Well, some good news for a change. We've all grown weary of the constant drumbeat of news stories about how this or that thing that we've loved for years is slowly killing us. Salty snacks raise blood pressure! Red meat clogs arteries! Masturbation leads to memory loss! And, of course, Masturbation leads to memory loss! So you can imagine my relief when I read today about a long-term study that has determined that drinking coffee increases longevity and helps stave off dementia. Sure, I'd rather hear that eating pork chops improves muscle tone, but good news nonetheless.
"In a 2012 experiment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, mice were briefly starved of oxygen, causing them to lose the ability to form memories. Half of the mice received a dose of caffeine that was the equivalent of several cups of coffee. After they were reoxygenated, the caffeinated mice regained their ability to form new memories 33 percent faster than the uncaffeinated." Specifically, caffeinated mice took 33 percent less time than uncaffeinated mice to bite the noses of the scientists who had deprived them of oxygen.
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Friday, June 7, 2013
Monday, June 3, 2013
Do What You Want to the Girl, But Leave ME Alone
Government officials, medical experts, and others are pushing to expedite the approval process for drugs that can treat "superbugs"--those antibiotic-resistant infections spawned in no small part due to the overuse of previous iterations of drugs. This time, though, government officials are determined to do things right! They might, for example, forbid using such drugs to treat any but the sickest patients. That'll work.
Look, I'm a fairly well-educated and, I like to think, rational person. I understand the concept of "the greater good." But people will not forego life-saving--or even life-improving--treatment for the sake of abstract notions of long-term benefit--at least if that long-term benefit simply benefits other people. Sure, my misuse of antibiotics--combined with the misuse of antibiotics by others--will ultimately give rise to an incurable superflu and lead inevitably to a final confrontation between good and evil on the Las Vegas Strip. But damn it, my tummy hurts!
You all better hope the fate of the world never depends on me. I mean, you know all those movies where the hero realizes that he must sacrifice himself to save others? "So, you're saying that, if I voluntarily jump into the volcano, I can appease the gods and they will spare the village? Yeah, um, sounds great, but what's in it for me?" If I have to choose between my name living on in glory and my body living on in shame, I'll take corporeal shame every time.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Yes, many parents would give their lives for their children, but that's about it. I know plenty of firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and others have died in service to others, and I respect them for it. But I imagine most of those folks had no particular intention of dying. Let's face it, altruistic self-sacrifice--especially the sacrifice of one's actual life--is pretty anti-Darwinian (again, except in the case of parents and children).
Harlan Ellison once speculated that what killed the dinosaurs was basically a failure of imagination--an inability to see what was coming: "Gee it's getting chilly out. Oh, well, what are you going to do? Mmm. . . trilobites!" Ellison also warned that we--modern humankind--didn't look so hot ourselves. But I don't think we suffer from a lack of imagination. We can imagine all too well what will come of our (in)actions. I suspect we just lack the capacity to care.
Look, I'm a fairly well-educated and, I like to think, rational person. I understand the concept of "the greater good." But people will not forego life-saving--or even life-improving--treatment for the sake of abstract notions of long-term benefit--at least if that long-term benefit simply benefits other people. Sure, my misuse of antibiotics--combined with the misuse of antibiotics by others--will ultimately give rise to an incurable superflu and lead inevitably to a final confrontation between good and evil on the Las Vegas Strip. But damn it, my tummy hurts!
You all better hope the fate of the world never depends on me. I mean, you know all those movies where the hero realizes that he must sacrifice himself to save others? "So, you're saying that, if I voluntarily jump into the volcano, I can appease the gods and they will spare the village? Yeah, um, sounds great, but what's in it for me?" If I have to choose between my name living on in glory and my body living on in shame, I'll take corporeal shame every time.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Yes, many parents would give their lives for their children, but that's about it. I know plenty of firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and others have died in service to others, and I respect them for it. But I imagine most of those folks had no particular intention of dying. Let's face it, altruistic self-sacrifice--especially the sacrifice of one's actual life--is pretty anti-Darwinian (again, except in the case of parents and children).
Harlan Ellison once speculated that what killed the dinosaurs was basically a failure of imagination--an inability to see what was coming: "Gee it's getting chilly out. Oh, well, what are you going to do? Mmm. . . trilobites!" Ellison also warned that we--modern humankind--didn't look so hot ourselves. But I don't think we suffer from a lack of imagination. We can imagine all too well what will come of our (in)actions. I suspect we just lack the capacity to care.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Extremity in the Pursuit of Moderation Is No Virtue
I give up.
