Sunday, February 22, 2004
Missouri Public Schools and Our Money
Last Monday, President's Day, a number of public school employees, administrators, and teachers, took a trip to the state capital, Jefferson City, to agitate for more funding for the public schools. Governor Holden, as was required by law, withheld some $200M of state funds pending those funds actually being received by the Dept. of Revenue. Those protesting were agitating not only for the release of those funds, but also for an increase in school funding this coming year (which would mean putting a tax increase on the ballot -- a measure which would in all likelihood lose, given that the last several statewide attempts have failed.)
Well, today we get an interesting story in the Jefferson City News Tribune. What's the point? Well, I'll let the article speak for itself:
Last Monday, President's Day, a number of public school employees, administrators, and teachers, took a trip to the state capital, Jefferson City, to agitate for more funding for the public schools. Governor Holden, as was required by law, withheld some $200M of state funds pending those funds actually being received by the Dept. of Revenue. Those protesting were agitating not only for the release of those funds, but also for an increase in school funding this coming year (which would mean putting a tax increase on the ballot -- a measure which would in all likelihood lose, given that the last several statewide attempts have failed.)
Well, today we get an interesting story in the Jefferson City News Tribune. What's the point? Well, I'll let the article speak for itself:
More than one-fourth of Missouri school districts increased the salaries of their superintendents this school year even as tight budgets forced them to lay off teachers or not fill vacant positions, an Associated Press review of education documents shows.I'm not surprised at all, but just have to sit here and shake my head. I guess these guys (and gals) thought that we all went to public school or that we decided not to continue after they were done with us.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Light Posting
Sorry for the light posting the last few and next several days, but life intrudes sometimes. My ex-wife, a practicing Christian Scientist, and I, a practicing evangelical Christian at First Evangelical Free Church, are deciding how our daughter, who has Down Syndrome, should be educated in Kindergarten next year. Our divorce decree spells out some of the details, but that hasn't stopped my ex from wanting to put our daughter into a Christian Science school.
Needless to say, I am adamantly opposed to such a proposition, but need to make a strong case to prevent it. Next week is registration for Kindergarten as well as a school event for our daughter, by which point my ex will have my full and unvarnished opinion of this Christian Science school.
I fear it will be a rough week.
Sorry for the light posting the last few and next several days, but life intrudes sometimes. My ex-wife, a practicing Christian Scientist, and I, a practicing evangelical Christian at First Evangelical Free Church, are deciding how our daughter, who has Down Syndrome, should be educated in Kindergarten next year. Our divorce decree spells out some of the details, but that hasn't stopped my ex from wanting to put our daughter into a Christian Science school.
Needless to say, I am adamantly opposed to such a proposition, but need to make a strong case to prevent it. Next week is registration for Kindergarten as well as a school event for our daughter, by which point my ex will have my full and unvarnished opinion of this Christian Science school.
I fear it will be a rough week.
Monday, February 16, 2004
The Price of Gasoline
There was an editorial in one of the Seattle-area papers yesterday complaining that gas may end up costing between $2-$3 per gallon there by the summer. The author was attempting to refute the idea that the price rise was due to the tightening supply and OPEC's recent decision to decrease production levels by 1.5million barrels per day starting April 1. He noted that the west coast uses very little OPEC oil, but instead gets most of it's oil from Alaska and therefore any price rise would amount to pure profit for the oil companies.
He seems to have little understanding of economics and seems to believe that the price of Alaskan crude will be unaffected by any supply changes in OPEC crude.
The real problem is multipart (aside from our dependence on foreign oil.)
First, there is the regulatory difficulty. The Clean Air Act allowed the EPA to specify certain large metropolitan regions are having unclean air and requiring the affected states to reduce emissions of specified pollutants to levels which would meet a level the EPA deemed acceptable (for now.) The state complied with this directive in a number of ways, but largely by figuring out a formulation of gasoline which had a higher oxygenate content in it and so would reduce pollutant levels at the tailpipe. Rather than specify any gasoline formula which would meet the tailpipe standards, the states typically specified one particular formula. What happened then is that due to the amount of gasoline that region would use, there might be one refinery which would produce that formula. Thus, for example, in the St. Louis area, there is really just one refinery in the Chicago area which produces all of the gasoline used here. (There is another small refinery somewhere to the west which generates some.) In effect, the formula regulation creates a monopoly. The product from that single refinery is shipped to the east side of St. Louis and stored. Each oil company (Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, BP/Amoco, etc.) each then gets their local product from that same storage tank. There is no competition allowed as required by regulation. That's why prices go up at all stations at the same time and fall at about the same time. There is no collusion, except at the behest of the state legislature.
