Man Woman Gives Birth, America Is Definitely Home of the Free

He is not a he, he is a she with boobs lopped off and testosterone that would increase the size of the clitoris and make it look more penis-like. Let's be real here. A man cannot carry a baby. She was not born with ambiguous genitalia. This "dude" is not a dude. She is a dudette. She is a mother. She gave birth through her vagina. That's right "he" gave birth naturally.

He is a she. I am sick of the politically correct nonsense around this woman. Just because someone has surgery and names herself a man, doesn't make it so. Might make her delusional. And it makes the news media look more insane than average, too,"The new dad walked easily, although he appeared tired, .... Someone opened the door for him." Oh, and can you imagine how this kid is going to feel about "dad". This is just nuts. (Couldn't resist.)

She is free to call herself whatever she wants. This is America. And so I am free to call her a she and so I will.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Make It An Explosive 4th of July

I'm here to help you, and naturally, if possible. Trouble with erectile dysfunction? Want to be a machine between the sheets? Well, eat yer watermelon menfolk, the effects are similar, if more general than Viagra-type drugs:

Watermelons contain an ingredient called citrulline that can trigger production of a compound that helps relax the body's blood vessels, similar to what happens when a man takes Viagra, said scientists in Texas, one of the nation's top producers of the seedless variety.

Found in the flesh and rind of watermelons, citrulline reacts with the body's enzymes when consumed in large quantities and is changed into arginine, an amino acid that benefits the heart and the circulatory and immune systems.

"Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, the same basic effect that Viagra has, to treat erectile dysfunction and maybe even prevent it," said Bhimu Patil, a researcher and director of Texas A&M's Fruit and Vegetable Improvement Center. "Watermelon may not be as organ-specific as Viagra, but it's a great way to relax blood vessels without any drug side effects."

On the downside, watermelon has one of the highest glycemic indices of any fruit. It's right up there with a can of Coke or a bagel, for that matter. That is, eating a ton of it rockets your blood sugar up quickly. But then, that could be a good thing, too. You'll get a sugar rush which translates into easy energy for that exercise you'll be getting.

Picking Perfect Babies

A British family chose IVF and screened embryos that had a breast cancer gene:

By screening out embryos carrying the gene, called BRCA-1, the couple, from London, will eliminate the hereditary disease from their lineage.

About 5% of the 44,000 cases of breast cancer diagnosed in Britain each year are estimated to be caused by the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes, both of which can be detected in embryos.

Doctors say thousands of cases of breast cancer could be avoided by screening embryos using the technique called preimplantation diagnosis (PGD).

Eleven embryos were created. Six had the bad gene. Six were destroyed. Two were implanted. One malfunctioned. Two were frozen for "future use".

As a doctor, I find the notion of avoiding the future pain of such a disastrous disease--55-85% of those with this gene end up with the cancer--exciting and hopeful. But I shudder, too, at the implications and the callous actions taken. Creating eleven lives, destroying six, so that one ostensibly healthy one is created..... It's the destruction that is so problematic. No one would dream of having eleven children, and then dumping six overboard because they had a 50-85% chance of suffering down the road.

Doctors and parents choosing this procedure view embryos as specimens not life. With time, genetic markers will identify everything from depression to homosexuality to heart disease. Given the rationale used in genetic selection, there will be no ethical reason to prevent its use for nearly any dysfunction.

Destroying embryos is okay in order to have a healthy baby:
	Agree
	Disagree
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Testosterone Supplementation To Stay Young Feeling and Healthy

Testosterone does good things for a body, both male and female. It increases bone density, muscle mass, mental acuity, increases metabolism, enhances libido and according to this research, fights against metabolic syndrome in older men. So researchers are encouraging older men to supplement with testosterone.

Futurepundit (via Instapundit)worries about the evolutionary implications of declining testosterone in older men and that it might be a protective adaptation against diseases like cancer (since hormones, especially testosterone and estrogen can be tumor growth factors). Maybe.

Testosterone, for men, is the defining, healthy hormone just as progesterone, is the defining, healthy hormone for women. For both men and women the ratio of testosterone:estrogen and the ratio of progesterone:estrogen changes as they age. In both cases, estrogen increases proportionally. Part of it is age. Part of it is diet. Part of it is environmental. Estrogens are everywhere in the environment--from plastics to soy. Fat stores and releases estrogen. Estrogen, in and of itself, isn't bad, but it can be problematic when it's in the wrong proportion to testosterone and progesterone.