For as long as I can remember--which admittedly is not very long, thanks to repeated blows to the head suffered during my last whaling expedition--at least WOS told me they were suffered during a whaling expedition--frankly, it sounds a little fishy to me. . . . Get it? "Fishy"? "Whaling expedition"? Huh? Huh?
Where was I?
Oh, yes.
For as long as I can remember, one could scarcely turn on the news or read a newspaper without finding some dire warnings about the impending societal breakdown caused by our soaring national budget deficit. Indeed, the deficit was of such concern that it caused lawmakers of both parties to embrace draconian fiscal solutions. Social spending slashed! Taxes raised on the wealthy! (Well, "as if," but still.) Freezes in government salaries! Layoffs in government offices! Reduced allocations for selective enforcement of IRS laws! (Which the more I hear about the more I start to wonder if there really is any major scandal going on there, but that's another story.) The Republic must be saved from its own profligacy, and if some temporary pain is the price we must pay to stabilize the national budget, so be it! So you would think today's news that the budget deficit is actually shrinking faster than expected, and that the annual deficit would actually be about $200 billion less than projections had indicated would be unambiguously good news.
Except it's not!
Economists have mixed feelings about deficit reduction based on their ideological leanings. For some, the fact that the deficit is shrinking is less important than the fact that unemployment remains high, there being some correlation between a shrinking deficit and continued job shortages--presumably because government could do more to increase employment if it were willing to spend money, which would increase the deficit, but for ostensibly "good" reasons. Got it? Other economists say that any current shrinkage is but a temporary reprieve from overwhelming forces that will come crashing down upon us in some not-too-distant future, plunging us into a Mad-Maxian dystopia of widespread anarchy and rampant Thunderdome construction.
Now, what I don't know about economics could fill a book--an economics textbook most likely. But if deficits are bad, and reducing deficits is also bad, could somebody please tell me at what point I get to stop panicking?
And as if this economic quandary weren't bad enough, we can't even count on biological certainties anymore. You know how you're not supposed to eat too much salt? Well, now it turns out that a low-salt diet has no particular benefits and may even increase the risk of heart attacks! Yes, presumably one still should not ingest excessive amounts of salt--
--and I love this commercial for a drug--I think it's Cialis--that features the disclaimer that people shouldn't "drink alcohol to excess" while taking the drug. Are there drugs whose makers recommend excessive drinking?--
--but having too little salt in one's diet may be just as bad.
Must we constantly struggle, Goldilocks-like, to find the just-right balance in everything? Can we not agree on the relative horribleness of anything? Hitler, maybe. At least he's good for something.
For as long as I can remember--which admittedly is not very long, thanks to repeated blows to the head suffered during my last whaling expedition--at least WOS told me they were suffered during a whaling expedition--frankly, it sounds a little fishy to me. . . . Get it? "Fishy"? "Whaling expedition"? Huh? Huh?
Where was I?
Oh, yes.
For as long as I can remember, one could scarcely turn on the news or read a newspaper without finding some dire warnings about the impending societal breakdown caused by our soaring national budget deficit. Indeed, the deficit was of such concern that it caused lawmakers of both parties to embrace draconian fiscal solutions. Social spending slashed! Taxes raised on the wealthy! (Well, "as if," but still.) Freezes in government salaries! Layoffs in government offices! Reduced allocations for selective enforcement of IRS laws! (Which the more I hear about the more I start to wonder if there really is any major scandal going on there, but that's another story.) The Republic must be saved from its own profligacy, and if some temporary pain is the price we must pay to stabilize the national budget, so be it! So you would think today's news that the budget deficit is actually shrinking faster than expected, and that the annual deficit would actually be about $200 billion less than projections had indicated would be unambiguously good news.
Except it's not!
Economists have mixed feelings about deficit reduction based on their ideological leanings. For some, the fact that the deficit is shrinking is less important than the fact that unemployment remains high, there being some correlation between a shrinking deficit and continued job shortages--presumably because government could do more to increase employment if it were willing to spend money, which would increase the deficit, but for ostensibly "good" reasons. Got it? Other economists say that any current shrinkage is but a temporary reprieve from overwhelming forces that will come crashing down upon us in some not-too-distant future, plunging us into a Mad-Maxian dystopia of widespread anarchy and rampant Thunderdome construction.