Second, the EPA does not allow the import of refined gasoline products. There are refineries sitting idle in South East Asia, just waiting for something to do, while the refineries in the US are running at or near capacity. (NIMBY has prevented construction of most, if not all, new refineries in the US for a decade or more.) We could supply some of our additional requirements using off-shore refineries and thereby create competition which would drive prices down a bit, save the EPA won't allow it.
Thus, the next time you want to complain about high gasoline prices, complain to the EPA and your state legislatures to change the formula and import requirements. The oil companies are just taking advantage of the situation created by the regulations. That's not to say that the oil companies are blameless in this effort as they likely had a hand in the regulations, however, only the legislature can change the rules, so they are the one who need to receive complaints.
There was an editorial in one of the Seattle-area papers yesterday complaining that gas may end up costing between $2-$3 per gallon there by the summer. The author was attempting to refute the idea that the price rise was due to the tightening supply and OPEC's recent decision to decrease production levels by 1.5million barrels per day starting April 1. He noted that the west coast uses very little OPEC oil, but instead gets most of it's oil from Alaska and therefore any price rise would amount to pure profit for the oil companies.
He seems to have little understanding of economics and seems to believe that the price of Alaskan crude will be unaffected by any supply changes in OPEC crude.
The real problem is multipart (aside from our dependence on foreign oil.)
First, there is the regulatory difficulty. The Clean Air Act allowed the EPA to specify certain large metropolitan regions are having unclean air and requiring the affected states to reduce emissions of specified pollutants to levels which would meet a level the EPA deemed acceptable (for now.) The state complied with this directive in a number of ways, but largely by figuring out a formulation of gasoline which had a higher oxygenate content in it and so would reduce pollutant levels at the tailpipe. Rather than specify any gasoline formula which would meet the tailpipe standards, the states typically specified one particular formula. What happened then is that due to the amount of gasoline that region would use, there might be one refinery which would produce that formula. Thus, for example, in the St. Louis area, there is really just one refinery in the Chicago area which produces all of the gasoline used here. (There is another small refinery somewhere to the west which generates some.) In effect, the formula regulation creates a monopoly. The product from that single refinery is shipped to the east side of St. Louis and stored. Each oil company (Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, BP/Amoco, etc.) each then gets their local product from that same storage tank. There is no competition allowed as required by regulation. That's why prices go up at all stations at the same time and fall at about the same time. There is no collusion, except at the behest of the state legislature.
Second, the EPA does not allow the import of refined gasoline products. There are refineries sitting idle in South East Asia, just waiting for something to do, while the refineries in the US are running at or near capacity. (NIMBY has prevented construction of most, if not all, new refineries in the US for a decade or more.) We could supply some of our additional requirements using off-shore refineries and thereby create competition which would drive prices down a bit, save the EPA won't allow it.
Thus, the next time you want to complain about high gasoline prices, complain to the EPA and your state legislatures to change the formula and import requirements. The oil companies are just taking advantage of the situation created by the regulations. That's not to say that the oil companies are blameless in this effort as they likely had a hand in the regulations, however, only the legislature can change the rules, so they are the one who need to receive complaints.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Electrical Blackout last Summer Due to Software Bug
The final report was released regarding last summer's electrical blackout in the Northeast. Approximately 50 million households in the northeastern US and Canada were without power for a day or 2 at least.
Now, it turns out, that the alarm programs which were supposed to monitor the electrical grid had become deadlocked and were unable to provide warning about a deteriorating network. This report from CNN has some details. Two different programs were attempting to examine the same data element at the same time, but neither was allowed access. Thus, both programs ended up spin-waiting for the lock on that data to be released so that each of them in turn could access that data element and respond accordingly. This is a deadlock condition.
This is why it is critically important to get software right, even for little projects.
The final report was released regarding last summer's electrical blackout in the Northeast. Approximately 50 million households in the northeastern US and Canada were without power for a day or 2 at least.
Now, it turns out, that the alarm programs which were supposed to monitor the electrical grid had become deadlocked and were unable to provide warning about a deteriorating network. This report from CNN has some details. Two different programs were attempting to examine the same data element at the same time, but neither was allowed access. Thus, both programs ended up spin-waiting for the lock on that data to be released so that each of them in turn could access that data element and respond accordingly. This is a deadlock condition.
This is why it is critically important to get software right, even for little projects.
The release of Microsoft Windows Source Code
As has been reported by various mainstream media in the last day or so, quite a bit of the source code Microsoft used to build Windows NT and Windows 2000 was released publicly. Microsoft has launched an investigation of what happened and hackers are alleged to be ready to have a field day picking apart the code to find new exploits.