So, men can supplement with testosterone and women can supplement with progesterone and testosterone, too, for that matter, and this will happen: the body will down-regulate. That is, the body will stop producing as much testosterone and progesterone in response to the supplementation. This happens with all hormones which is why, once a person is on Synthroid, (synthetic thyroid hormone) he or she is on it for life. The body will stop producing it.

Now, there are vegetable-based hormone replacements that are less manipulative of the system and they can give the body a rest to recover, but the ideal is to produce these hormones oneself without the aid of supplementation. The answer to hormone balance is simple, but no one wants to do it because it's certainly not as easy as a supplement:

1. Lose the fat. Fat produces the estrogens. Lose the fat, the hormone ratio gets better.
2. Build muscle. Especially lower body muscle. Muscle growth produces testosterone.
3. Eat right. You know what that means. Everyone knows what that means. Lean protein. Eggs. Veggies. Good fats like butter and olive oil and flax. Skip fast food. Skip soda. Skip fried food. Drink alcohol moderately. Drink coffee moderately. Eat chocolate moderately.
4. Keep moving. It's not just the muscle, it's the metabolic rate. Aerobic exercise burns off the stress hormones that cause you to accumulate fat in the first place (which stores estrogen). So work up a sweat a couple days a week.
5. Get some sun. Without Vitamin D, all sorts of bad things happen. Increased bone density helps a person carry more muscle mass which helps increase the metabolic rate. See how these things work together?

Unfortunately, as people age, they become more sedentary which itself creates risk factors for Metabolic Syndrome. I have read articles by doctors who have been on long-term supplementary testosterone themselves, and they seem perfectly healthy. I have had patients (women actually) who have supplemented, short term with testosterone, for weight loss. The usage is going up. People are making experiments of themselves.

I suspect that it will be agreed that testosterone has salubrious effects for men and women short term, but like supplementary estrogen, the long-term effects won't become apparent until after years of use. Manipulating mother nature usually has a downside even if it's not immediately apparent.

What would I recommend to my patients? Well, short term use could be beneficial, but long term, the advice would be the same old boring stuff: lose weight, get fit and eat right.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Antipsychotics Up Death In Those With Dementia

Antipsychotics should be given to psychotic and schizophrenic people. Period:

Antipsychotic drugs aren't specifically approved to treat dementia. They're mainly used to treat patients with schizophrenia. But people with dementia sometimes suffer delusions or hallucinations and may exhibit violent behavior. Doctors may prescribe antipsychotics to control these behaviors.

Pro-Life Pharmacies

It might be legal, but is it right? In answering the question for themselves, some pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions of birth control pills or morning after pills. I am really torn about this whole thing, actually. While I'm all for people not violating their consciences, I just think there are better ways to deal with this than refusing service. For a pharmacist who doesn't want to fill a morning after pill prescription, why can't he just have his co-worker do it? Why the need to lecture the woman?

This whole issue brings to mind the Muslim taxi drivers refusing to pick up someone who has been drinking, is drinking, or carrying alcohol or others not taking seeing eye dogs. It's legal. If they don't like to pick up all people, even those they disagree with, pick another freaking profession. My sentiments go the same direction about persnickity pharmacists.

However, it seems to me that an Ob/Gyn is well within his or her rights to refuse to perform an abortion. In fact, few people get the specialized training for them, so forcing a doctor to do this procedure could, in fact, be harmful to the woman wanting one.

The free market has a solution--pro-life pharmacies:

When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy" -- meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.

So, pharmacists who work here can work with a free conscience. Hmmmm..... I seem to remember Catholic hospitals being forced to dispense certain drugs and perform certain procedures, including abortions. In fact, a Catholic hospital in Colorado was sued by a "transgender" woman for not allowing the surgery and the hospital eventually relented. That just happened in March. This seems to violate the separation of church and state, but then, the hospital isn't a church, per se. It's a charity.

A pharmacy is a private business so they can do whatever they want, right? Substitute people seeking birth control drugs, for say, HIV drugs. Say the pharmacy decides to not sell cholesterol lowering drugs because fat people aren't "honoring the temple". Really, many medications are needed because of some stupid lifestyle choice. Stopping at the sexual vices seems rather limiting.

What do you think?

Pharmacies should be able to withhold medication they find objectionable:
	Agree
	Disagree
pollcode.com free polls

The Abortion Business: I Want The Choice To Not Be An Investor

Abortion is a business. It is a big business. Huge. Michelle Malkin reports:

In April, the annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That’s a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? 289,650 abortions in 2006.

