Slashdot Mirror

I'm a doctor.

Cool.

You mean a multi-billion investment fund will take my advice where to invest their clients' money? I should just email them after having read some books?

Well, they very well might, if they feel like it. In fact, anyone can go and trade their own money whenever they feel like it.

But while I can go and purchase grass seed for my lawn and paint for my house every year, I can't go down to the fix-it-yourself pharmacy and buy whatever drugs I need to fix myself up when I like.

It's weird: I can't decide to self-medicate if I think that doctors charge too much, because... only doctors are allowed to prescribe medicine.

I'm not a die-hard libertarian, but here's a compelling argument that a friend posed to me:
Either the government should let people make their own choices W.R.T. insurance, doctors, application of drugs, etc... or they should provide the whole service, insurance, doctors, drugs and all.

Or perhaps the city will let me design a bridge?

But lots of people use that bridge. I don't have to use you unless I want to...

Or maybe I could learn to fly on Microsoft Flight Simulator and give my airline pilot advice during the next turbulent flight I encounter?

Again, if that plane goes down it affects all the people in the plane and in the crash path of the plane. If you or I go down, it largely only affects you or me.

Heck, we already have laws dealing with DUI, driving while incapacitated, etc... to address the very issue of people misusing drugs.

Maybe I should barge in and tell the magistrate in court what they should do - I've seen Perry Mason do it and read some books.

Again, the magistrate has been elected to that position as it is to the benefit of us all. But if Joe Blow wants to pour some Iodine, Betadine, or high-concentration Caffeine over his open wound, who am I to stop him? (absent mentally unstable people, who I think we already deal with).

It's very good advice. People are not specialists. You can't be a stock broker or a computer programmer and expect to be a doctor too. It's nice to be able to read up information but don't presume you will understand it, let alone be able apply it.

It's not the point that I will apply it. It's that there are so many roadblocks to allow me to even start to get there.

There are many such sites. In the UK the NHS has sites with information for patients. In the US the CDC (among other agencies) has similar sites. There is also WebMD. http://www.webmd.com/ [webmd.com]

Those sites are good starts, but nothing compared to the resources available to doctors. And I've had doctors routinely tell me to disregard whatever I read online...

It's usually helpful to start with your local Health Ministry websites and work from there. As said in the UK, this would be NHS.
There's also the Health on the Net Foundation which 'certifies' sites which contain credible medical information. http://www.hon.ch/ [www.hon.ch]

Good places to start, true.

The knowledge is there already or do you want you doctor to spell it all out for you. Should he also take you down to your local library to point out the right section for you?

I'm a programmer. You and I have the same opportunities to write programs, buy hardware, and rock out with computers. But as a doctor, you have so many more opportunities and resources in medicine...

Here's the biggest thing for me: I hate the fact that Doctors present medicine as so exacting a science -- as if it's something that can explain everything that's wrong with people.

Countless times doctors have admitted that they cannot explain my symptoms. At one point I a

...if Medicine wasn't such a members-only club. There's the "In" crowd and then there's the "Rest" of us.

Take other fields.... writing, education, programming, painting, online stock trading -- anyone can hop online or go down to their local bookstore,

I'm a doctor.
You mean a multi-billion investment fund will take my advice where to invest their clients' money? I should just email them after having read some books?

Or perhaps the city will let me design a bridge? Or maybe I could learn to fly on Microsoft Flight Simulator and give my airline pilot advice during the next turbulent flight I encounter?
Maybe I should barge in and tell the magistrate in court what they should do - I've seen Perry Mason do it and read some books.

"I just feel the Internet brings so much misinformation to the (exam) room that we have to fight through all that before we can get to the problem at hand."

It's very good advice. People are not specialists. You can't be a stock broker or a computer programmer and expect to be a doctor too. It's nice to be able to read up information but don't presume you will understand it, let alone be able apply it.

So here's one for you: Why can't you fight that misinformation before the patient even steps foot in the exam room? Why don't doctors create peer-reviewed, well-written websites to counter all of the confusion and pseudo-science currently available online?

There are many such sites. In the UK the NHS has sites with information for patients. In the US the CDC (among other agencies) has similar sites. There is also WebMD. http://www.webmd.com/
It's usually helpful to start with your local Health Ministry websites and work from there. As said in the UK, this would be NHS.
There's also the Health on the Net Foundation which 'certifies' sites which contain credible medical information. http://www.hon.ch/

The knowledge is there already or do you want you doctor to spell it all out for you. Should he also take you down to your local library to point out the right section for you?