I wonder if Microsoft might not benefit from this accidental (assuming it really was) release. Surely they wouldn't want their source code to be made public (as the quality of that code is likely pretty poor in many areas.) However, since the code was only for older Windows systems, NT and 2000 specifically, I wonder if MS won't develop a strategy to push customers toward XP or the newer Windows 2003 code bases. After all, if security is compromised on older systems, it is likely to be improved on newer systems, or at least that will be the marketing push.
Just wait for the MS spin. I can already see it starting up.
As has been reported by various mainstream media in the last day or so, quite a bit of the source code Microsoft used to build Windows NT and Windows 2000 was released publicly. Microsoft has launched an investigation of what happened and hackers are alleged to be ready to have a field day picking apart the code to find new exploits.
I wonder if Microsoft might not benefit from this accidental (assuming it really was) release. Surely they wouldn't want their source code to be made public (as the quality of that code is likely pretty poor in many areas.) However, since the code was only for older Windows systems, NT and 2000 specifically, I wonder if MS won't develop a strategy to push customers toward XP or the newer Windows 2003 code bases. After all, if security is compromised on older systems, it is likely to be improved on newer systems, or at least that will be the marketing push.
Just wait for the MS spin. I can already see it starting up.
Politics as usual in Chicago?
This story in the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch points to an interesting "coincidence."
It seems that a large firm, bidding for a city contract, just happened to donate $30,000 to the campaign of Gov. Blagojovich. Later, that same firm just happened to be awarded a multi-million dollar contract even though it wasn't the lowest bidder.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing just doesn't surprise me anymore.
This story in the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch points to an interesting "coincidence."
It seems that a large firm, bidding for a city contract, just happened to donate $30,000 to the campaign of Gov. Blagojovich. Later, that same firm just happened to be awarded a multi-million dollar contract even though it wasn't the lowest bidder.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing just doesn't surprise me anymore.
Laser Isotope Separation
Steven Den Beste responds to Wretchard regarding proliferation of nuclear devices by Al Qaida. In the course of that discussion, he talks about the difficulty of separating U235 from U238 using centrifugal methods.
Back in the mid 1980's when I was in graduate school, I worked peripherally with an effort to determine if laser isotope separation was feasible. The idea was simple. Since the nucleus of U238 was heavier than the nucleus of U235, the quantum energy states of the gas U238F6 were distinguishable from the quantum energy states of the gas U235F6. Thus, a properly tuned laser should be able to selectively dissociate (ionize) electrons from the molocules of one isotope without dissociating the electrons from the molocules of the other isotope.
In practice, what actually happened was that when enough energy was put into the laser beam to reach the dissociation threshold, the Gaussian profile of the beam was wide enough to excite molocules of the other isotope through rotational (spin) state splitting effectively rendering the technique useless for selective ionization.
It was a nice try and could have improved the effectiveness of separating (and dramatically reduced the cost) U235 from U238.
Now, I'm almost glad we were not able to accomplish that since it would make discovery of equipment used to purify fissionable Uranium much more difficult.
Steven Den Beste responds to Wretchard regarding proliferation of nuclear devices by Al Qaida. In the course of that discussion, he talks about the difficulty of separating U235 from U238 using centrifugal methods.
Back in the mid 1980's when I was in graduate school, I worked peripherally with an effort to determine if laser isotope separation was feasible. The idea was simple. Since the nucleus of U238 was heavier than the nucleus of U235, the quantum energy states of the gas U238F6 were distinguishable from the quantum energy states of the gas U235F6. Thus, a properly tuned laser should be able to selectively dissociate (ionize) electrons from the molocules of one isotope without dissociating the electrons from the molocules of the other isotope.
In practice, what actually happened was that when enough energy was put into the laser beam to reach the dissociation threshold, the Gaussian profile of the beam was wide enough to excite molocules of the other isotope through rotational (spin) state splitting effectively rendering the technique useless for selective ionization.
It was a nice try and could have improved the effectiveness of separating (and dramatically reduced the cost) U235 from U238.
Now, I'm almost glad we were not able to accomplish that since it would make discovery of equipment used to purify fissionable Uranium much more difficult.
Advice for Men going for their first Prostate Exam
When men turn 40, they are advised to find a Urologist (or use their Primary Care Physician) and have their first PSA and DRE tests performed. Here are a few things to consider before that first exam.
First, abstain from sex or sexual release for at least 3 days prior to the exam.
This is important since the muscles involved in the release will inject extra PSA into the bloodstream. It typically takes a few days for this extra PSA to be removed from the system. Otherwise, an abnormally large PSA value may be the result and unnecessary further testing and alarm may occur. (The PSA in the bloodstream may actually double due to sexual activity.)
Second, make sure that the bloodwork in the doctors office is performed BEFORE the DRE.