Now, what I don't know about economics could fill a book--an economics textbook most likely. But if deficits are bad, and reducing deficits is also bad, could somebody please tell me at what point I get to stop panicking?
And as if this economic quandary weren't bad enough, we can't even count on biological certainties anymore. You know how you're not supposed to eat too much salt? Well, now it turns out that a low-salt diet has no particular benefits and may even increase the risk of heart attacks! Yes, presumably one still should not ingest excessive amounts of salt--
--and I love this commercial for a drug--I think it's Cialis--that features the disclaimer that people shouldn't "drink alcohol to excess" while taking the drug. Are there drugs whose makers recommend excessive drinking?--
--but having too little salt in one's diet may be just as bad.
Must we constantly struggle, Goldilocks-like, to find the just-right balance in everything? Can we not agree on the relative horribleness of anything? Hitler, maybe. At least he's good for something.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
An Addiction by Any Other Name. . .
When is an addiction not an addiction? When it's a cure.
New research suggests that nicotine patches and gum don't increase the likelihood of someone's quitting smoking; indeed, among heavy smokers, nicotine replacement therapy was associated with a higher likelihood of relapsing than using nothing at all ("Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt").
I've always thought that nicotine patches and other medicinal addiction cures posed a sort of logical quandary: If you need a drug in order to keep from using a drug, aren't you just substituting one addiction for another? If you get hooked on methadone to keep yourself from using heroin, are you qualtitatively better off? The answer depends on whether the replacement addiction is better for you--or less harmful--than the addiction of choice. I suppose nicotine patches are better for one's lungs--and for the lungs of those around one--than smoking. And rehabilitative drugs like methadone, suboxone, and others certainly provide social benefits if nothing else: Prescribed legally, they provide an imprimatur of social acceptability, suggesting that one has made the decision to improve one's life and battle one's demons. This is no small thing.
The study cited today, however, reinforces the notion that, ultimately, the only way to kick a habit is, indeed, to kick it. I don't minimize the difficulties faced by those who battle addictions. But this study suggests that, when it comes to smoking at least, substitutes for cigarettes don't help one quit, and may simply lead one back to the real thing. Maybe the problem is inherent in the very purpose of nicotine patches and similar "crutches": to minimize the suffering of those trying to quit an addictive habit. I am not suggesting that addicts somehow "deserve" to suffer, but maybe suffering strengthens one's resolve to stay away from the addictive substance. The more pain one has to go through to achieve a goal, the less likely he is to casually relapse--no one wants to suffer needlessly.
Obviously, I'm not a psychiatrist, and I have been lucky enough to avoid addictions. I can certainly be accused of an "easy for him to say" attitude. But if scientific studies cast doubt on scientific (pharmacological) solutions, maybe it is time to face the logic of the situation.
New research suggests that nicotine patches and gum don't increase the likelihood of someone's quitting smoking; indeed, among heavy smokers, nicotine replacement therapy was associated with a higher likelihood of relapsing than using nothing at all ("Nicotine Gum and Skin Patch Face New Doubt").
I've always thought that nicotine patches and other medicinal addiction cures posed a sort of logical quandary: If you need a drug in order to keep from using a drug, aren't you just substituting one addiction for another? If you get hooked on methadone to keep yourself from using heroin, are you qualtitatively better off? The answer depends on whether the replacement addiction is better for you--or less harmful--than the addiction of choice. I suppose nicotine patches are better for one's lungs--and for the lungs of those around one--than smoking. And rehabilitative drugs like methadone, suboxone, and others certainly provide social benefits if nothing else: Prescribed legally, they provide an imprimatur of social acceptability, suggesting that one has made the decision to improve one's life and battle one's demons. This is no small thing.
The study cited today, however, reinforces the notion that, ultimately, the only way to kick a habit is, indeed, to kick it. I don't minimize the difficulties faced by those who battle addictions. But this study suggests that, when it comes to smoking at least, substitutes for cigarettes don't help one quit, and may simply lead one back to the real thing. Maybe the problem is inherent in the very purpose of nicotine patches and similar "crutches": to minimize the suffering of those trying to quit an addictive habit. I am not suggesting that addicts somehow "deserve" to suffer, but maybe suffering strengthens one's resolve to stay away from the addictive substance. The more pain one has to go through to achieve a goal, the less likely he is to casually relapse--no one wants to suffer needlessly.