This industry trades on other's misfortune and stupidity. The industry also violates the medical principle of "first, do no harm". Harming one living organism for the convenience of another strikes some as morally wrong, but the fact is, abortion is legal. Legal doesn't mean right.

Still, what's really galling is that people who believe it is morally wrong are forced to support the procedures. Where is my choice as a tax payer? Since feminists are all about choice, I'd like to exercise mine and not have my money subsidize what I consider a repugnant medical procedure.

If another doctor wants to sell killing and make money at it, so long as it's legal, that's his choice. As long as a consumer wants to buy the killing to escape her irresponsibility and it's legal, that's her choice. I want to exert my choice as a taxpayer and not be forced to support their disgusting commerce.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Caesareans Cause Insurance Problems

The vast majority of Caesarean sections are unnecessary, invasive surgeries. To add insult to injury, many women are finding themselves un-insurable after a Caesarean. Insurance companies don't want to cover women of child-bearing age. Period. It's expensive and the insurance company's goal is to make money. The insurance company's goal is not to make sure you get well. That is your job. The doctor's job is to help you.

It is helpful to remember these roles when you're making health care decisions.

UK Socialized Medicine: Sorry, there's nothing we can do

America's health care: Yes. We. Can.

UK - “Enlightened” Socialized Healthcare: Sorry, can’t be helped. Your daughter is destined to look like Charles Laughton playing Quasimoto - learn to live with it until the effects kill her.

US - “Backwards” Healthcare: Your daughter will be restored in both health and beauty. Yes we can.

Choice. It's all about choice. For the socialist's claims to choice, they certainly do like limiting them.

Humans: Polluting The Universe--UPDATED

One of the big worries about sending pigs, I mean probes, in space is that human microbes will pollute the worlds they'll explore, potentially wiping out innocent alien civilizations and destroying otherworldly environments. And the UN can prevent this. Evidently, there's a treaty:

However far in the future such technologies may be, it is worth thinking about the potential problem of contaminating other solar systems with Earth life, according to a new paper by Charles Cockell of the Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space and Astronomical Research at Open University in Milton Keynes, UK.

Why should we take the trouble to avoid such interstellar contamination? First, there is the "utilitarian desire to preserve examples of other life of potentially enormous scientific interest", Cockell says. In previous writings, he has also argued that humans have an ethical responsibility to avoid harming life in other solar systems.

There may also be a legal issue. NASA's planetary protection officer, Cassie Conley, notes that the 1967 outer space treaty stipulates that countries should avoid "harmful contamination" of the Moon and other celestial bodies.

To respect the treaty, NASA follows guidelines for planetary protection set out by a Paris-based group of international experts called the Council on Space Research (COSPAR), which advises the United Nations and promotes international cooperation on space research.

I guess my idea of huge space barges full of garbage won't fly. Why are we giving a crap about this? Aren't life forms from other planets always smarter than us? It seems excessive to worry about them getting sick from us.

UPDATE: Via reader DiorJohnnyBravo--Did someone say "Pig's in Space?"


I do worry about the worlds in other dimensions. You know, the parallel universe where my twin lives. Cross-pollinating disease between dimensions seems like a bad idea.

Women Say No To Science and Yes To Gay Porn

Hey, I could be a headline writer for The New York Times. I'm just that good. Well, what do you know? Women are free. Finally, after years of oppression, women are making their choices, even really smart, scientifically gifted women, and choosing what researchers think they shouldn't like: "soft sciences". Oh, and some women are turned on by gay porn and they're (shhhhh) heterosexual and female. Can a woman be any more free?

I don't think so.

Women are free and yet they prefer, for reasons researchers cannot fathom (oxytocin, brain differences, biology?) professions that were once and still are, the domain of....women. Shit. That just sucks. Women should be donning goggles and peering through microscopes with all the fervor of the typical knobby headed man-geek. And some are doing just that--just not enough to make everyone happy. Huh. Imagine, a woman claiming her right to choose and she's not choosing feminist enough, but feminism is all about choice. Oh, the irony:

The results were striking. The lower numbers of women in IT careers weren't explained by work-family pressures, since the study found computer careers made no greater time demands than those in the control group. Ability wasn't the reason, since the women in both groups had substantial math backgrounds. There was, however, a significant difference in one area: what the men and women valued in their work.

Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people's preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom's study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers - and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.

Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

It may seem like a cliche - or rank sexism - to say women like to work with people, and men prefer to work with things. Rosenbloom acknowledges that, but says that whether due to socialization or "more basic differences," the genders on average demonstrate different vocational interests.