The DRE (Digital Rectal Exam) does examine the surface of the prostate for irregularities which may indicate the presence of abnormal growth. As such, that process itself may cause the release of some additional PSA into the bloodstream leading to an artificially high PSA reading if the blood is drawn after the DRE instead of before.
Third, the rate of change of the PSA (PSA velocity) is as important as the actual PSA reading itself.
Normal PSA readings should be near zero, but will increase slowly over the course of one's life, perhaps only by a marginal amount. Readings of less than 4.0 are considered to be worth watching with more regular (annual exams). Readings between 4.0 and 10.0 generally call for a prostate biopsy. Readings greater than 10.0 typically indicate the presence of some sort of abnormal growth which a biopsy will confirm. If the PSA velocity is greater than 0.75 between any 2 successive readings (remember points 1 and 2 above) then a biopsy is generally called for, no matter what the actual PSA reading is, although family history and other factors should figure into a decision to have a biopsy.
Fourth, if you need a biopsy, ask your doctor about using a local as well as making sure that he performs a 12 core biopsy instead of merely a 6 core biopsy.
For a biopsy, the prostate is divided into 6 regions. A minimal biopsy will remove a core from each region. A better biopsy will remove 2 cores from each region. Statistics show that a 12 core biopsy is about 90% effective in finding any abnormal growth while a 6 core biopsy is only about 60% effective. If you're going to have one done, might as well have a better chance at learning the truth, right? You will be sore afterwards and there will be some blood from the perineal region. (I actually recommend taking a feminine napkin with you to the biopsy and using that on top of the perineal region, attached appropriately to your underwear, to absorb the excess blood instead of having that blood on your underwear. This also tends to limit the possibility of infection due to "skid marks.")
If you need more information on Prostate Cancer or PIN (Prostate Intraepithelial Neoplasia -- pre-cancerous prostate cells), you can find it at Prostate Pointers among other sites.
Here's wishing you all a successful (low) PSA test with no cancer.
When men turn 40, they are advised to find a Urologist (or use their Primary Care Physician) and have their first PSA and DRE tests performed. Here are a few things to consider before that first exam.
First, abstain from sex or sexual release for at least 3 days prior to the exam.
This is important since the muscles involved in the release will inject extra PSA into the bloodstream. It typically takes a few days for this extra PSA to be removed from the system. Otherwise, an abnormally large PSA value may be the result and unnecessary further testing and alarm may occur. (The PSA in the bloodstream may actually double due to sexual activity.)
Second, make sure that the bloodwork in the doctors office is performed BEFORE the DRE.
The DRE (Digital Rectal Exam) does examine the surface of the prostate for irregularities which may indicate the presence of abnormal growth. As such, that process itself may cause the release of some additional PSA into the bloodstream leading to an artificially high PSA reading if the blood is drawn after the DRE instead of before.
Third, the rate of change of the PSA (PSA velocity) is as important as the actual PSA reading itself.
Normal PSA readings should be near zero, but will increase slowly over the course of one's life, perhaps only by a marginal amount. Readings of less than 4.0 are considered to be worth watching with more regular (annual exams). Readings between 4.0 and 10.0 generally call for a prostate biopsy. Readings greater than 10.0 typically indicate the presence of some sort of abnormal growth which a biopsy will confirm. If the PSA velocity is greater than 0.75 between any 2 successive readings (remember points 1 and 2 above) then a biopsy is generally called for, no matter what the actual PSA reading is, although family history and other factors should figure into a decision to have a biopsy.
Fourth, if you need a biopsy, ask your doctor about using a local as well as making sure that he performs a 12 core biopsy instead of merely a 6 core biopsy.
For a biopsy, the prostate is divided into 6 regions. A minimal biopsy will remove a core from each region. A better biopsy will remove 2 cores from each region. Statistics show that a 12 core biopsy is about 90% effective in finding any abnormal growth while a 6 core biopsy is only about 60% effective. If you're going to have one done, might as well have a better chance at learning the truth, right? You will be sore afterwards and there will be some blood from the perineal region. (I actually recommend taking a feminine napkin with you to the biopsy and using that on top of the perineal region, attached appropriately to your underwear, to absorb the excess blood instead of having that blood on your underwear. This also tends to limit the possibility of infection due to "skid marks.")
If you need more information on Prostate Cancer or PIN (Prostate Intraepithelial Neoplasia -- pre-cancerous prostate cells), you can find it at Prostate Pointers among other sites.
Here's wishing you all a successful (low) PSA test with no cancer.
What Kills the most Americans each year?
Some of you might be tempted to say auto accidents (about 40K) or if you're more knowledgable, perhaps you'll say cancer (553,251 in 2001 National Vital Statistics Report (pdf)) or even heart disease (699,697 in 2001.) All of those are big numbers and each death is tragic, but the biggest killer of Americans each year is conventional medicine with a whopping 783,936 deaths per year.
