been missing out on this podcast for so long, but I've recently started listening to The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (or just subscribe directly to the RSS feed here). It's a little long, usually weighing in around 80 minutes or so, but it's worth it. It's published once a week, and I've been listening to it while I've been at the gym all week.
SGU is produced by Dr. Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog, among others. It's a refreshing "escape to reality" for those who struggle throughout the week listening to people who just don't seem to have a grasp on science and reality. And unfortunately, many of those people have their own news programs. Anyhow, check the SGU podcast out. It's both informative and humorous, and the 80 minutes goes by pretty quick. That's an added bonus if you're listening to it while driving or exercising, because it makes that activity go by fast too!
SGU is produced by Dr. Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog, among others. It's a refreshing "escape to reality" for those who struggle throughout the week listening to people who just don't seem to have a grasp on science and reality. And unfortunately, many of those people have their own news programs. Anyhow, check the SGU podcast out. It's both informative and humorous, and the 80 minutes goes by pretty quick. That's an added bonus if you're listening to it while driving or exercising, because it makes that activity go by fast too!
Fox News flat-out lying about new nuclear weapons treaty with Russia
I know Fox News has a certain conservative, "progressives/liberals are the anti-christ" narrative that they're trying to push. And most of the time, they seem to be content to mostly just distort or dismiss the facts that don't suit their ideology. It's a pretty obvious bias, but now it appears that they've moved on to just flat-out lying about what President Obama is doing while simultaneously propagating some false, god-like fantasy existence of Ronald Reagan. Seriously, how do they get away with this shit? If, as a doctor, I were to lie about the effectiveness, side effects, or risks of a particular treatment, I would be sued in no time. So how is it that Fox News continues to do crap like this without any consequences?
I try not to go too heavy on posting stuff from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. They're not news organizations, and I acknowledge that they shouldn't be used as a source of actual news. However, I don't see many other people out there calling out Fox News on their complete and utter bullshit. The clip below is from Thursday, April 8. Enjoy.
I try not to go too heavy on posting stuff from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. They're not news organizations, and I acknowledge that they shouldn't be used as a source of actual news. However, I don't see many other people out there calling out Fox News on their complete and utter bullshit. The clip below is from Thursday, April 8. Enjoy.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Big Bang Treaty | ||||
| ||||
Friday, April 09, 2010
NeuroLogica on Skepticism and Religion
Dr. Steven Novella (of NeuroLogica) posted a very interesting piece on skepticism and religion a few days ago. I've fallen woefully behind on his blog lately, but I had made time to read that particular post and it was well worth it. My brain has been so wrapped up in medical studies lately that I almost forgot how to interpret philosophical arguments! That being said, he does well in addressing the issues that come up when science and skepticism meet religion.
Essentially, he concedes that when religions make untestable, nonscientific claims, science is essentially agnostic towards those claims. If a religious belief is constructed in such a way that it is simply untestable, then by definition a continued belief in such an idea can only be defined as faith. His position as a skeptic is to focus on testable claims, and leave the untestable religious claims alone. Some skeptics disagree, of course, which is expected. But even as an atheist, I can certainly admire and agree with such a position.
Essentially, he concedes that when religions make untestable, nonscientific claims, science is essentially agnostic towards those claims. If a religious belief is constructed in such a way that it is simply untestable, then by definition a continued belief in such an idea can only be defined as faith. His position as a skeptic is to focus on testable claims, and leave the untestable religious claims alone. Some skeptics disagree, of course, which is expected. But even as an atheist, I can certainly admire and agree with such a position.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
The Big Short by Michael Lewis
Last night, I finished The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
, by Michael Lewis. I consider myself to be a pretty intelligent, educated person, and it bothered me when I had no idea how $1.3 trillion essentially vanished overnight. Granted, I hadn't really looked into the subject, but I'd hear about subprime mortgages, CDOs, and credit default swaps and wonder what the hell people were talking about.
Michael Lewis goes to great lengths to explain how the financial crisis occurred and expose the greed, stupidity, and magical thinking that allowed it to happen. Interestingly, he does it from the perspective of the small number of people who actually made millions from the subprime mortgage collapse. This makes the story incredibly entertaining, allowing you to learn a lot about what happened without falling asleep while reading it. It's a very different approach, but one that I appreciated. Through his character-driven account of the financial collapse, I finally began to understand what the hell happened to all that money.
So if you've been wondering what made all of those financial institutions drop like flies, give this book a shot. It's a relatively quick read (266 pages) and well worth the time and effort. It really made me wonder if I would have seen the problem coming had I been in their shoes. I'd like to think that I'd have at least been cautious of it, but then again, who knows.
Some googling led me to Investopedia, which has a free stock trade simulator to let you try your hand at investing without actually losing (or gaining, unfortunately) any money. That website only lets you trade stocks (not mortgage bonds, CDOs, CDSs, etc. as in The Big Short), but it lets you put your money where your mouth is if you've ever thought you could make money investing if you actually had money to invest. I haven't really done anything with my account yet, but maybe I will after this month, and my 1st year of medical school, is over.