Obviously, I'm not a psychiatrist, and I have been lucky enough to avoid addictions. I can certainly be accused of an "easy for him to say" attitude. But if scientific studies cast doubt on scientific (pharmacological) solutions, maybe it is time to face the logic of the situation.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Thursday Trendwatch
It occurs to me that anyone who needs Yahoo! to tell them that HOLIDAY CARDS (10) are currently a trendy topic probably isn't trendy enough to be on the interwebs in the first place. The same could be said about FORECLOSURES (9), except for the refreshing news that foreclosures are down significantly from the same period last year. Whatever refreshment one feels, though, is tempered by the realization that the main reason for the slowdown was the fact that banks were pretty much forced to cease and desist after the uproar over "robo-signers": robots from the future that came back in time to authorize foreclosures and kill Sarah Conner. It looks like foreclosures will shoot up again next year--unless, of course, we find out that banks have engaged in even more recklessly illegal activities. So, y'know, it's a 50-50 kind of shot.
Morning people--at least morning women--seem to be at lower risk for DEMENTIA (8), according to a new study. People who are more active in the morning were significantly less likely to develop signs of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. They also displayed greater worm-catching abilities.
A grotesque ELEVATOR ACCIDENT (7) claimed the life of a woman in New York City the other day. In what sounds like a sketch for a scene in the next installment of "Final Destination," the 41-year-old was killed after she stepped onto an elevator that suddenly, unexpectedly, and violently shot up, pinning her between the elevator and the wall of the elevator shaft. Investigators are trying to figure out what went wrong.
From the tragic to the. . . inane?. . .HOWARD STERN (6) will replace Piers Morgan as a judge on NBC's "America's Got Talent." I guess NBC wanted to class things up a bit. And speaking of people who have fallen out of the national consciousness, ANNA CHLUMSKY (5) of "My Girl" fame has made the trendwatch in recognition, I guess, of her ability to grow from an attractive tween into an attractive adult. (Well, at any rate, far more attractive than you would expect something called "chlumsky" to be.)
Still marveling over holiday cards? Well, hurry down to number 4, where you will find UNIQUE GIFT IDEAS. The top three unique gift ideas are as follows: a vial filled with the ebola virus; ocelot cutlers; and a lifetime subscription to "The Solipsist" (including an official Solipsist, "I'm With No One" t-shirt. If you'd rather go with a gag-gift, you could always buy your friend GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS (3) tickets.
Someone keeps putting ZOOEY DESCHANEL (2) on the trend list, and I can only assume it's to annoy me. It won't work! I'll just ignore her and zip on down to the number-one trendiest topic of this moment in the space-time continuum, SOFIA VERGARA, who received a Golden Globe nomination for her role in "Modern Family." On the show, she plays a stunningly gorgeous Latina with a funny accent. I have no idea how she manages to pull that off.
Morning people--at least morning women--seem to be at lower risk for DEMENTIA (8), according to a new study. People who are more active in the morning were significantly less likely to develop signs of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. They also displayed greater worm-catching abilities.
A grotesque ELEVATOR ACCIDENT (7) claimed the life of a woman in New York City the other day. In what sounds like a sketch for a scene in the next installment of "Final Destination," the 41-year-old was killed after she stepped onto an elevator that suddenly, unexpectedly, and violently shot up, pinning her between the elevator and the wall of the elevator shaft. Investigators are trying to figure out what went wrong.
From the tragic to the. . . inane?. . .HOWARD STERN (6) will replace Piers Morgan as a judge on NBC's "America's Got Talent." I guess NBC wanted to class things up a bit. And speaking of people who have fallen out of the national consciousness, ANNA CHLUMSKY (5) of "My Girl" fame has made the trendwatch in recognition, I guess, of her ability to grow from an attractive tween into an attractive adult. (Well, at any rate, far more attractive than you would expect something called "chlumsky" to be.)
Someone keeps putting ZOOEY DESCHANEL (2) on the trend list, and I can only assume it's to annoy me. It won't work! I'll just ignore her and zip on down to the number-one trendiest topic of this moment in the space-time continuum, SOFIA VERGARA, who received a Golden Globe nomination for her role in "Modern Family." On the show, she plays a stunningly gorgeous Latina with a funny accent. I have no idea how she manages to pull that off.
Friday, December 9, 2011
NOT Dinnertime Reading
Last night on "The Colbert Report," Stephen reported on a new treatment for people suffering from a lack of beneficial bacteria in their guts--
--Now, before I go on, I want to emphasize once again that this is NOT appropriate reading if you are eating dinner. . . . or if you are planning to eat dinner. . . ever.