OK, color me skeptical. What's going on here?
The Life Extension Foundation is an organization which attempts to scientifically evaluate the health claims of various supplemental nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. Their BoD consists of a number of prominent physicians and others who are able to evaluate scientific studies. The organization also funds their own independent studies. Based on scientific data, they adopt complimentary protocols for dealing with a wide variety of disease states. These protocols involve providing data on nutrition and suppliments which would compliment the normal medical protocol advised by physicians when an individual is battling a particular disease. The advice appears to be sound and I have used it myself in battling Prostate Cancer.
In any event, this organization has scoured the medical literature looking for evidence of deaths caused by normal medical procedures and medications. What they found apparently shocked even them. They have put together a study called Death by Medicine for your reading dismay. It's a 6 page report, complete with references to the medical literature and the tale it tells is appalling.
The report estimates that the annual cost of these adverse reactions and unnecessary interventions is approximately $282 Billion. Quite a sum of money.
Other items from the report are equally devastating.
Journal articles for prominent medical journals are written by individuals paid by the drug companies to write these articles. Isn't that a bit unethical?
I wonder why this is the case?
Let's further couple that with the fact that drug companies perform their own safety studies as required by FDA protocols. Given the amount of money involved, don't you think that a company in such a position might have an incentive to cover up any potential problems long enough to recover some of the money they've invested in their product? Don't you think that they might try to buy a few senior FDA administrators to look the other way for a while? After all, such senior officials have immunity from prosecution, so it doesn't really matter to them if your Aunt Edna gets killed by a bad drug.
RTWT.
Some of you might be tempted to say auto accidents (about 40K) or if you're more knowledgable, perhaps you'll say cancer (553,251 in 2001 National Vital Statistics Report (pdf)) or even heart disease (699,697 in 2001.) All of those are big numbers and each death is tragic, but the biggest killer of Americans each year is conventional medicine with a whopping 783,936 deaths per year.
OK, color me skeptical. What's going on here?
The Life Extension Foundation is an organization which attempts to scientifically evaluate the health claims of various supplemental nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. Their BoD consists of a number of prominent physicians and others who are able to evaluate scientific studies. The organization also funds their own independent studies. Based on scientific data, they adopt complimentary protocols for dealing with a wide variety of disease states. These protocols involve providing data on nutrition and suppliments which would compliment the normal medical protocol advised by physicians when an individual is battling a particular disease. The advice appears to be sound and I have used it myself in battling Prostate Cancer.
In any event, this organization has scoured the medical literature looking for evidence of deaths caused by normal medical procedures and medications. What they found apparently shocked even them. They have put together a study called Death by Medicine for your reading dismay. It's a 6 page report, complete with references to the medical literature and the tale it tells is appalling.
This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.
The report estimates that the annual cost of these adverse reactions and unnecessary interventions is approximately $282 Billion. Quite a sum of money.
Other items from the report are equally devastating.
As former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine , Dr. Marcia Angell struggled to bring greater attention to the problem of commercializing scientific research. In her outgoing editorial entitled “ Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” Angell said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science and called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers:(20) “When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.
Journal articles for prominent medical journals are written by individuals paid by the drug companies to write these articles. Isn't that a bit unethical?
The ABC news report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90% chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug-company-funded study will show favorable results only 50% of the time. It appears that money can't buy you love but it can buy any "scientific" result desired.
I wonder why this is the case?
Let's further couple that with the fact that drug companies perform their own safety studies as required by FDA protocols. Given the amount of money involved, don't you think that a company in such a position might have an incentive to cover up any potential problems long enough to recover some of the money they've invested in their product? Don't you think that they might try to buy a few senior FDA administrators to look the other way for a while? After all, such senior officials have immunity from prosecution, so it doesn't really matter to them if your Aunt Edna gets killed by a bad drug.
RTWT.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Mercury, Autism, and Childhood Vaccines
Yesterday (Feb. 9, 2004), I read a report on CNN that the commission on childhood vaccines will once again take up the topic of mercury in childhood vaccines and what effects that might have. (Sorry, no link.)
The report indicated that within the last 3 years (the commission last met in 2001) there have been a number of additional studies which may help the commission change their findings. (Their previous finding was insufficient data.)
In addition to the study cited in my previous post, there is now a new study of 100,000 Danish children, some who received a vaccine with thimerosal and some without. The study concluded that the rates of Autism were the same in both groups.
The problem is that the mercury load may be entirely satisfied by fish in the diet. Danes eat quite a lot of fish, so the mercury in the shots may be incidental, not causative.
It also occurs to me that there is likely another genetic mechanism at work. In addition to genetic factor limiting the ability to excrete mercury from the system, another factor might be a lowering of the threshold at which irregular brain activity occurs. In all likelihood, these 2, and possibly other, factors operate simultaneously and so teasing out which factor is causitive may be very difficult, in a particular case.