"It sounds like stereotypes," he said in an interview, "but these stereotypes have a germ of truth."

I'll just speak for myself here. I'm a sucker for aptitude/personality/psychological testing and have taken many, many of them. One of the best is called Johnson-O'Conner an aptitude assessment. That means, not only do they study personality, they study a persons talents--such as fine motor, gross motor, music memory, spacial reasoning, verbal reasoning, etc. Well, the kind mentor who funded this testing for me was deeply dismayed at my results. He was an engineer and prided himself in his mathematical ability. Lo and behold, I scored higher than him in both higher mathematical ability and spacial reasoning. My aptitudes skewed toward engineering.....until my personality was factored in. That threw a monkey wrench in the works. I was so people-oriented, so verbal (I know, who would have thought it?), so excessively so, that no engineering job wouldn't work for me because the isolation and task-orientation, verses people-nature of the work, would make me crazy. In short, I'd get bored.

Alas, I ended up in alternative medicine, not unlike the women in the study. While I'm pretty good at reading an x-ray thanks to my spacial ability, my satisfaction comes from helping people. I know, I'm a disappointment to women.

Now, let's talk about the poor fellas for a minute. Dr. Helen notes that while women have more choices, the nerdy dudes might have less:

So men who are skilled at math may have less flexibility to branch out and go into other areas that involve dealing with others. If women must be equal in terms of pursuing hard sciences, wouldn't it also be fair that men should have to be equal to women in terms of verbal skills so that they too, could have more job flexibility?

But that's just it. I don't think everyone needs to be stroking out about women in hard sciences. Women choose. Men choose. And while there probably aren't as many, there are some amazingly verbal men who are scientists, I have a reader (you know who you are Kevin), who is a technological genius while possessing the verbal skills of a politician. To say that he enjoys a rewarding career and that the world is his oyster is an understatement. Should there be all sorts of research as to why most poor men are not as verbal and don't enter other professions like teaching, say (and there are amazing exceptions here, too)? Oh, pish-posh. People choose. There are biological reasons for this. We can beat the discrimination drum into eternity but estrogen and testosterone do change brains and therefore, change career choices. That's just life.

Is it possible to acknowledge that men and women are different and it's okay? And that individually, people can choose to be whatever they choose to be. And there will always be exceptions.

Oh, and Rand Sindberg says this in his snarkily titled post, "Math is Hard" (very funny, Rand):

Even if there is tremendous variation among individuals within genders (which there clearly is) it doesn't follow that there won't be average differences in traits between genders. For instance, when it comes to math, what Larry Summers noted (and lost his job over after some of the mature, rational, scientific women present got the vapors and had to hie to their fainting couches) was that in fact men have a much greater standard deviation than women. They have both more geniuses, and more morons, when it comes to higher mathematics, whereas women have more of a tendency to stay near the mean. And there are brilliant (individual) woman mathematicians and hard scientists. But that doesn't mean that we can therefore conclude that there are no statistical differences in these traits between men and women. And the fact that there are allows us to draw no conclusions about any particular man or woman (if I call Ms. Barnett illogical, it is because she conveys illogic, and has nothing to do with her genital configuration.) It remains perfectly reasonable, on a statistical basis, to make some broad statements about the genders ("men are like this and women are like that") without having to infer that every man is like this and every woman is like that.

Indeed. The man is correct. Using myself as an example yet again. Among women, I am in the higher 90th percentile for engineering. Super. But when men are added to the mix, my abilities suddenly get more average--somewhere in the 60%. So, that means that I'm better than the average guy engineering-talent wise, but not much. So there are gender factors here, too. Now, maybe I work my ass off and outperform my co-workers due to sheer sweat. That happens, too, but an equally hard-working, more gifted person, male or female, will have an easier time of it--at least as an engineer.

Oh, this is such painful stuff, unless, like Rand says, you look at each person as an individual. And that's the key. There will be gender trends, but in real life, it matters not. Forget skin color and gonads, what are you good at and more important, what do you want to do? Thankfully, we all have choices. Yes, women have choices now and they're choosing. The feminists just need to suck it up and accept that this is what success looks like.

Sex Changes For Seven Year Olds

Seems a bit young, doesn't it?

"I'm Sorry": The Magic Words That Prevent Lawsuits

Well, that's the idea anyway. When a medical mistake happens, very often everyone knows there was a screw up, including the patient. But doctors are told by their malpractice insurance to deny, deny, deny. That advice has changed to apologize, apologize, apologize:

But with providers choking on malpractice costs and consumers demanding action against medical errors, a handful of prominent academic medical centers, like Johns Hopkins and Stanford, are trying a disarming approach.