--As I was saying: A new treatment for people suffering from a lack of beneficial intestinal bacteria: Fecal transplants!
Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like: Doctors take fecal matter from healthy people and transplant it into the digestive tract of the afflicted.
I had actually heard of this treatment before. What I had NOT heard was the fact that, apparently, the method of transplantation is, well, oral. For some unimaginable reason, the helpful bacteria can not simply be injected into the intestine: They must be swallowed. As Stephen commented, doctors can now write prescriptions for people to "Eat shit and LIVE!"
What I don't understand is this: People who suffer from the lack of helpful parasites can hardly manage to eat anything. One woman mentioned that, for a year, the only thing she could keep down was crackers and water.
Now, if you can barely stomach crackers and water, how the hell are you going to manage to swallow a big helping of poop?
Oh, and, I apologize.
--Now, before I go on, I want to emphasize once again that this is NOT appropriate reading if you are eating dinner. . . . or if you are planning to eat dinner. . . ever.
--As I was saying: A new treatment for people suffering from a lack of beneficial intestinal bacteria: Fecal transplants!
Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like: Doctors take fecal matter from healthy people and transplant it into the digestive tract of the afflicted.
I had actually heard of this treatment before. What I had NOT heard was the fact that, apparently, the method of transplantation is, well, oral. For some unimaginable reason, the helpful bacteria can not simply be injected into the intestine: They must be swallowed. As Stephen commented, doctors can now write prescriptions for people to "Eat shit and LIVE!"
What I don't understand is this: People who suffer from the lack of helpful parasites can hardly manage to eat anything. One woman mentioned that, for a year, the only thing she could keep down was crackers and water.
Now, if you can barely stomach crackers and water, how the hell are you going to manage to swallow a big helping of poop?
Oh, and, I apologize.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Saturday Health News
According to a government report released yesterday, the following items cause or may cause cancer: formaldehyde, styrene, aristolochic acids, captafol, finely spun glass wool fibers, cobalt-tungsten carbide, riddelliine, and ortho-nitrotoluene.
Additionally, rheumatoid arthritis may be caused by naphthalene, atrapine, tangerines, and excessive weeping.
Kentucky-grown cotton and puffins have been linked to diphtheria.
Doubling one's intake of risotto in white wine sauce may reduce one's risk of whooping cough by more than 87%; however, it also increases the probability that one will contract "Arkansas Knee."
Radon leads to excessive hair-growth in people of Mauritanian descent.
Zinc oxide has been conclusively linked with night-giggles; its effect may be countered by daily infusions of eel placenta.
Reading the newspaper can lead to weary resignation.
Additionally, rheumatoid arthritis may be caused by naphthalene, atrapine, tangerines, and excessive weeping.
Kentucky-grown cotton and puffins have been linked to diphtheria.
Doubling one's intake of risotto in white wine sauce may reduce one's risk of whooping cough by more than 87%; however, it also increases the probability that one will contract "Arkansas Knee."
Radon leads to excessive hair-growth in people of Mauritanian descent.
Zinc oxide has been conclusively linked with night-giggles; its effect may be countered by daily infusions of eel placenta.
Reading the newspaper can lead to weary resignation.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Thursday Health Update
"BERLIN — An unusually lethal strain of E. coli bacteria has infected more than 1,500 people in Germany, mystifying public health officials, ravaging Spain’s agricultural heartland, and touching off panic in Europe as people weighed whether it was safe to eat raw vegetables."
Say this for Mother Nature: She has a keen sense of irony.
Of course, we've always suspected that raw vegetables were up to no good. Cooked vegetables, too, for that matter, which, let's face it, are just raw vegetables wearing crusty disguises.
Also today comes news that an Atkins'-style, high-fat, meat-filled diet may not only help people lose weight but may be less heart-harmful than previously feared. Full-fledged carnivores who did at least a little exercise lost weight faster than those on a high-carb diet, and, surprisingly to researchers, showed no negative vascular effects.
Finally, the World Health Organization has reported that cellphone may--MAY--be carcinogenic.
The takeaway: Eat lots of meat, avoid agricultural products, and technology will kill you. Those cavemen may have been on to something, after all.
Solipsistography
"Cellphone Radiation May Cause Cancer, Advisory Panel Says"
"Eating Fat, Staying Lean"
"Virulent E. Coli Strain Spreads in Germany and Puzzles Health Officials"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)