Yesterday (Feb. 9, 2004), I read a report on CNN that the commission on childhood vaccines will once again take up the topic of mercury in childhood vaccines and what effects that might have. (Sorry, no link.)
The report indicated that within the last 3 years (the commission last met in 2001) there have been a number of additional studies which may help the commission change their findings. (Their previous finding was insufficient data.)
In addition to the study cited in my previous post, there is now a new study of 100,000 Danish children, some who received a vaccine with thimerosal and some without. The study concluded that the rates of Autism were the same in both groups.
The problem is that the mercury load may be entirely satisfied by fish in the diet. Danes eat quite a lot of fish, so the mercury in the shots may be incidental, not causative.
It also occurs to me that there is likely another genetic mechanism at work. In addition to genetic factor limiting the ability to excrete mercury from the system, another factor might be a lowering of the threshold at which irregular brain activity occurs. In all likelihood, these 2, and possibly other, factors operate simultaneously and so teasing out which factor is causitive may be very difficult, in a particular case.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Mercury Impedes Brain Function
This is something we've known for quite a while, but Reuters reports on a recent study done on 1000 children (and their mothers) both prenatal and post-natal.
The diets consisted largely of fish, much of which was contaminated by mercury. There was a positive correlation seen between increased mercury load and irregular brain activity.
So why then to physicians downplay the possible role of mercury (thimerosal) in children's vaccines? Yes, it was banned in 1997, but existing stocks were allowed to be used until gone and most state health departments quietly allowed doctors to continue using those stock until the thimerosal stabilized vaccines were gone. (Most individual vaccines do not use the preservative thimerosal, but the bulk vaccines, such as are used by health departments, do.)
There has been much squabbling between parents and doctors regarding thimerosal vaccines and the possible link between some vaccines and autism. A recent study (pdf) by The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons demonstrated that many kids with autism have high mercury loads. It's entirely plausible then, to postulate that autistic children has some genetic deficiency which prevents them from excreting mercury from their systems, thus allowing that deadly metal to accumulate, thereby leading to increasingly irregular brain activity.
I wonder if it would be possible to develop some sort of flushing chemical which would look for and capture mercury in the human body. Wait for nanotech medical devices (in a decade or two) and we'll likely know more.
This is something we've known for quite a while, but Reuters reports on a recent study done on 1000 children (and their mothers) both prenatal and post-natal.
The diets consisted largely of fish, much of which was contaminated by mercury. There was a positive correlation seen between increased mercury load and irregular brain activity.
So why then to physicians downplay the possible role of mercury (thimerosal) in children's vaccines? Yes, it was banned in 1997, but existing stocks were allowed to be used until gone and most state health departments quietly allowed doctors to continue using those stock until the thimerosal stabilized vaccines were gone. (Most individual vaccines do not use the preservative thimerosal, but the bulk vaccines, such as are used by health departments, do.)
There has been much squabbling between parents and doctors regarding thimerosal vaccines and the possible link between some vaccines and autism. A recent study (pdf) by The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons demonstrated that many kids with autism have high mercury loads. It's entirely plausible then, to postulate that autistic children has some genetic deficiency which prevents them from excreting mercury from their systems, thus allowing that deadly metal to accumulate, thereby leading to increasingly irregular brain activity.
I wonder if it would be possible to develop some sort of flushing chemical which would look for and capture mercury in the human body. Wait for nanotech medical devices (in a decade or two) and we'll likely know more.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Homosexual Marriage, Part II
Many Christians are decrying the recent ruling from the Massechusetts Supreme Court demanding that marriage be expanded from it's traditional definition of the union of 1 man with 1 woman. There is also a move afoot to protect homosexuals from what they consider to be hate speech. These 2 forces are going to collide with Evangelical Christian doctrine.
Many so-called Christians, such as Fred Phelps, actually hate the people who are homosexual. This is driving a backlash against Christians. Rev. Phelps is, in my opinion, an idiot. As Christians we are implored to love the sinner by hate the sin. We also can't condemn the person for their actions as we are all guilty of sin and GOD points out that we will be judged using the same standards we use to judge others. What then, are we to do?
Those who choose to continue living in sin will be judged by GOD. I need say nothing about them, other than to point out what GOD says about such activity. I am not allowed to condemn the person for his or her actions.
This is the dilemma that many Christians will have to face -- how to react to sin without condemnation of the sinner. We do fine, when the sinners come to us, but have a much greater problem bringing this message to the sinner, particularly when the sinner doesn't believe that what he or she is doing is a sin. This reaction requires much prayer and much thought so that we can follow where GOD leads in this endeavor. This also begs the question about how Christians can live in a culture which condones and even encourages some forms of sin.