Except that diet soda makes you even fatter:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080211/artificial-sweeteners-increase-weight

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Except that diet soda makes you even fatter:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080211/artificial-sweeteners-increase-weight

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Here's one: "Uninsured Americans don't get their health care for free. In 2008 they will have paid $30 billion out of pocket for health care, Jack Hadley, PhD, and colleagues at George Mason University note in the Aug. 25 issue of Health Affairs. Moreover, Hadley and colleagues calculate, the government will have paid $56 billion to cover these uncompensated health care costs."

So, from those numbers, the uninsured pay about 1/3 of the actual collected cost of their bills. However, that leaves out billed and not collected (if the government doesn't pay) and doesn't indicate if there are any "discounts" for differing payment type. As you've noted, there are different rates depending on how you pay. So would the government pay the inflated cost, or at something like a lower Medicare rate? I don't know.

15% of people are uninsured, and the collected cost from them is $86 billion, and total health care costs are about 2.2 trillion, which means uninsured accounts for less than 4% of the total paid (numbers taken from different sources, so it's possible they are measuring different things, but it's all I have). Less than 2% of health care costs are uninsured people paying for their own treatment, and 15% of people are uninsured. If all of them paid 13% of their costs, that works out, or if 13% of them pay 100%. Since that's the "worst case" for my example, I'll take that, no more than 13% of the 15% pay their bills in full. So the number of uninsured people paying their bills in full is less than 2% of the population.

Again, no matter how I look at it, the number of uninsured people paying their bills in full is small. It must, by definition, be less than 15% of the population, and is estimated here to be less than 2% of the population. If you take exception to their numbers or my methods, let me know. But everything I've found leans towards the uninsured being ignorable for the discussion on health care costs. And no, I have no explanation why it seems this bill will cost more than just paying for all the services rendered to the uninsured and still leave at least 5% of the population uninsured.

I understand why you are annoyed at being irrelevant, but that will not change the fact that you are, for the health care debate, considered irrelevant.

Yes but that's indicative of the UK's particular problems and not really to do with the merits (or otherwise) of socialised health care. Other countries with good survival rates similar to the US also have socialised health care.

This article mentions that the US, France and Japan have the best survival rates, with Australia and Canada not far behind. The UK lags (as you say). But all those countries other than the US have universal/single payer healthcare systems.

The UK health care system does have some problems ... but the fact that it's socialised isn't really one of them (at least, not by itself).

Please tell these people that you read on the internet somewhere that water doesn't conduct electricity.

I seem to remember reading something that contradicts what you're saying.

As I recall, some scientists are wondering if vaccinating children against chickenpox is having an adverse affect on the adult population who have had chickenpox. Since kids aren't carrying the active virus, adults are exposed to it less. It seems like routine exposure may actually help keep our immune systems primed. The result is, since more immune systems are "out of practice," so to speak, more adults are contracting shingles.

Disclaimer: I have no science background to start with, and I'm recounting this from memory. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Yea, some plants grow more with more CO2 in the air, like poison ivy which becomes even more poinsonous, but other plants grow slower. Here's an article from "New Scientist" on it, Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production.

Falcon

There's a difference between "sensitivity" and "allergy"

I would object to the idea that there's a real line between the two. The difference between a mild allergy and a bad sensitivity is not so clear, and that's particularly obvious when it comes to gluten. The difference between Idiopathic gluten sensitivity and the obvious allergy of celiac disease is quite fuzzy.

Diagnosing someone with celiac disease is hard. The sort of tissue damage they look for on the biopsy can heal if it's mild, only showing up as mild inflammation which may not even be visible. That means that it can only prove you do have celiac disease, not really the inverse. Mild gluten sensitivity cases can show up on something like an antigliadin antibody test even if there's no visible damage to the tissue yet.

There's plenty of data showing gluten causes migraines in some people; see Migraine Headaches: Gluten Triggers Severe Headaches in Sensitive Individuals and Migraine Linked to Celiac Disease as two examples, there are a couple more. Your wife probably has something in the Gluten-sensitive idiopathic neuropathies family of issues.

"Sure, Thiomersal/Thimerosal has been ruled out as a factor. But can we really already rule out that any link exists between vaccines and autism (or no link at all, by the way)?"