, by Michael Lewis. I consider myself to be a pretty intelligent, educated person, and it bothered me when I had no idea how $1.3 trillion essentially vanished overnight. Granted, I hadn't really looked into the subject, but I'd hear about subprime mortgages, CDOs, and credit default swaps and wonder what the hell people were talking about. Michael Lewis goes to great lengths to explain how the financial crisis occurred and expose the greed, stupidity, and magical thinking that allowed it to happen. Interestingly, he does it from the perspective of the small number of people who actually made millions from the subprime mortgage collapse. This makes the story incredibly entertaining, allowing you to learn a lot about what happened without falling asleep while reading it. It's a very different approach, but one that I appreciated. Through his character-driven account of the financial collapse, I finally began to understand what the hell happened to all that money.
So if you've been wondering what made all of those financial institutions drop like flies, give this book a shot
. It's a relatively quick read (266 pages) and well worth the time and effort. It really made me wonder if I would have seen the problem coming had I been in their shoes. I'd like to think that I'd have at least been cautious of it, but then again, who knows. Some googling led me to Investopedia, which has a free stock trade simulator to let you try your hand at investing without actually losing (or gaining, unfortunately) any money. That website only lets you trade stocks (not mortgage bonds, CDOs, CDSs, etc. as in The Big Short), but it lets you put your money where your mouth is if you've ever thought you could make money investing if you actually had money to invest. I haven't really done anything with my account yet, but maybe I will after this month, and my 1st year of medical school, is over.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
iPad: A step backward
If you watched the most recent episode of Modern Family, you might have come away thinking, "Well, I didn't really want one at first, but maybe the iPad isn't so bad after all." I did. But then I went to the Apple store to try it out, and I was thoroughly underwhelmed. I love the idea of a portable tablet, but it seems that Apple is only interested in giving people one more way to buy apps, music, and now books from their store. Moreover, the iPad offers you very little freedom with regard to how you use it. I can't help but agree with Corey Doctorow as far as why you shouldn't buy an iPad.
I'm a very proud user of Ubuntu -- a free, popular, easy-to-use Linux distribution. What I love about Ubuntu, and the Linux motto in general, is that I have so much freedom in how I use my computer. For 95% of what I might want to do with my PC, some enthusiast out there has already put out software to do it, and FOR FREE! I can run a DVR/media center, web/file server, virtualization server, or whatever else for free. Over the last 4 years, I've saved $500+ by running my own DVR on my old computer instead of shelling out $15+/month to a cable company. It took some extra hardware and some time to set everything up, but it was well worth it and my DVR can do way more than anything I could have gotten from the cable company! Linux isn't for everyone, but using it for the past 4 years has helped me tremendously in understanding the computers and networks that power the Internet and help us every day.
I'm a very proud user of Ubuntu -- a free, popular, easy-to-use Linux distribution. What I love about Ubuntu, and the Linux motto in general, is that I have so much freedom in how I use my computer. For 95% of what I might want to do with my PC, some enthusiast out there has already put out software to do it, and FOR FREE! I can run a DVR/media center, web/file server, virtualization server, or whatever else for free. Over the last 4 years, I've saved $500+ by running my own DVR on my old computer instead of shelling out $15+/month to a cable company. It took some extra hardware and some time to set everything up, but it was well worth it and my DVR can do way more than anything I could have gotten from the cable company! Linux isn't for everyone, but using it for the past 4 years has helped me tremendously in understanding the computers and networks that power the Internet and help us every day.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
A little too far
So I found myself on MSN today (weird, I know), and I saw this story on the front page. A urologist, Dr. Jack Cassell, in Mount Dora, FL, put up a sign outside his office saying:
Granted, he is in a heavily Republican area and he says he will not refuse treatment to anyone who walks in the door. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."
But still, are you kidding me? Having political opinions and all is fine, but putting that sign outside a building that is supposed to provide healthcare to people who need it is just going too far. Mount Dora has a population of ~10,000, and considering he's a specialist, chances are that there aren't many, if any, other urologists in that town. So if you are an Obama supporter, and your primary care physician referred you there, you have to be asking yourself: do I really want this guy to treat me for my prostate cancer?
If you voted for Obama... seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now. Not in four years.
Granted, he is in a heavily Republican area and he says he will not refuse treatment to anyone who walks in the door. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."
But still, are you kidding me? Having political opinions and all is fine, but putting that sign outside a building that is supposed to provide healthcare to people who need it is just going too far. Mount Dora has a population of ~10,000, and considering he's a specialist, chances are that there aren't many, if any, other urologists in that town. So if you are an Obama supporter, and your primary care physician referred you there, you have to be asking yourself: do I really want this guy to treat me for my prostate cancer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)