Sunday Commentary: Why I wouldn't make it as a pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, imam...

One of the big tenants of most major and minor religions is some sort of commandment to "Love thy neighbor". (I can only write as being a Christian, so I'll keep this commentary along those lines.) When Jesus was asked by his disciples who their "neighbor" was, He explained to them, through the parable of the Good Samaritan, that anyone in need is their neighbor. Anyone at all.
I believe that I wouldn't make it as a pastor in a church because it would be perfectly okay with me if someone in the congregation wasn't able to make it in on a Sunday because he or she was helping at the local homeless shelter. I'd be okay if they were rebuilding a house of someone who lost it to an earthquake. And I would actually encourage members of the congregation to donate to charities the money they would otherwise give to the church.
Unfortunately, so many churches are being run like businesses, with boards of directors, treasures, and the like. With my policies in place, where I would accept the congregation donating time and resources to helping their neighbors, I'd be out of a job pretty soon. Heck, if it were up to me, I'd have my sermons be available at podcasts and on YouTube so they could listen to them on their way to work after a weekend filled with volunteer work.
Yes, it is important to gather together with other people of the same faith. Yes, it is important to hear the "expert opinion" of what the Bible has to say on issues of the day. Being the social animals that we are, we like to be in groups of like-minded people. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, we bring bigger, better glory to God when we help our neighbor. To live to bring others out of the darkness and in from the cold must be an enormous way to be true to our faith(s)... more than gathering to spread gossip or have a good fun.
Then again, that's just me... And this was not a sermon; it was just a thought.

The Government will save us from bioterror... No, no... Fast food?

The quarter-pounder, Prince George's Style

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Concerns over the slide of the United States into a "nanny state" have increased during the current administration, and they have become even more evident with a recent bill introduced in the Maryland State Legislature. The bill, sponsored by State Senator David Harrington (D-Prince George's County) and supported by community activists in PG County, aims to curb the number of fast-food restaurants in PG County.

Supporters of the bill state that there is an "epidemic" of obesity and coronary artery disease, and that the epidemic is being fueled by the availability of cheap fast-food in poorer neighborhoods. Without outwardly saying it, the contention is that people cannot make a decision on their own and that the State needs to help them choose the right foods. They contend that fast-food is readily available and cheap, but it is of poor quality and very high in fat.

Mom doesn't choose whether or not
the kids get pizza, the Nanny State does

The government (at all levels) has leaned on the General Welfare clause of the United States Constitution to impose on the people living in the country all sorts of interesting laws. Some laws make sense; second-hand smoke is dangerous to people who are not making a choice to smoke. Others are making the State (the government) seem more and more like a nanny to the public, where the State and only the State know what is right to consume.

My parents don't listen to reason,
but they'll listen to the Government

Rather than educating the consumer (the public), someone in Annapolis (or Baltimore) will have the power to determine what consumers will have access to. This makes sense when there is a clear and present danger to Public Health (like when toys from China have lead or other heavy metals in them). But does it make sense in this debate? Does the Senator believe that people in his constituency will not understand if he or any other knowledgeable person tells them that deep-fried food is bad for them in the absence of vegetables, fruits, fiber, and exercise?

Don't expect this to be the end of this issue... The restaurant associations, employee unions, voters, and politicians will all have something to say.

Reducing salt is a good idea, but it does not necessarily mean reducing heart disease

Salt is necessary for life, and drinks, and strokes

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

A new effort is underway, first in New York City and now in Baltimore, to reduce the intake of salt through prepared foods. In Baltimore, the Baltimore City Health Department has issued a report that attributes increased salt intake to cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the report encourages the residents of Baltimore to reduce their intake of salt. According to the report, there are about 2,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease in Baltimore each year.

According to the National Institutes of Health, "A diet high in sodium (salt) increases the risk of heart disease-related mortality in overweight individuals". The study compared the intake of sodium in overweight individuals. The more they consumed salt, the more likely they were to die from heart-related ailments. Notice, however, that these were overweight individuals to begin with. Their odds of heart disease and death were already stacked against them.

Sodium kills by raising blood pressure. High blood pressure leads to busted blood vessels, including those in the brain, causing stroke. People with already bad arteries should not be increasing their blood pressure any further. Reducing salt intake is not a bad idea, but reducing all other risk factors as well is also good.

In the United States, African Americans are more likely to have heart disease, and they are more likely to die from it. There are several theorized and proven reasons for this disparity, including lifestyle, diet, and cultural differences between different groups in the United States. For any group, reducing the intake of saturated fats and increasing exercise is not a bad idea.

Reducing salt intake works IF AND ONLY IF you also reduce your waistline. You can completely avoid salt and still die of heart disease if your diet is poor and your exercise is non-existent. Salt is necessary for life because it helps keep the water balance in the body. However, just like with other nutrients necessary for life, too much sodium can be bad.

Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cusegoyle/ / CC BY 2.0

After earthquake, infectious disease will be the next big killer in Haiti

FULL ARTICLE: After earthquake, infectious disease will be the next big killer in Haiti

Sunday Commentary: Why I’m losing faith in humanity…

 PUT IT ON ALREADY!

There are some times when I hear or read a story that makes me believe in humanity's ability to overcome all obstacles and move forward as a species. The people and the circumstances they overcome make me think that we will indeed be visiting another star system in a few hundred years, that disease will be defeated or brought to its knees, and that war will be a thing of the past. And then I find out stories like this:

Nurse fired over refusal to get flu shot, wear mask

The woman mentioned in the article says that she has a strong immune system and would go home if she felt ill. Never mind that you start shedding the flu virus before you have symptoms. Never mind that you continue to shed it after you feel better. Never mind that vaccines have been proven to work against the flu (and other infections). Never mind all that… Lady, your boss said to do it. If you don’t want to do it, go get another job! It’s almost like the janitor refusing to clean a restroom. It’s a vaccine. It’s a reasonable request. They’re not asking you to kill someone!

But let me continue my indictment of humanity… There’s this doctor who proposes that pH imbalances in the body to be the cause of cancer. He’s an M.D., a Medical Doctor. To get an MD in this country, you need to take some biology courses. Said biology courses, as early as High School, will teach you that your body’s pH cannot go beyond the range of 7.35 and 7.45. Too low or too high, you die! Come on, Doc! Seriously, how many people do you plan on fooling? And that threat to someone who disagreed with you? At least proofread the damn thing!

Exhibit C is this other doctor. She compares vaccines to getting a bullet to the head. And she calls the pediatric flu deaths insignificant. Way to go, Doc. Surely, she must read the same evidence the rest of the scientific and medical community read, being a doctor and all. Are we reading the same findings and understanding them differently? Flu is not serious? I’d like for her to stand in front of the parents of a child who died from the flu and tell them that the flu is not serious. I’d like for her to do it with that smug smile on her face.

If you find a common thread on this indictment on humanity, you are correct. These three exhibits are all about anti-vaccine people. See, at one point, we had diseases like measles and chickenpox on the verge of being eliminated. Their only reservoir are humans, so, make all humans immune to them and the viruses would be extinct. But nooooo! People had to come up with bogus (YES, BOGUS) “philosophical” exemptions to being vaccinated. They came up with “religious” exemptions to being vaccinated. (Never mind that the major religions were all drawn up before vaccines came along.) And they started seeing associations were there were none. We were so close, and now we’re pulling away from victory… Because of people’s ignorance.

I’m very sad right now that so-called medical professionals are leading the march back to the dark ages of science, when belief in the unknown and the dark arts prevailed… When we didn’t use our God-given intelligence to make better choices. When a man or a woman with an idea that was proven right by all scientific measures was a threat to the status quo. Then again, I can’t really blame the two doctors, one is out to make a buck out of her teachings, and so is the other. Vaccines need to harm one person to lose all credibility. The two doctors need to “miraculously” heal one person to be believed in. So the scale is tipped… Still, what is up with that nurse?

Then again, if you have been reading my rants for a while, you know that I am not one to lose all hope. Somehow, I think I’ll still get up tomorrow morning and continue the fight against these terrible, horrible diseases that continue to plague the weakest, most innocent people here and all around the world. And I’m not alone… Watch out, docs… FOR WE ARE MANY.

Now, a little something to cleanse the palate and forget that there are people dragging us down…



Have a good week, everyone.

(***Sunday Commentary will [probably] be a regular feature on The Epi Times. If you are interested in ranting about a science-related news story, drop me a line***)

Five beliefs about blood donation that should not keep you from donating

How do you like your blood?

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Donating blood is a simple process with a lot of work done in the background. It only requires the donor to show up, answer honestly a few simple questions, and then lay down while the blood is being collected. Yes, there is a needle involved, and maybe some slight discomfort while the blood is being drawn, but those two things are nothing in comparison to what that unit of blood will do for someone who needs it. Once collected, blood is separated into different components, tested for safety, and sent to hospitals and other health care facilities. The blood components may be used as follows:
Red Blood Cells for those who are bleeding or have some sort of anemia and need those cells replaced.
White Blood Cells for certain people with weakened or non-existing immune systems.
Platelets to help heal wounds faster and better.
Plasma for burn victims or those who have some sort of clotting disorder.
Protein for treatment of low blood pressure.
Material for research.
Even with all these known benefits and adverse reactions to donating being incredibly low and very tolerable, people are still weary of donating blood...