This is one problem I have with the antivax groups. A little tactic called "moving the goal posts." Why are autism/vaccines linked? Thimerosal! Wait, that's been removed and autism rates haven't dropped? Then it's the MMR combined shot. Wait, studies have shown no link? Well, then it's the number of shots kids get. Wait, kids get exposed to more pathogens in a day then we expose them to via vaccines in their lifetime? Well, then it's toxins in the vaccines.... We can never prove to antivax groups 100% conclusively that autism isn't caused by vaccines because every time one of their theories is shot down, they immediately come up with another one. It's a game of "sure, my last 99 theories were wrong but this one's right so you should devote resources towards researching this link."

"Population groups that do not vaccinate for religious reasons do not develop regressive autism- regardless whether they're genetically related groups such as the Amish or groups from independent backgrounds. How do you explain that?"

Easy. It's not true. The Amish actually do vaccinate and their rates of autism are lower. Also see http://antiantivax.flurf.net/#Population_X_and_Vaccines_Autism

"To put things into perspective, autism rates are now higher than the death count prevented by the vaccines. Just better diagnoses do not account for the thousand-percent increase in autism rates in the last decades, so it seems environmental factors cannot yet be ruled out."

The insinuation of that statement is that vaccines cause autism and thus we have to balance preventing deaths via vaccine and preventing autism via not vaccinating. The fact of the matter, though, is that studies have shown no vaccine-autism link. Meanwhile, diagnosis *has* improved dramatically. We know understand that autism is a spectrum, not just a specific illness. Some people might have Asperger's Syndrome and seem fine. Others will have full-blown can't-communicate-with-anyone Autism.

Decades ago, a person might have just been labeled "stupid/retarded/etc" and that would have been it. Now we can run tests and identify people with Autism. The CDC has identified a 57% increase in the past few years. (A far cry from 1000%.) We should definitely look into the causes of autism, but vaccines have been ruled out already. Right now it looks like mainly genetics with some possible environmental factors tossed in.

I'm sorry you do not feel I am worthy of being better informed. All of my research without your assistance seems to come up with information basically contradicting your statements. I guess the "socialists" have managed to hide the truth from my eyes?

Tax rates by country seem to put the US on the lower side of things for personal tax rates, but still comperable to Canada, and higher than Iceland, Ireland, and Australia, and the highest of the graphed countries for corporate tax rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

As for "by what measure is the US at the top of the health care heap"? Well we have the shortest times for getting treatment, we have the highest number of hi-tech medical equipment per capita, we have the highest survival rate of premature births, the highest survival rate for cancer patients, we have access to the most advanced medicines and treatments, we have the highest number of doctors per capita - do you want me to continue?

Humm, LA seems to have 12+ hour wait times in the emergency room, which doesn't sound great:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-er-wait-times-socal21-2009dec21,0,2238664.story

I can't think of how to search for "hi-tech medical equipment per capita", so could you let me know where to find that?

Premature birth survival rates are also hard to find for me at least, and as you noted, the birth survival stats are a bit hard to compare across countries and regions due to different reporting methods - if you had some references I would be interested if it wasn't too much trouble.

The US cancer survival rate seems among the highest, but clearly not THE highest, particularly if you are not white it would seem:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

The US is way down the list on doctors-per-capita, ranking 52nd on the list by nationmaster, and also mentioned in this piece on Forbes. Oh the Forbs article mentions "the amount of highly expensive medical equipment per capita" as being highest in the USA, but that the lead is shrinking.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html

Heck, that Forbes article (are they a socialist rag? I thought they were sort of right-leaning?) seems to indicate they at least do not think "it [the US medical system]'s a hell of a lot better than what the rest of the world has."

The overall point seems to be that American citizens, as a whole, do NOT "have access to the most advanced medicines and treatments", in that a significant fraction of them have little to no access to primary health care that they can afford.

In my opinion, much of your opposition to various levels of socialism is well founded. There are downsides and disincentives inherent in any system trying to promote the collective good, however I think you are being willfully ignorant to think that the current situation in the USA is somehow vastly superior to situations in other places where different decisions have been made. One of the biggest problems in policy formation in the US is the instinctive fear or socialism and big government so what seems to happen is that we end up with the worst of both worlds - governmental programs that artificially alter the market, but do not actually benefit anyone but a few special interests. In the US we already have a whole lot of socialism, it is just half-assed and poorly implemented.