By promptly disclosing medical errors and offering earnest apologies and fair compensation, they hope to restore integrity to dealings with patients, make it easier to learn from mistakes and dilute anger that often fuels lawsuits.

Malpractice lawyers say that what often transforms a reasonable patient into an indignant plaintiff is less an error than its concealment, and the victim’s concern that it will happen again.

One of the biggest problems with the "deny" mantra is that the hospital and doctor don't do an adequate correction of errors after a mistake, because, of course, there was no mistake. This reasoning is stupid, but it happens. Sometimes the process is the problem. Sometimes the environment is the problem. Or staffing. Or maybe, the doctor is just plain tired. Maybe the doc makes all his mistakes during surgeries between 10 and midnight. Unfortunately, the focus is on the success of the procedure, not the success of the outcome. There are many moving parts when a person ends up in the hospital. Denying and defending against all and any mistakes makes for a defensive environment where solution-oriented change doesn't happen. Or not very quickly at any rate.

The results of admitting errors has been encouraging:

Mr. Boothman emphasized that he could not know whether the decline was due to disclosure or safer medicine, or both. But the hospital’s legal defense costs and the money it must set aside to pay claims have each been cut by two-thirds, he said. The time taken to dispose of cases has been halved.

The number of malpractice filings against the University of Illinois has dropped by half since it started its program just over two years ago, said Dr. Timothy B. McDonald, the hospital’s chief safety and risk officer. In the 37 cases where the hospital acknowledged a preventable error and apologized, only one patient has filed suit. Only six settlements have exceeded the hospital’s medical and related expenses.

More than the money or correction of errors, admitting fault is just the right thing to do. When a person screws up, especially on your body (this isn't a car or landscaping after all), it seems only right to apologize and not charge the person, at the very least. Even better, get the person the corrective care they need. This is just basic customer service. Doctors, surgeons especially, have earned the arrogant rap for a reason. Everyone screws up. And even doctors need to know how to say, "I'm sorry".

Texas Tort Reform

Good for doctors and consumers, bad for lawyers. And Texas has more Fortune 500 companies now than California or New York. Come on down, ya'll!

Maybe Crazy Moms Do Create Autistic Children

So a friend sends me this research. You know, how to take this? I just don't know..... I'm trying to not take it personally. Kidding! Here's the gist:

"Earlier studies have shown a higher rate of psychiatric disorders in families of autistic children than in the general population," Daniels said.

The association between a child's autism and mental illness in the parent was strongest with schizophrenia, and was less powerful when the mother suffered from depression or personality disorders. There was little association between autism and parental addiction to alcohol or drugs or some other types of mental illness.

It was not clear if it was significant that having a mother, but not a father, with certain mental illnesses, raised the risk of autism.

Back in the day, there was the "refrigerator mother" theory (more here). But it's never been quite established which came first. When you have an autistic child, you find yourself changing your life to make it better for your child. In my own case, my son, even as a baby, could not handle changes in his routine. He would be messed up for days. So, what did I do? I kept him in a rigid routine. It just made life easier. To the outside world though, I looked like an inflexible mom. "Oh, she's just obsessive because it's her first child and he's premature", blah, blah, blah.

In addition, I had a child two years after my first son. My other children don't have autism. And I have seen completely normal moms have three autistic children who all favor their fathers. It seems to me that there are many factors that can contribute to autism. Here are some:

Father's age
Oh crap, there are too many. So here's a link to a website that lists some (and I by no means endorse or support any theories, treatments, etc.) Here's wikipedia on autism.

This research is an interesting addition to the body of autism theory. Like I've said before, I don't think there is any one cause. Autism is a complicated disorder with many contributing factors. All I do know, is that I hope the researchers press on. Autism impacts so many lives. Children and families struggle every day. We need a cure. Soon.

Antipsychotics and Children

In the last 20 years, antipsychotic use in children has nearly doubled. The problem is that there have been zero studies on efficacy, long-term side-effects, etc. for these drugs when used on children and adolescents:

Atypical antipsychotic drugs are currently only approved to treat adults suffering from such psychotic illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar and other mood disorders, and Tourette''s syndrome. However, these drugs are often used to treat other psychiatric disorders for which they are not approved.

This group of antipsychotics includes Clozaril, Risperdal, Geodon, Seroquel, and Zyprexa.