1. Not enough blood excuse: Some people are afraid that they don't have enough blood to donate a unit of blood (which is about a pint). The average adult has between 10 and 12 pints of blood, more than enough to survive from giving one unit. Still, people are encouraged to donate only once every 56 days.
2. I'll catch something by donating excuse: All of the equipment used to collect blood is sterile, and the people who collect blood use sterile EVERYTHING when taking your blood. The somewhat personal questions asked before you donate are to keep the recipient of your blood safe from infections which may not show up in blood tests immediately after you become infected.
3. The government will implant a chip in me when I donate excuse: This one is a funny one. People expect a government that responded very poorly to Hurricane Katrina, allowed a man to try to blow up a plane with a bomb in his underwear, and allowed lead-lined toys to come in from China to actually implant a chip and track over 300 million people in the United States without any of those people actually being suspicious.
4. The blood just gets thrown out anyway excuse: So, because milk expires, cows should not be milked? Blood is literally living tissue that requires the body to survive past a certain point. Just like you wouldn't give expired milk to children, you can't give expired blood to people who are sick and needed. This is why you need to donate on a regular schedule. (Blood expires after about 42 days.)
   
5. The questions asked are just too personal excuse: The questions you are asked during screening need to be personal because this is a very serious matter. If you are a sick person, the last thing you need is to be infected by contaminated blood. So the questions asked, and the testing done on the blood, are all in an attempt to keep the blood supply safe. If you are not comfortable answering these simple questions from a medical professional, then whether or not you can donate blood is not your biggest problem.
   

Beautifulpeople.com skews the definition of beautiful

She actually tells great jokes,
 knows how to cook a mean enchilada,
and has the voice of an angel.
All make her beautiful in my book.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

The social network site beautifulpeople.com decided to get rid of about 5,000 members because those members did not meet the standards of "beauty" set by the community. The main culprit for this seeming "loss of beauty" was said to be the Holidays, since people gained weight during that time and so became less "beautiful". But what is beauty and beautiful?

The definition of "beautiful" is both something that is aesthetically pleasing or a delight. Notice there is an "or" there and not an "and". So someone with a BMI of 30 or above can indeed be beautiful though not aesthetically pleasing (especially in a speedo). But that right there is the problem. In this culture, beauty is more and more associated with looking good in a bathing suit, having the right body proportions, or being blessed with the clearest skin.

Never mind that most of the Hollywood-made stars and starlets have had some sort of work done. We decry Barry Bonds for his alleged drug use, but an actress with fake breasts or an actor with hair implants is okay. Sprinters who use steroids lose their gold medals but models who purge after every meal are on the covers of multiple magazines. Is that the definition of beauty?

Surely, a grandmother of 20 whose wrinkled skin and frail bones make her unappealing to the eyes of many has beauty in her grace and patience to raise and look after a family. What about the old professor who sticks with his mischievous students to the very end, seeing them all through college? There is beauty in that. No, the "beautiful people" at beautifulpeople.com need to re-think their name. They're not beautiful... They're no delight.

The worst thing is that, statistically, at least one of those 5,000 will do something stupid to look better and get back on the site.

Rush Limbaugh does not understand the health care issue

With plenty of resources, Rush Limbaugh sees
nothing wrong with the health care system

FULL STORY HERE

Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh was hospitalized in Honolulu, Hawaii, while on vacation last week when he developed chest pain. According to Mr. Limbaugh, doctors at Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu "found absolutely nothing wrong." He was released and is said to be doing well.

Mr. Limbaugh took the opportunity to criticize attempts by the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress to reform health care in the United States. "Based on what happened to me here, I don't think there is one thing wrong with the American healthcare system," he said. Mr. Limbaugh has several million listeners to his widely syndicated radio show, has written best-selling books, and, surely, must have health insurance. His wealth explains his view of the American healthcare system.

What Mr. Limbaugh does not understand is the plight of a person with a preexisting condition who cannot get insurance despite their best efforts to work hard, earn money, and buy health insurance (all things Mr. Limbaugh strongly advocates). Let's say it's a 25 year-old with type 1 diabetes since he or she was 9 years old. Let's say the 25 year-old's parents can no longer pay for insurance under the terms of the insurance plan. And let's say that, arbitrarily or not, the 25 year-old cannot get insurance. What happens if the 25 year-old suddenly develops chest pain?

Let's go one step further. Let's say we're talking about a poor person in Appalachia or a Native American outside a reservation in "flyover" country. What if they cannot afford the premiums demanded by health insurance providers? If they developed chest pain, would they receive the same level of care as Mr. Limbaugh did?

We would be kidding ourselves if we said "yes".

The truth is that there are restrictions and regulations in place that make the American healthcare system skewed to offer better care to those who can pay, while those who cannot are unable to buy into insurance because those same restrictions and regulations make insurance cost-prohibitive. People who cannot pay raise the price of healthcare for the rest of society as well.

This is why Congress is now forced to act, because the cost of healthcare is skyrocketing. It just happens to be a Democrat Congress, one that Mr. Limbaugh does not agree with on most issues. In either case, both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, and anyone who wants to have a hand in the reform of healthcare in the United States, everyone would be well advised to ask the poorest of the poor and sickest of the sick and and ask them what they need.

(Image credit: Chris Carlson/AP)