I can't believe Scotland's that bad...

This article reflects the inherent shortcoming of our western society's propensity for quantifying all things. The assertion that Scotland is the worst small western European country rests primarily upon it's shorter life expectancy. This relatively minor, 2 year difference takes in to account none of the things which make a life qualitatively better... like enjoying a fine glass of single malt scotch rather than some snooty French wine...

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk The Federation of Small Businesses' annual Index of Wealth compared 10 countries on economic performance, employment rates, health and education. Scotland's life expectancy rate was a major factor in it coming bottom. The FSB Scotland index examined countries with fewer than nine million people, including Norway, Iceland and the Republic of Ireland. "The reason why Scotland is stuck at the bottom of the pile is largely due to our poor health and our low life expectancy," he said. The figures were 74.2 for men and 79.3 for women, compared to the UK average of 76.6 and 81 years. However, Mr McLaren added that even if health was taken out of the equation Scotland would still be "fairly low" on the table, in about fifth or sixth place.

New 1st line tx. for hepatocellular ca.

clipped from www.medscape.com orafenib (Nexavar) is the first effective systemic treatment for advanced liver cancer. researchers showed that the targeted multikinase inhibitor extends survival by 44%. There is currently no widely accepted standard of care for advanced liver cancer. Doxorubicin is reportedly the most widely used agent, despite the fact that only 1 randomized controlled trial of 60 patients has supported its use and the drug is said to have a 25% rate of fatal complications. Mitoxantrone is licensed for hepatocellular carcinoma but is not considered a gold standard double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, investigators studied 602 patients. The trial, known as the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP), looked at the primary end points of overall survival and time to symptomatic progression. Patients received oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or placebo for 6 months, but the trial was stopped early because the findings were so positive

Blind Faith: a review of Stephen Prothero's "Religious Literacy"

For those of us who have at some time lamented the our peers' inability or unwillingness to engage in serious religious discussion, a new book is out which appears to quantify the problem. By creating a culture which is hostile to religious discourse, what we have actually suppressed is our own critical thinking. As social animals, humans require consistent, positive reinforcement in order to develop a skill or interest. Americans (and likely most other cultures) have pushed religion back to the nether-regions of our sunday-school services.

What it boils down to is this: Americans aren't doing their homework when it comes to religion. This new book appears to catalogue that phenomenon. A clip from a Washington Post review is below:

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com The United States is the most religious nation in the developed world Americans are also the most religiously ignorant people in the Western world. Fewer than half of us can identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and only one third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Prothero sees America's religious illiteracy as even more dangerous than general cultural illiteracy "because religion is the most volatile constituent of culture the author combines a lively history of the rise and fall of American religious literacy with a set of proposed remedies based on his hope that "the Fall into religious ignorance is reversible." The condition Prothero describes in Religious Literacy is unquestionably one manifestation of a more general decline in the public's cultural and civic knowledge. How can citizens know what creationism means, or make an informed decision about whether it belongs in classrooms, if fewer than half can identify Genesis?

Debating the use of Guiafenesin in Fibromyalgia.

clipped from stuff.mit.edu Dr. Robert Bennett, a recognized expert in the fibromyalgia field, agreed to do a study on guaifenesin, with Dr. St. Amand The results of this long term study showed that guaifenesin had no effect on fibromyalgia. much of Dr. St. Amand's success with guaifenesin, could be attributed to the placebo effect. Additionally, any worsening of fibromyalgia symptoms during the treatment, is also a good sign, since these symptoms are attributed to guaifenesin's reversal process, that rids the body of "metabolic debris". Not to mention, that guaifenesin often causes a change of smell or color in the urine. Many people attribute these changes to toxins being released from the body, when in all likelihood, this is simply due to the fact that the guaifenesin is metabolized by the liver, resulting in a form of lactic acid, that is then excreted in the urine. guaifenesin has a skeletal muscle relaxant property, It likely also has an analgesic, or pain relieving capability

Amongst the many "alternative" treatments in existence today, is the use of guiafenesin, a common over-the-counter mucolytic, in the treatment of fibromyalgia. The most influential proponent of this treatment, one Dr. St. Armond, has written a book on the topic entitled, "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Fibromyalgia : The Revolutionary Treatment That Can Reverse The Disease."

Reading the book, as a new physician, several aspects of Dr. St. Armond's case raised immediate red flags in my mind. First, Dr. St, Armond has (admittedly) failed to show any clinical evidence that the treatment works, relying instead on extensive anecdotal evidence. Second, the proposed mechanism of action in the treatment of the fibromyalgia simplifies for the laymen to the all-to-common "ridding the body of metabolic toxins." Third, fibromyalgia itself, and this treatment regimen in particular, lends itself to significant percentages of placebo affected patients. And finally, his line follows the all-to-common theme of the underdog treatment, conspired against by the likes of Big Medical and Big Pharm.

