"...the human species is living as if it had more than one planet to occupy..." What is your own view?
Ug. I think that what Ashley said is true - it's more that we are living without thinking about the consequences of our actions. I suppose that, by extension, the above statement is also true. But it doesn't seem as if people are looking for somewhere else to go - just blithely continuing to consume and destroy and mess things up. Fracking? Really? In California especially? Land of earthquakes and drought? It is so incredibly, shockingly messed up. That's just one small example. Everything is driven by profit, and there is no accountability. Just greed and blindness. I get really hopeless thinking about it.
Post your thoughts on our class discussions
Other classmates have also posted on the 3-D printed pills. It's a pretty striking concept that allows for a lot more flexibility and ease than is currently offered by the industry. It's really interesting to think about how far this will extend, what the future could hold. I imagine that regulating the home 3D printing of medications would be a whole 'nother ball of wax, but that will unfold, as well. So many things are becoming less centralized as technology and knowledge (via the internet) become more advanced and widely shared.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Biochem Week 3
"An act that would create uniform GMO labeling throughout the United States passed the U.S. House." Are you encouraged?
No! I am actually extremely discouraged an depressed about it. This bill was backed by Monsanto and other big ag and big chemical companies. It does nothing to protect consumers and their right to be informed about what they are putting into their bodies, and it would prevent states and municipalities from making their own decisions and own laws with regard to GMO use and labeling. How do we not become completely cynical?
Post your thoughts on our class discussions:
The article about the butter scientist was interesting because he was involved both in the reductionism of dairy and as a proponent of considering the impact of dairy as a whole rather than just looking at the effects of milk fat. One of the first people to identify dairy components at the level of specific acids, he was deeply involved in the 'scientification' of this basic food. And yet he also went against prevailing scientific opinion/fashion to look beyond the evils of saturated fat. (Perhaps he just loved cheese?)
No! I am actually extremely discouraged an depressed about it. This bill was backed by Monsanto and other big ag and big chemical companies. It does nothing to protect consumers and their right to be informed about what they are putting into their bodies, and it would prevent states and municipalities from making their own decisions and own laws with regard to GMO use and labeling. How do we not become completely cynical?
Post your thoughts on our class discussions:
The article about the butter scientist was interesting because he was involved both in the reductionism of dairy and as a proponent of considering the impact of dairy as a whole rather than just looking at the effects of milk fat. One of the first people to identify dairy components at the level of specific acids, he was deeply involved in the 'scientification' of this basic food. And yet he also went against prevailing scientific opinion/fashion to look beyond the evils of saturated fat. (Perhaps he just loved cheese?)
Biochem Week 2 (12)
Post your thoughts on one of our class discussions:
I was really disturbed by the article about placebos and thought it was too non-specific and sensational. 97% of physicians used placebos - right, by what definition? So I went looking and found the source study for the article. Here is a link:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058247
And citation:
Howick J, Bishop FL, Heneghan C, Wolstenholme J, Stevens S, et al. (2013) Placebo use in the United Kingdom: results from a national survey of primary care practitioners. PLoS ONE 8(3): e58247.
The authors didn't post their questionnaire as a supplement, unfortunately, but responses regarding use of the individual 'placebo' types are discussed in more detail than in the article we read in class. The paper reports that 12% of docs reported using a "pure" placebo (i.e. sugar pills or saline injection) "at least once" in their career - but it is difficult to see details from the table, which groups the rare and never responses. The proportion of doctors who reported "occasional" use of a pure placebo, which by their definition includes "at least once in the last year," is 1.5%.
In terms of the impure placebos, the most common "impure placebos" used were "positive suggestions," which was used by 51.7% of docs at least once a week and by 19.6% occasionally (i.e. at least once in last year), and "antibiotics for suspected viral infections," which was used by 25.2% of docs at least once a week and by 51.2% occasionally. I would have really liked to see the numbers with these two items removed. I have a real problem with the article (probably the press release) reporting on this paper. Again - the sensationalism...
Another interesting tidbit the authors reported - there were some differences in use by physician sex. "More females used positive suggestions on a frequent basis (64% versus 52%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40, P = 0.0013), and more males prescribed off-label uses of potentially effective therapy frequently (18% versus 10% RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.71, P = 0.0029). "
Here is the table I referred to:
Check out various links on cells and post your impressions:
I appreciated the interactive 'Virtual Cell', but the animations were kind of old school so I went in search of more. Totally geeked out. Here are a few more interactive (or video) options:
Cell Organelles And Their Function Animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEaTt9heNM
Here's another (not video): http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cell_model_js.htm
Ooh pretty: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/insideacell/
I was really disturbed by the article about placebos and thought it was too non-specific and sensational. 97% of physicians used placebos - right, by what definition? So I went looking and found the source study for the article. Here is a link:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058247
And citation:
Howick J, Bishop FL, Heneghan C, Wolstenholme J, Stevens S, et al. (2013) Placebo use in the United Kingdom: results from a national survey of primary care practitioners. PLoS ONE 8(3): e58247.
The authors didn't post their questionnaire as a supplement, unfortunately, but responses regarding use of the individual 'placebo' types are discussed in more detail than in the article we read in class. The paper reports that 12% of docs reported using a "pure" placebo (i.e. sugar pills or saline injection) "at least once" in their career - but it is difficult to see details from the table, which groups the rare and never responses. The proportion of doctors who reported "occasional" use of a pure placebo, which by their definition includes "at least once in the last year," is 1.5%.
In terms of the impure placebos, the most common "impure placebos" used were "positive suggestions," which was used by 51.7% of docs at least once a week and by 19.6% occasionally (i.e. at least once in last year), and "antibiotics for suspected viral infections," which was used by 25.2% of docs at least once a week and by 51.2% occasionally. I would have really liked to see the numbers with these two items removed. I have a real problem with the article (probably the press release) reporting on this paper. Again - the sensationalism...
Another interesting tidbit the authors reported - there were some differences in use by physician sex. "More females used positive suggestions on a frequent basis (64% versus 52%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40, P = 0.0013), and more males prescribed off-label uses of potentially effective therapy frequently (18% versus 10% RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.71, P = 0.0029). "
Here is the table I referred to:
Check out various links on cells and post your impressions:
I appreciated the interactive 'Virtual Cell', but the animations were kind of old school so I went in search of more. Totally geeked out. Here are a few more interactive (or video) options:
Cell Organelles And Their Function Animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKEaTt9heNM
Here's another (not video): http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/cell_model_js.htm
Ooh pretty: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/insideacell/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)