It's like a whole 'nother country.

Texas WAS another, independent country at one time... I wonder if they'd ever like to take that back. Also, interesting to note that 4 of the last 11 POTUS have called themselves Texans. No I'm not a Texan or a wannbe, just saying there's more in the background than the scenery.

Apparently it has its own interweb as well; http://www.webmd.com/ ? http://www.medhelp.org/ ? http://various.others.etc/ ?

Where do I get a ".etc" domain? I'm interested in several .etc names but can't find a place to buy them. Also, who manages the other oddball TLD's like .aero, .cat, and .coop? I really want to know why nothing is at www.chicken.coop!
Did fox.com get to them already? And for god's sakes why is there no page at www.my.cat? You'd think that address would be spewing cuteness so hard it would wash up on the shores of porn sites...

Gotta love Wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains
Apparently gotta pay too...http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Appeal2/en

Here's some perspective from these two sets of statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. To give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that every woman who claimed the reason for having an abortion was because of health risks or concern for the health of the fetus (~2%) had it after 19 weeks, and that the health risks, or health defects were all of the utmost gravity. For the sake of this argument we won't discuss anything before 12 weeks, although it is important to note that at 12 weeks the brain has already divided into 5 regions and has been developing as a cohesive whole for 5 weeks.
Now, there were 1.21 million abortions in the United States in 2005. That means that there were at least 111,320 (9.2% of 1.21 million) fetuses aborted between 12 and 19 weeks of development (more developed than this little guy). That's over 110,000 fetuses who are as able to feel pain as anyone else, and make facial expressions, being aborted every year with various descriptions of (in)convenience being the reason given by the mother.

In comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports the number of fatalities for 2005 (in the U.S.) involving alcohol was 17,590. The fatalities for all other accidents was 25,920. Pediatric cancer killed 2,200 children in 2004. Deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS for children and adults was 25,000 in all of North America in 2008. So the deaths attributed to all these hot-button issues combined is less than the deaths of fetuses.

Regarding the "they'll still do it no matter how strict the law" argument:
This argument only works on the premise that there is nothing wrong with the activity itself. For example, statistics demonstrate that men will still rape women, regardless of how harsh the penalty (even in countries where the penalty is death). Legalized rape means fewer women die, because the rapist will not feel the need to kill the woman to prevent her from reporting him to the police. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive?

Do you see that just as you believe that rape is an intrinsically unacceptable act, and therefore there can be no justification for it's legal acceptance, so do the anti-abortion believers believe that the abortion of a fetus for the sake of convenience (being seen as murder) is an intrinsically unacceptable act?

So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem... Everyone switch to pot?

I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer. It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.

Weirdly, however, large studies seem to indicate that there isn't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking. Other research suggests that THC reduced lung cancer growth. However, pot smokers are at elevated risk for other lung diseases that come purely from breathing hot smoke all the time.

So, if you're going to switch from tobacco to marijuana, consider going with methods other than smoking. You may not get cancer from smoking, but it's still not good for you, and there are much safer ways to get high. (They are also ways that do not force other people in your presence to participate through second-hand smoke, which will bother others regardless of the long-term health risks or lack thereof.)

Did they tell you that your near vision was definitely going to be shot? (There's no "possibly" about it short of changing the laws or refraction of light). If not, sue the SOBs.

And this claim ...

After having LASIK laser eye surgery, most patients no longer need corrective eyewear

... is misleading at best, and at worst a lie. Most patients will eventually need glasses or contacts as their eyes age, though if you were originally near-sighted and DON'T get lasik, you could end up not needing glasses as your eyes change.

9% report no change or worsening of vision afterwards Not worth it. Glasses are safer, and they make you look smart - and this study proves it's more likelyt to be true if you're nearsighted.

Go try to die or have any permanent effect by smoking as much pot

You are going to wind up with lung cancer and emphysema.

Smoking pot is not linked to lung cancer.

If you use a vaporizer (as the GP suggested) you definitely reduce, and possibly eliminate, the risk of emphysema.

Try again?

I'm not a doctor, and I don't have a pacemaker - I'll start with that as a disclaimer. However, I do have a general idea of how pacemakers work. They don't control the blood flow like a valve, they shock the heart to maintain the heart rate. They're remotely programmable to allow a doctor to change the rhythm, or change when it activates (they have sensors as well) - without having to perform a difficult, invasive and rather dangerous surgery again. There are many reasons for doing this, for example: the patient's needs change as they age or there is a more optimal rhythm for the patient.