A wonderful response to this theory has been written by Mark London (presumably) at MIT. His response addresses all of the aforementioned points, but most extensively covers the dubious mechanism of action. Some of the basic points in his article are quoted below.

A rare textual blog of the scriptures

clipped from www.slate.com Like many lax but well-educated Jews (and Christians), I have long assumed I knew what was in the Bible—more or less. I absorbed other bits of Bible everywhere—from stories I heard in churches and synagogues, movies and TV shows, tidbits my parents and teachers told me. All this left me with a general sense that I knew the Good Book well enough, and that it was a font of crackling stories, Jewish heroes, and moral lessons. o, the tale of Dinah unsettled me, to say the least. If this story was strutting cheerfully through the back half of Genesis, what else had I forgotten or never learned? I decided I would, for the first time as an adult, read the Bible. And I would blog about it as I went along. My goal is pretty simple. I want to find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based.

David Katz, a writer for Slate magazine, has undertaken a surprisingly rare task in the blogosphere. He has decided to actually read the bible and engage his readers in a discussion of the text. As a believer in the pursuit of truth and wisdom, as well as a believer in the scriptures as a source of truth, I had assumed that this type of blog would be easy to come by. Alas, I was mistaken. The longer one searches the blogosphere, and for that matter, the internet at large, the more obvious it becomes what many of us had suspected all along. Almost nobody actually reads that thing. For all the preachers waving their bibles around in church, and all the thousands of people listening intently every week, no one's actually doing their homework.

So leave it to the newly invigorated liberal media to get some religion and fill the gap. The fellows over at Slate may fill volumes with their mockery of the religious right, but in this column they're also one-uping them by studying what the other side claims to own. Keep up this honest search for truth, and the liberals might win over some converts. One thing though, they've certainly captured a reader.

Daily Show IQ?

clipped from thezeroboss.com A study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that viewers of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are among the most politically savvy news watchers. Shit, we even beat out those robo-geeks who watch Jim Lehrer on PBS! The average Fox News viewer, by contrast, bombed the political pop quiz, placing that audience just slightly above the early morning talk show crowd. it seems safe to conclude that my so-called “slacker” generation takes more of an explicit interest in politics than our ancestors. The other thing to note about this segment of the population is that it skews decidedly liberal. I think it’s quite simple. My generation (*cough*) grew very wary at an early age with propagandist style lies about everything from the War on Drugs to sex education; with racism, homophobia, immigrant paranoia; and with blind faith in both God and country.

Interesting post. I disagree with his analysis of the data though. Our (*cough*) generation is likely left-leaning just because they're twenty-something, not because we've been alienated by the right. That feeling of alienation we might feel from the right may be predominantly because we're not their target audience. Young people typically seem to be more liberal, and as they age, swing more toward the right. I don't have sources to sight on that, it just seems self-evident.

I would speculate that this age gap also explains why the Daily Show viewers did better on the quiz. My father, for example, used to watch McNeal-Lehr religiously, and as a Mayo clinic physician and information junkie, I suspect he was pretty well informed on things. Now, in his 60's, he leaves the TV on FoxNews "because PBS just got too damn-liberal nowadays."

Greenspan needs to shut up.

Ever known someone who knew everything, but didn't know when to keep quiet about it? Alan Greenspan was that guy this month. It's true when he says that increased competition in any industry invariably leads to innovation and progress. It's true that competition leads to lower costs, and a healthier economy. But as an aspiring doctor with 10's of thousands of dollars of debt, I'm not too happy about him pointing out the inflated salaries of my medical colleagues.

As members of a civilized society however, we cannot draw lines when it affects us personally. We cannot condemn the moral incongruity of other protectionists while at the same time defending our own turf. Still, it would be nice if some truths took a little longer to come to light.

Perhaps while he's on the subject of perceived income inequality, he might suggest some international competition for the Christmas bonuses of friends at Goldman's Sachs. Or better yet, stop by Cato and check how much incomes are really diverging. Or best, next time he has an epiphany like this one, keep it to himself...

clipped from www.usnews.com Greenspan's solution to America's wage disparity is thus: "Our skilled wages are higher than anywhere in the world. If we open up a significant window for skilled workers, that would suppress the skilled-wage level and end the concentration of income." After all, less-skilled and less-educated workers, primarily in the manufacturing industry, have been subjected to direct competition with lower-paid workers overseas. In return, the United States has received less-expensive goods at big box stores like Wal-Mart and Costco. In 1997, Congress tightened the licensing rules for foreign doctors entering the country because of concerns by the American Medical Association and other doctors' organizations that the inflow of foreign doctors was driving down their salaries. As a result, the number of foreign medical residents allowed to enter the country each year was cut in half.