I just came across this fascinating video of Richard Miller and John Trojanowski debating the topic “Alzheimer’s Research and Basic Science of Aging: Is There a Better Balance?”. The discussion addresses a number of important issues concerning sorting out priorities in a situation of scarcity, plurality of worthy causes in need of funding, and uncertainty concerning the likely benefits of scientific advances. How much should we invest in tackling Alzheimer’s disease (AD) versus aging itself?

Here are some facts about Alzheimer’s from the Alzheimer’s Association:

There are now more than 5 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s.

Every 72 seconds, someone develops Alzheimer’s.

The direct and indirect costs of Alzheimer’s and other dementias amount to more than $148 billion annually.

Continue reading

Wait, There's More!

Thanks for stopping by to see what all the fuss is about. I hope you enjoyed it! If you did, and you'd like to be updated whenever I publish a new post (totally randomly, but never more than once or twice a week) you can subscribe - for free - and receive regular updates. To receive updates by email, simply complete the Subscription Form in the top right hand corner of every page or, if you're so inclined, click here for the main RSS feed.

And if you want to leave a comment at any time - even if it's just to say hi - you're more than welcome - just leave your thoughts in the block at the end of every post. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again!

Oh, and before I forget, you really should read my Why I Blog post. It might numb the shock of some of the heretical things I say!

When the President Does it That Means That it is Not Illegal

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert

Today is as yesterday was. Some of the players remain the same. Vice President Dick Cheney helped to expand Presidential power three decades ago. Today, he pushes the envelope further. As Americans stand on the brink of self destruction, we might ponder the past. Perhaps we can learn from it. Bill Moyers, of Public Broadcasting Services offers a bit of perspective. He asks us to . . .

Remember “The Lives of Others” - the movie that won this year’s Academy Award for best foreign language film . . . a story of life under East Germany’s secret police. The critic Roger Ebert said: “The movie is relevant today, as our government ignores habeas corpus, practices secret torture, and asks for the right to wiretap and eavesdrop on its citizens. Such tactics, he said, did not save East Germany; they destroyed it, by making it a country its most loyal citizens could no longer believe in.” You want to say it couldn’t happen here but we’ve been close before. During the cold war with the Soviet Union and then the hot war in Vietnam, a secret government mushroomed in this country.

Please Review the transcript . . .

The relative success of Trutherism has peaked and is now on the decline. Its genesis lies in right-wing populist conspiracism that was repackaged post-9/11 to appeal to left-of-centre consumers who felt traumatised and disenfranchised as a result of GOP dominance of US politics to 2006. An explanation of 9/11 as a plot masterminded by Bush or his associates appealed to some on the left, as another example of the illegitimacy of the Bush Administration and an example of their evil.

One of the greatest blows to the Troof Movement was when the Democratic Party took Congress in the 2006 Mid-terms. It destroyed the notion of “BushCo” as an all-powerful clique that controlled space-time, controlled all media, and could steal any elections it wanted. As Katrina, Iraq, and Afghanistan have unfolded, the capability of the Bush Administration to orchestrate the greatest deception of all time has been severely dented.

Since 2006, Trooferism is returning to the right-wing populism from which it was originally-derived. Trooferism’s love affair with Ron Paul(1) is rather indicative of this, as well as Trooferism’s bolder assertions that the Democratic Party was also “in on it”. On the progressive messageboard DemocraticUnderground, resident Troofers are becoming bolder in smearing leading Democrats such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry.

read more »

<!–

–>

Assault On Reason

I wrote in a previous post that I’m afraid. I don’t know if afraid is the appropriate word. I nearly lost a leg so I understand the word terror. And I’ve lived my life on the outside of most circles, so I understand wary and I comprehend apprehension. I don’t live in fear because my life isn’t threatened. So I don’t know which word suits my emotion.

I know I haven’t earned the tools to ease the task.
I know I’m capable but I’m aware I’m culpable.
I know that contrition must not contain attrition.

A woman stood in the hall of a hospital and I asked her how she was. She answered, “I’m surviving.” I said, “Surviving is a good verb.” She replied, “Thriving is a better one.” And I knew I was in the presence of the profound.

I will meet my matched. Yet I’m aware that each moment in the synchronicity of Divinity is a pass or fail moment. I didn’t always pass in my past. I’ve failed to do and I’m justly due. In my present and in my presently, I’ll pass and I won’t fail. Yet I’ll merely pass. I should have surpassed.

I am not the man I should have been.
I will never be the man I could have been.
It’s not a matter of living with that loss.
It’s the awareness of living with that less.
I’m not afraid. I’m ashamed.