More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_pacemaker or if you don't like wikipedia: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/abnormal-rhythyms-pacemaker

The scary part isn't that it's killing everyone who gets it. The scary part is that it's killing a lot more people than the usual flu season. See:
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20091016/child-h1n1-swine-flu-deaths-accelerate?src=RSS_PUBLIC

I'm not sure where you're going with your post, but your driving habits DO dicate your rate. Get a few tickets for moving violations, and your rate goes up. Its also based on the rate of accidents in your local area. I see that as plenty fair.

To get to your points at the end of of your post, insurance is supposed to be for people in case something bad happens they didn't plan for. Chronic drinking, smoking, eating highly fatty foods are all things you can 1) control and 2) plan on doing or not doing. Going back to car insurance, why shouldn't health insurance be based on things you CAN control? Certainly someone born with sickle cell can't have helped that, and so I have no problem with insurance covering that. But covering a surgery to make your stomach smaller and remove a chunk ofyour intestines because you have no self control? No, insurance should NEVER cover that, nor should it cover type II diabetes except in the rarest cases (cases where its not the patients lifestyle causing the diabetes) http://diabetes.webmd.com/guide/diabetes-causes

As to why I feel I should pay lower then the majority; I take care of my self my not smoking, drinking responsibly, and working out six days a week.

--About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance. There are a number of reasons for this. Mine is that I think insurance is a scam and it's cheaper for me to simply pay my ~$200 a year doctor visit.--

I hope you stay healthy.

-- The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid. The Congressional Budget Office says that any point-in-time 7% of Americans *temporarily* uninsured. In other words, between jobs. But they are not completely uninsured because they are protected by government unemployment benefits and COBRA.--

Do you own Blue Cross or something?

Here are some facts an you are a prick:

http://blogs.webmd.com/breaking-news/2009/08/health-care-reform-myths-vs-facts.html

Would this help?

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/eczema/news/20090427/bleach-baths-may-help-kids-with-ezcema

Remember - use a _dilute_ solution. And consult a doc about this - maybe your eczema is different.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

Physiological Effects of Marijuana
The active ingredient in pot is THC. That's short for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

THC is rapidly absorbed after smoking a joint. Within minutes, THC and the other substances in marijuana smoke cause short-term medical effects.

Signs of using marijuana include:

rapid heart rate
increased blood pressure
increased rate of breathing
red eyes
dry mouth
increased appetite, or "the munchies"
slowed reaction time
These effects are reduced after three or four hours. However, marijuana hangs around in your system for as long as 24 hours after smoking. The lingering effects mean you're impaired for several hours after the high wears off.

now tell me with a straight face this is someone you have no problem with getting behind the wheel of a car

is that enough of a real argument for you asswipe?

the ad hominem on my part comes from complete and utter zero respect for anyone who can't figure out the fucking blindingly obvious: no one should drive after taking marijuana. to think any differently is to have some combination of complete stupidity and complete delusion

how do you feel about people who believe obama was born in kenya? how do you feel about people who believe 9/11 was an inside job?

people who believe that driving under the influence of marijuana is ok fall into the exact same category in my mind: low iq and delusional

in other words, such a person is completely immune to your "real argument". they're trolls or their complete fucktards

its not baseless insults. its a sober and objective characterization of the quality of their minds: shit

i'm sorry if you are offended by my langaueg, but i believe in brutal honesty. and when if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, its a duck

if you believe marijuana doesn't impair your judgement enough that you shouldn't drive, you are complete and utter deluded moron

not a baseless insult

motherfucking objective fact

but it does impair

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

Psychological Effects of Marijuana

The main psychological effect of smoking pot is euphoria. Getting high or "stoned" is the reason most pot smokers use marijuana.

Other short-term psychological effects of pot include:

distorted sense of time
paranoia
magical or "random" thinking
short-term memory loss
anxiety and depression

These psychological signs of using pot also generally ease after a few hours. But residual effects can last through the next day.

it should 100% be illegal to drive while stoned. how anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual honesty could believe otherwise is completely beyond my understanding

9/11 was an inside job

obama was born in kenya

anazing completely retarded "facts" i've learned from complete fucking morons on teh intarwebs

you seriously don't believe marijuana impairs driving?

you are a genuine ignorant piece of shit, you know that?