Jesus never imposed his views on anybody. He made suggestions and pointed out, quite clearly, the problems faced by the sinners, but never made anybody follow him, even though he could have. He doesn't do that. Likewise, I'm not sure that we as Christians can make people follow GOD either. What does it say about us as Christians when we try to impose our views of life and the way it should be lived on others who may not share that view? Should we, as Christians, attempt to impose our views on the rest of society through legislative enactments?
That's a much more difficult question and one I'll have to pray about and ponder.
Many Christians are decrying the recent ruling from the Massechusetts Supreme Court demanding that marriage be expanded from it's traditional definition of the union of 1 man with 1 woman. There is also a move afoot to protect homosexuals from what they consider to be hate speech. These 2 forces are going to collide with Evangelical Christian doctrine.
Many so-called Christians, such as Fred Phelps, actually hate the people who are homosexual. This is driving a backlash against Christians. Rev. Phelps is, in my opinion, an idiot. As Christians we are implored to love the sinner by hate the sin. We also can't condemn the person for their actions as we are all guilty of sin and GOD points out that we will be judged using the same standards we use to judge others. What then, are we to do?
Those who choose to continue living in sin will be judged by GOD. I need say nothing about them, other than to point out what GOD says about such activity. I am not allowed to condemn the person for his or her actions.
This is the dilemma that many Christians will have to face -- how to react to sin without condemnation of the sinner. We do fine, when the sinners come to us, but have a much greater problem bringing this message to the sinner, particularly when the sinner doesn't believe that what he or she is doing is a sin. This reaction requires much prayer and much thought so that we can follow where GOD leads in this endeavor. This also begs the question about how Christians can live in a culture which condones and even encourages some forms of sin.
Jesus never imposed his views on anybody. He made suggestions and pointed out, quite clearly, the problems faced by the sinners, but never made anybody follow him, even though he could have. He doesn't do that. Likewise, I'm not sure that we as Christians can make people follow GOD either. What does it say about us as Christians when we try to impose our views of life and the way it should be lived on others who may not share that view? Should we, as Christians, attempt to impose our views on the rest of society through legislative enactments?
That's a much more difficult question and one I'll have to pray about and ponder.
Homosexual Marriage
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has first, carved out a new right, that of marriage between persons not of opposite sexes, and has now determined that separate but equal will not do. The latter clarification following logically from the initial ruling.
I disagree with the court ruling and believe that marriage, as it has developed over the last several millenia is the proper form and should not be cast aside by a 1 vote majority.
I don't agree with The Concerned Women for America or Focus on the Family on their approach to many issues, but this issue is too important to be left aside and so I will be enrolling as a member in both of those organizations.
Andrew Sullivan isn't too concerned about a backlash. Well, he's got another think coming. He fails utterly to understand the power of embedded religious doctrine which will rise up to pass a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else is acceptable.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has first, carved out a new right, that of marriage between persons not of opposite sexes, and has now determined that separate but equal will not do. The latter clarification following logically from the initial ruling.
I disagree with the court ruling and believe that marriage, as it has developed over the last several millenia is the proper form and should not be cast aside by a 1 vote majority.
I don't agree with The Concerned Women for America or Focus on the Family on their approach to many issues, but this issue is too important to be left aside and so I will be enrolling as a member in both of those organizations.
Andrew Sullivan isn't too concerned about a backlash. Well, he's got another think coming. He fails utterly to understand the power of embedded religious doctrine which will rise up to pass a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else is acceptable.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
South Dakota Legislature set to Ban Abortion
Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost points to legislation currently making it's way through the South Dakota legislature which would ban abortion. He has a series of blog entries (here, here, and here.)
Now, you might think that this is an impossible task, after all the Supreme Court effectively permitted abortion to occur with the Roe -v- Wade decision. Actually, Justice Blackmun left a hole. Basically, the SCOTUS declined to define when life begins and so postulated that we couldn't know until the baby was actually born. The bill in SD would, by legislative enactment, define that life begins at conception. This does not go against the Roe -v- Wade decision, but would compliment it, although not in a way that groups like Planned Parenthood would prefer.
So far, this is flying under the media radar screen, so Joe is asking bloggers to push this topic into the mainstream.
Happy to help.
Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost points to legislation currently making it's way through the South Dakota legislature which would ban abortion. He has a series of blog entries (here, here, and here.)
Now, you might think that this is an impossible task, after all the Supreme Court effectively permitted abortion to occur with the Roe -v- Wade decision. Actually, Justice Blackmun left a hole. Basically, the SCOTUS declined to define when life begins and so postulated that we couldn't know until the baby was actually born. The bill in SD would, by legislative enactment, define that life begins at conception. This does not go against the Roe -v- Wade decision, but would compliment it, although not in a way that groups like Planned Parenthood would prefer.