There have been deaths and there are side-effects:

John March, chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, prescribes the drugs to kids in some cases of serious illness when he thinks the benefits outweigh the risks. But he says prescribing them for behavior problems alone may be a mistake. "We have no evidence about the safety of these agents or their effectiveness in controlling aggression," he says. "Why are we doing this?"

At the same time, reports of deaths and dangerous side effects linked to the drugs are mounting. A USA TODAY study of FDA data collected from 2000 to 2004 shows at least 45 deaths of children in which an atypical antipsychotic was listed in the FDA database as the "primary suspect." There also were 1,328 reports of bad side effects, some of them life-threatening.

Drug companies are required to file any reports they have to the FDA, but consumers and doctors report such events on a voluntary basis. Studies suggest the FDA's Adverse Events Reporting System database captures only 1% to 10% of drug-induced side effects and deaths, "maybe even less than 1%," says clinical pharmacologist Alastair J.J. Wood, an associate dean at Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville. So the real number of cases is almost certainly much higher.

"We're conducting a very large experiment on our children," March says.

Why are we doing this? Because parents seem clueless and powerless to handle an aggressive child with anger management issues. Because administrators and teachers are trying to minimize the disruption in classes. Because more and more children demonstrate the effects of poor nutrition, sleep habits, problem coping skills, media saturation, and rootlessness. Because doctors don't know what to do so they do something.

At the core, I hold doctors responsible. They prescribe mood altering medications as if they are no big deal. But these medications have huge implications for developing brains. If a child is on the med, a child is a walking experiment. Period.

Mumps Outbreak In Highly Immunized Population

Yep. I got mumps. My husband and his brothers got mumps and we were all immunized. Here's the study showing the biggest outbreak of mumps in recent American history and most of the people were immunized:

In a study reported in last week's New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several Midwestern state health departments examined the 6,584 cases in the Midwestern outbreak. They found that the incidence was four times higher among people 18 to 24 years old than in all other age groups combined. This was despite the fact that 84% of the mumps patients in that age group (and 63% of the patients overall) had received the recommended two doses of mumps vaccine.

Immunization does not confer 100% immunity. And the problem with this outbreak is that mumps is relatively harmless in children. Uncomfortable, yes. Miserable, yes. Deadly? No. But in young adults, it can cause sterilization and reproductive problems.

More Evidence China Is Trying To Kill Us?

Contaminated heparin from China has killed 81 Americans and been found in 11 countries. Is this accidental, sloppy, malicious? China needs to focus on quality control otherwise, their humming engine for economic growth is going to slow down.

Flu Vaccine Works For Shit

How many times do I have to tell you peeps that the Flu vaccine is utterly worthless? To reiterate: the flu virus mutates constantly. As in, the flu that your buddy gets three months from now is not the same exact flu you suffer with today. Furthermore, the vaccine for this year's flu is made from LAST year's flu virus. Researchers guess what strains will predominate and make the vaccine based on that.

This year, as in last year, they guessed wrong. Again.

Each year, health officials - making essentially an educated guess - formulate a vaccine against three viruses they think will be circulating. They guess well most of the time, and the vaccine is often between 70 and 90 percent effective.

But this year, two of the three strains were not good matches and the vaccine was only 44 percent effective, according to a study done in Marshfield, Wis.

The only people who benefit from the flu vaccine are the pharmaceutical companies. Now, I do not give a rats rump if they make money on other legitimate products. More power to them. But the flu vaccine is a complete fraud.

What does 44% protection mean? Does that mean that of the viri out there, you'll be covered almost half the time? According to the CDC, about 3-20% of the population gets the flu each year. How much money goes into vaccinating the 97-80% of the people who don't get the flu? In addition, how many people in the hospital were vaccinated, but got sick anyway? Remember 56% of the viri are not covered. So a vaccinated person will likely be vulnerable to the majority of the viruses that cause the flu. Nice. And it is possible that 1.5% to 9% of the population will be the ones covered effectively by getting the vaccine. Is that worth it? Is the expense every, single year, worth it? Is the trouble worth it? Would you have a surgery if it had a 1.5% to 9% effective rate?

Here's the deal: Every couple years, you're going to get the flu. It will make you miserable. It will boost your immune system. And you'll likely be safe for a couple years. The flu sucks. If you're a sick or weak person, it could kill you. But there are risks in life and the flu vaccine doesn't cover enough of them to make it worth it.

Erase Bad Memories Before They're Made

I can think of all sorts of uses for an anesthesia that makes you not remember bad stuff while it's happening.