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

you are an irresponsible loser

please educate yourself about the blindingly fucking obvious before you hurt someone, including yourself, please, you piece of shit twatstain

You may want to get your cholesterol checked. Apparently, mozzies are more attracted to people who process cholesterol efficiently and don't have a lot stacked up in their blood.

Thanks, I hadn't heard of that before, so I googled and found out some interesting things. According to WebMD there are different things that make people mosquito magnets. One of them is carbon dioxide which TFA says larger people give off more of. Though I'm tall I was also skinny, the typical string bean. However it also says lactic acid, which builds up when exercising, also attracts them. Because I was active, maybe even hyperactive, I should have been attracting mosquitoes.

Falcon

The appendix is now thought to contain cultures of healthy bacteria so when you have diarrhea, the body can quickly replenish those bacteria afterwards. In developed nations like America the appendix is not as important as in third-world countries. If you removed the appendix of a Honduran, they might die after having a bout of diarrhea from the food they find in the landfills. So if the appendix was evolved out, it'd happen in the developed countries first.

Though that's unlikely, everyone gets has the runs every now and then. And I bet we lose our hair, wisdom teeth, and little finger before we lose the appendix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Maintaining_gut_flora
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose

Dryer. Maybe, if you are okay with wet clothes sitting around (mold).

MOLD? For waiting a couple of hours? You've read too many crazy articles out there "MOLD IS COMING TO KILL US ALL!". :-)

... or you are allergic to mold.

First, tackle weight loss. Most people's metabolism can do this on a low glycemic index ("low carb") diet with no exercise. Your heart will still reward you for not carrying the extra body mass

You should be able to maintain your weight this way. Then, add exercise, primarily cardio. Look for opportunies to get incremental exercise. Park at the back of the lot. Use the stairs instead of the escalator. Get out of the office at lunch or breaktime for a walk. Find a set of stairs and do a couple of flights a few times a day. And on your days off, get your workouts in the morning before you come OBE (overcome by events) later in the day.

But honestly, I think you need a new job / lifestyle. What are you living for? I hope you're squirreling money away for leisure time later, otherwise you're just grinding your life away (as another poster put it.)

I am not a doctor.

But I'm curious - do you have bad gum disease?

http://www.webmd.com/rheumatoid-arthritis/news/20090612/fixing-gums-rheumatoid-arthritis

Maybe your immune system is fighting a stalemate battle with something and you are getting arthritis as collateral damage.

If it's not the gums, see if there's some other persistent infection, and try to get that dealt with.

I don't know if you're referring to the full legalization thread (#2) or just the Schedule reclassification thread (#3), but here goes.

[T]here is a considerable legal difference between "drunk" and driving while "intoxicated" and "under the influence". The concept of drunk, as used in public drunk statutes, refers to a person who is so inebriated that he is incapable of caring for his own safety. This is a considerably greater degree of inebriation than "intoxicated" or "under the influence". This latter condition is often legally defined as that physical state in which the liquor has so far affected the nervous system, brain or muscles as to impair the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent or cautious person under like conditions in the full possession of his faculties using reasonable care. source

[Emphasis mine, from "Drunk driving defense" by Lawrence Taylor & Steven Oberman]

The effects of THC on the body do include relaxation of the muscles, therefore would fall under the term "under the influence" as defined in law. However,

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents. source

While the quote could be used in an argument on both sides, if marijuana were only reclassified under another Schedule, not fully legalized, the rate of use would be lower than with full legalization (with a law already in place for "intoxicated driving" as above!), so it all comes down to what you'd rather avoid: even more driving accidents than in the current situation; another cause of driving accidents; or perhaps the fact that the "new" cause of accidents is less well detectable by simple behavioral analysis therefore less enforceable. But the point of rescheduling marijuana (#3) is that the current legislation doesn't make sense. See my other comment in this thread for a summary of why.

From the G*P:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Yes, all of these are possible.
Another possibility is that diet soda drinkers have overweight peers who influence them.

But given that there is no study showing correlating "diet" soda with weight loss, I would say there is no reason to consider drinking this substance.

I started to question the whole "3 meals a day" that is brainwashed by well meaning friends and family

Right. Because for decades and centuries, people ate three meals a day because they too were brainwashed by well meaning friends and families, not to mention that evil medical industry who only wants to take your money.