So far, this is flying under the media radar screen, so Joe is asking bloggers to push this topic into the mainstream.
Happy to help.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
The Great Drug Debate
Tech Central Station has an excellent article, transcript really, of a debate on the issue of drug (re)importation. I highly recommend reading this article provided you've got an hour or so to go through it.
I tend to agree with Dr. Freidman quite a bit when he says that the real issue is the FDA. I've stated that myself on a number of occasions, noting that their mentality is shaped by their incentives. The people who work on drug approval get the blame when things go wrong, but don't get any credit when things go right. This reduces that process to one of dotting i's and crossing t's.
Dr. Friedman also suggests that one way to decrease the cost significantly in a short period of time is to return the FDA to a previous function where it was only charged with approving the safety of drugs, but not their efficacy. The FDA process checks safety in Phase I clinical trials. It's only in Phases II and III where efficacy is checked. The market will check efficacy rather quickly. Furthermore, by not checking efficacy, all off-label uses are permitted, something not in evidence today. Trimming the Phase II and III clinical trials from their requirements would shorten the approval time by about 5 years (from 15 total down to about 10) as well as dropping significant costs. Having 7 (or 10) years to recover development costs instead of simply 2 will change the company's dynamic.
Having only a couple of years to recover development costs really forces the company to advertise in order to boost sales in the near term. With longer time periods to recover costs, advertising won't be as necessary. I wouldn't be surprised to find that drugs cost only about 20% as much as at present in such a system.
Dr. Friedman also points to one of the key provisions (in his mind, the only positive provision) in the recently enacted Medicare reform bill -- HSAs. These are private accounts from which pre-tax dollars can be used by individuals for medical expenses and which, unlike the current FSA (Flexible spending account) don't disappear at the end of the year. HSAs will allow portability and we'll see the rise of some truly free market private health care products in the not too distant future.
All in all, an excellent article, and not only because Dr. Friedman agrees with me. :)
Tech Central Station has an excellent article, transcript really, of a debate on the issue of drug (re)importation. I highly recommend reading this article provided you've got an hour or so to go through it.
I tend to agree with Dr. Freidman quite a bit when he says that the real issue is the FDA. I've stated that myself on a number of occasions, noting that their mentality is shaped by their incentives. The people who work on drug approval get the blame when things go wrong, but don't get any credit when things go right. This reduces that process to one of dotting i's and crossing t's.
Dr. Friedman also suggests that one way to decrease the cost significantly in a short period of time is to return the FDA to a previous function where it was only charged with approving the safety of drugs, but not their efficacy. The FDA process checks safety in Phase I clinical trials. It's only in Phases II and III where efficacy is checked. The market will check efficacy rather quickly. Furthermore, by not checking efficacy, all off-label uses are permitted, something not in evidence today. Trimming the Phase II and III clinical trials from their requirements would shorten the approval time by about 5 years (from 15 total down to about 10) as well as dropping significant costs. Having 7 (or 10) years to recover development costs instead of simply 2 will change the company's dynamic.
Having only a couple of years to recover development costs really forces the company to advertise in order to boost sales in the near term. With longer time periods to recover costs, advertising won't be as necessary. I wouldn't be surprised to find that drugs cost only about 20% as much as at present in such a system.
Dr. Friedman also points to one of the key provisions (in his mind, the only positive provision) in the recently enacted Medicare reform bill -- HSAs. These are private accounts from which pre-tax dollars can be used by individuals for medical expenses and which, unlike the current FSA (Flexible spending account) don't disappear at the end of the year. HSAs will allow portability and we'll see the rise of some truly free market private health care products in the not too distant future.
All in all, an excellent article, and not only because Dr. Friedman agrees with me. :)
Monday, February 02, 2004
Sewer Bowl
I'm glad that I only watched the last few minutes of the game. I saw the most exciting part of the event and didn't have to subject myself to the (not unexpected) garbage spewed at half-time.
Spending the time at a regular bi-weekly bible study (on "Waiting on the Lord") proved to be a far better use of my time.
I probably won't watch the game at all next year. What's the point? It will be played whether I watch or not, so there is no reason to participate in this (now) voyeuristic spectacle.
I'm glad that I only watched the last few minutes of the game. I saw the most exciting part of the event and didn't have to subject myself to the (not unexpected) garbage spewed at half-time.
Spending the time at a regular bi-weekly bible study (on "Waiting on the Lord") proved to be a far better use of my time.
I probably won't watch the game at all next year. What's the point? It will be played whether I watch or not, so there is no reason to participate in this (now) voyeuristic spectacle.