© 2007 - Mark R Trost - All Rights Reserved

Rollins on impeachment

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”
~ George W. Bush, June 18, 2002
“War is Peace”
~ Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984
Many believe impeachment is not likely. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi will not consider it. Presidential candidate John Edwards thinks the process is a distraction. Many Americans forget that until impeachment was proposed and investigations began, there was no evidence to convict Richard M. Nixon. When asked to assess the past people only recall the spectacular. Sex scandals are dicey! Continue reading

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert

Once again, the Clinton Clan exceeds expectations. It is widely known that the Senator and her spouse are inexorability linked to lobbyist money. The public understands Hillary Clinton’s unwillingness to commit. The American people accept that she cannot know what her friend, the son of Bill’s best bud, will leave behind. Whether we discuss war or children, George W. Bush has abandoned all. Thus, the stroll down the breezeway to the Oval Office will not be an easy jaunt. There is much damage to undo, re-do, or create anew.

Hillary holds out hope. She does not know what she will find in White House that George built. She will not assert that she can stop the Iraq war by 2013. She will put more troops in Afghanistan. Universal Health Care, well, she commands all Americans be insured. However, she offers little to those unable to pay the premiums. Hillary wants to help . . . those that help her, and lobbyists do. Continue reading

‘Twas October 18 and Congress was a twitter. Senators and Representatives fought and they flittered. Some thought society must provide for the children. Others maintained only parents need be responsible for their wards. Congressional Democrats discussed and debated. For them Health Care for the little ones, that was the issue. When suddenly they realized this pursuit was not viable. A few thought if they built a coalition, designed a compromise all would be well. Thus, a proposal was submitted. Funds for the children in the form of Abstinence Education, surely, that would fly; health insurance went bye-bye.

As Congress deliberated and did few deeds, parents congregated and presumed a great need. In the corners of Portland, Maine parents chattered and prattled. Could we, should we, would we give our Middle School students a prescription. Might contraceptives and condoms cure societal ills? For these fine citizens sex was the subject. Who might the teacher be?
These anecdotes are as one. Elders inquire; who or how might we care for the little ones. What is right and what is wrong; what is neither, just misunderstood. In the House chambers, on the Senate floor, in living rooms near and far anxious adults ponder the possibilities their parents did not. Is sex a subject to be taught by the states, or once the babies arrive at school, is it too late. Continue reading

A forum member recently shared the Carl Sagan quote, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

This quote assumes an objective universe, which is a rather biased way of looking at reality — and not particularly accurate either. In my opinion Carl Sagan’s quote is misleading at best.

What is proof anyway?

Proof is an artifact of viewing reality through an objective lens. However, proof is not a facet of actual reality. Reality just is. It does not need to be proven. Reality is secure enough in its own existence that it doesn’t care whether some being proves or disproves what it is. If you think reality cares about proof, you could also say it derives a sick satisfaction from all the false proofs that have been tendered in its name over the last few millennia.

Instead of proof what we really want is truth. And a good first truth to accept is that it’s only the squishy, lens-peering beings that require proof, which is actually a subjective experience. Continue reading

http://medicalveritas.com/manGirard.pdf

Link goes to external url .pdf

Marc Girard, MSc, MD
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) may be used to discard valuable data under the pretext that it does not correspond to the “best” criteria of proof, even when no results complying with these “best” criteria are available. Since their infrequent occurrences make it impossible to assess most adverse effects using randomised clinical trials (RCTs), drug safety offers frequent examples of selective assessment of data based upon this poor understanding of the fundamental tenets of EBM. While the gold standard of pharmaco-epidemiology (case/control studies) is usually ranked amongst the lower levels of evidence and is unattainable in many instances, the majority of safety problems are simply assessed using subjec-tive specifications (“acceptable”, “hard to interpret”, “not enough evidence”, “not causally demonstrated”). This vaccine-safety example illustrates that such specifications are almost always biased by prejudices and application inconsistencies. Continue reading

by Martha Rosenberg

It was supposed to replace Prozac profits when the patent expired in 2001 and cash in on the national love affair with antidepressants.

But Eli Lilly & Co.’s Cymbalta (duloxetine) seemed cursed from the start.

The first antidepressant to be introduced since FDA investigations into suicide/antidepressant links, Cymbalta itself was marred with suicides before it was approved.

Five occurred during Cymbalta clinical trials including previously healthy volunteer Traci Johnson who hung herself in Lilly’s Indiana University Medical School lab in 2004. Continue reading