Let me guess, you probably don't eat breakfast either despite the weight loss benefits.

If your every other day of eating works for you, congrats. But trying to tie it to the "typical slashdot geek" because it's a stab at societal convention and how, miraculously, today's lifestyle is so much different than the past, is crap. The only thing that has changed is people's beliefs that they need to be answerable 24/7 because without the narcissistic urge to relate to everyone and anyone how busy they are, they'd realize they're simply making excuses for not eating right.

Eating a balanced diet has ALWAYS been the correct way to maintain ones health. The fact that we ignore this simple mantra and have epiphanies when we 'discover' these miracle diets merely shows that in some cases, there's a reason for societal conventions.

> but to say that people cutting the sugary shit out of their drinks is statistically false needs citing.

And so does any claim that diet soda is effective way to control obesity.
I know of no study that shows that switching from sugar soda to aspartame helps control obesity.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118523105635575469.html

Here is a study which shows the correlation with diet soda and weight gain.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Yes, this does imply causation,

But I know of no study that shows that switching to diet soda leads to weight loss.
Do you know of any?

Your single data point has little meaning.

While that's perfectly logical and well-reasoned it flies in the face of actual real-world studies. Science now knows (for certain, using statistics and actual data) that drinking diet soda versus regular soda has no positive impact whatsoever on obesity rates. Source In fact, that article actually claims that diet soda drinkers are MORE likely than their regular soda drinking counterparts to be obese.

Now, as the article points out, correlation isn't causation, but the taste of diet soda combined with no proof of its efficacy as a weight reducing substance means that I'll certainly never consider drinking it.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Really, go talk to your doctor. It is possible to eat too little calories and gain weight. Read #4 as to why you can gain weight when you eat too few calories: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/worst-diets-ever-diets-that-dont-work?page=2

It's written by a doctor... is that enough to convince you? Starvation begins long before you start looking like you're from Ethiopia.

Then we get to that ambiguous science, social science, where measurements are never what they seen. In this case there were no measurements, merely self reported data. This is not like an obesity survey in which on can measure a weight, a height, a gender, etc, and use a well know, if controversial, metric to determine a rate of obesity. No, in this case people self reported their state of happiness.

WebMD> which has a report with a list of states clearly indicates the problem with this strategy. The listed quote Participants were asked by phone how many of the previous 30 days their mental health -- including stress, depression, and emotional problems -- was "not good.", clearly indicates the issue.

Imagine being asked "do you feel sad" and you live in Hawaii. Is the peer pressure to say yes or no? If you live in a state that is portrayed negatively in the media, and is always compared negatively with such wonderful places such as Hawaii, is there any incentive to say no. You live in a depressing place, you are told, so you have a right to be depressed.

This of course is why social science is called fake. I am sure the actual report has all the proper caveats, and the report is useful in terms of it indicates where the US might put services to help depressed people, but taking it too seriously, in my mind, would be a mistake. OTOH, I could see using it start a PSA campaign in Hawaii to help people who are depressed, but don't feel empowered to get help.

FWIW, I found this link for what they say is a rehydration drink recipe.

I'd love to see an efficacy study done on happiness or attitude. I wonder how that experiment would be set up.

A few things you might be interested in reading

Placebo effect

Neural top down control of physiology

Depression and poor health

Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of all the links to things that cause autism/asperger etc. Every day its a new thing.

So far we have:
Weather
Premature Birth
Environment
PVC
MMR vaccine
Genes
Vinyl Flooring
Shampoo
(There are probably a lot more)

As a parent of a autistic boy, I'm frankly tired of these so called empirical 'studies' which quite frankly don't prove a thing. The only thing that has helped with my son is ABA. I wish the editors would stop putting each and every one of these on the front page.

While I'm glad these guys were shut down, Mastercard and Visa shouldn't have had to do it. This case constitutes outright fraud, and the perpetrators should be punished like other criminals: with handcuffs, a jury, and iron bars.

We used to have strong consumer protection agencies. Then something happened. How many more electronic Elixir Sulfanilamide incidents (or real ones for that matter) do we need before we re-create the strong and sensible regulatory bodies that used to protect us?

This was a common misconception until recently. You can read about it here.

Just a few examples (source http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html):

That's an old link, from 25 Aug 2003 at 06:31:44. However let's see what it says:

"EFFECTS OF HABITUAL MARIJUANA USE ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM"
"4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system" dated 11 January 2009
"Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high-in many cases, near-lethal-doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated the immune system in the people studied."

"MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY"
"Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain" from 1 July 2003 (also old)
"Analysis of Studies Finds Little Effect From Long-Term Use"

"RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES"
Now this is where the trouble is, from 26 April 2005 at 15:01:33:
"Q. How Does It Affect Your Health?"
"A. No drug is always safe for everybody, but after 150 years of scientific study, the only proven health problem from cannabis is that its smoke can be linked to bronchitis."

However there's also this, from 16 March 2008 at 18:57:35:
"Summary of Cannabis and HIV/AIDS"
"The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."

Falcon

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=141

You included the cons from a Pros and Cons page but did not include the pros. However I'll address some of those cons.

"Smoked marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system."
"Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain"
"Does marijuana damage the heart?"
"Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco"
"4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system"

"3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day."
"No drug is always safe for everybody, but after 150 years of scientific study, the only proven health problem from cannabis is that its smoke can be linked to bronchitis"

""The most compelling concerns regarding marijuana smoking in HIV/AIDS patients are the possible effects of marijuana on immunity."
Actually cannabis has been shown to be helpful:
"The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."

Falcon

IANA physician or pharmacist, so this isn't qualified medical advice. Do research from better sources than Slashdot when health is concerned. This is just a tip to a couple of those sources.

They actually recommend against aspirin as a
fever reducer in children under the age of about 16, too. Reye's syndrome is a rare but dangerous sickness that can be triggered in victims of the chicken pox or flu viruses when given aspirin.

Any viral infection, particularly one in which the first symptom is fever, should not be treated with aspirin. This is true according to the NIH even in adults, but I've always heard it was especially true for children.

See the pages about Reye's at MedicineNet, WebMD, or the US National Institutes of Health or ask your doctor for more info.

Aspirin also has other contraindications, but it has many positive uses as a medicine. Very little in life is without drawbacks, unfortunately.

I understand your point and personally believe two people in marriage should pay the same identical taxes as if they were single, but just to stimulate the contrary side of why to consider taxing married people less, and government motivation:

- Married people are less of an overall burden on society due to being healthier (not that marriage in and of itself necessarily improves health). So, why not tax them less?

- Less overall risk due to higher statistical stability of someone married, as seen by lower insurance rates. Government loves a stable populous paying their taxes, and less likely to revolt or cause other issues, thus less statistical need to pay for any legal enforcement for them.

- Married people often have children. A country wants children for the sake of competing with other countries in terms of economic nationalism. In fact, gay people whom may not conceive through whatever means may adopt abandoned children in society, actually helping out overall.

Again, I agree with you, but I acknowledge their could be a purpose to encouraging marriage through taxes or however.

that defeats the purpose of a free encyclopedia Wiki.

The only reason why I don't edit it often enough is because of the political BS they pull from other editors and admins. Their NPV is really a liberal point of view. I write true neutral point of view and it gets rewritten to the liberal point of view and I am told mine is not NPV because it does not favor the liberal viewpoint. Then my articles get deleted because they are not the liberal point of view.

Wikibooks is the same way, I wrote an article on psychology and philosophy, but I get told that self-hypnosis can reduce anxiety and other therapy in psychology is pseudoscience. That trying to think of an imaginary vacation scene is witchcraft and religion and not science at all. Despite me citing reliable sources, my article gets deleted.

That is another thing, reliable sources, if it is not a liberal web site, and more neutral like webmd it is not reliable enough to make the article accurate.

There's no such thing as a 'proven alternative treatment'. Once it's proven to work it's not alternative medicine any more, it's just medicine.

If proof == "medicine" and no proof == "alternative treatment", then why is massage or acupressure or dietary changes considered alternative treatment?

I do shiatsu acupressure, and I can cite studies on its effectiveness.

And why is surgery considered "medicine"? Every placebo controlled study of a surgical technique has found it no better than a placebo operation.

Why is giving SSRIs out like candy considered "medicine", when they work no better than a placebo for most categories of patients?

Medicine is an art wherein clinicians apply their skills to relieve the suffering and promote the well-being of each individual patient. Of course a good clinician will consider all available evidence to figure out what's likely to work best, but the goal is not to do what's most effective who most people, but for this single patient. You only get evidence of that via treatment.

I know that some of what I - or any clinician, from bodyworkers to brain surgeons - do is the placebo effect. So what?