Category: This Mortal Coil

Personalized medicine versus human nature

Is genomics a medical game changer?

A brief review in the NY Times of recent books on ‘omics medicine:

In “Am I My Genes?,” the psychiatrist and ethicist Dr. Robert L. Klitzman plunges readers into the world of genomic medicine as it exists today: a barely mapped terrain of immense overlapping uncertainties. Many thousands of patients are bravely stumbling along in there: The book is based on interviews with 64 whose family history suggested a risk for the mutations associated with breast and ovarian cancers, the neurological killer Huntington’s disease or the destructive lung condition alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency… Dr. Klitzman moves through all the basic landmarks, including the big ones: “Do I want to know?,” “Whom should I tell?” and “Why me?”

But for uninvolved observers, perhaps most striking is the book’s clear demonstration that science of the future notwithstanding, human beings faced with illness or its likelihood tend to react in the same old human ways. They protest, weep, change their diet, blame stress, consult a psychic, consult another psychic, accept the inevitable and generally muddle through valiantly.

In other words, the genomic revolution may not wind up changing the landscape of illness quite as much as its proponents may envision: patterns of thought and reaction run deep. As one of Dr. Klitzman’s patients remarks calmly, “It might run in families, but I don’t think it’s genetic.” She may have the family cancer, but “now, everyone is showing up with cancer.”

Well, when personalized, ‘omic medicine does more than just predict disease outcomes, when it actually and reliably leads to cures, remissions, etc., then people will have to accept the inevitable less often. I don’t imagine that this will put psychics out of business, but it will relieve a lot of suffering.

RegenArouse (When Supplements Work?)

Real drugs, with real physiological activities, have very real side effects. As a result, some drugs cannot be safely taken by some individuals with underlying conditions or who are taking other, incompatible medications. When “nutritional supplements” contain undisclosed drugs, potentially dangerous side effects and interactions cannot be avoided.  Individuals that cannot take a drug due to underlying risk factors may be more likely to be customers for these alternative treatments, placing them at even greater risk. To err is human. To have an undeclared drug in your supplement that happens to cause the same therapeutic effects claimed for your supplement is anything but divine.

The latest supplement to run afoul of the FDA’s “if you product contains a drug, it is a drug” rule is RegenArouse, a supplement for erectile disfunction, which was found to contain tadalafil. Continue reading “RegenArouse (When Supplements Work?)”

Just One Baby – Why We Vaccinate

For me, 5 February is Dana McCaffery Day. I originally wrote this in 2010 to explain how much her brief time in this world meant to me, even though I had never met her. I stand by every word, and even more so by every feeling, still today. I also choose to remember Dana’s birthday – the remembrance of her coming into her own being – as a celebration of a meaningful life, though I so desperately wish her life could have been as mundane as the rest of us.

Just One Baby

from Bad Astronomy
Today is the first anniversary of Dana Elizabeth McCaffery‘s birth. Unfortunately, Dana cannot join us in celebrating her birthday. Dana was killed by pertussis, or whooping cough. At under a month of age, Dana could not be vaccinated against pertussis and had to rely on herd immunity. Unfortunately, thanks in large part to the efforts of the anti-vaccination movement, immunity levels in Dana’s region of Australia were far below the herd immunity level necessary to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, like newborn children. Continue reading “Just One Baby – Why We Vaccinate”

The X-Men Diet

The other day, I was inspired to think about creative ways to lose weight. “Creative” meaning solutions that allow one to eat tasty food. That pretty much leaves us with quackery or increasing energy expenditure. Unfortunately, quackery, being quackery, generally does not work, and increasing energy expenditure usually means doing things that are either boring (e.g., jogging) or hard work (e.g., jogging) or both (e.g., jogging).

What really increases your energy usage, isn’t boring, or hard work? Shooting energy beams from your eyes, like Cyclops[1]. Shooting energy beams from your eyes has to require lots of energy, doesn’t it. I mean, they are beams of energy. And, Cyclops always seems to be in pretty good shape. Could the two be connected? Where does the energy for the beams of energy come from? Continue reading “The X-Men Diet”

Logic 101: Homeowork

Identify at least five* logical fallacies in Dana Ullman‘s article “Disinformation on Homeopathy: Two Leading Sources”. Show your work.

Please know that this review and critique of Mr. Randi and Ms. Brown is not an ad hominem attack on these two individuals. . .this article reviews their actions, their priorities and the organizations that they have represented, all of which are reasonable and appropriate areas for critique and are not personal attacks on who they are.

*The fact that Ullman declares that the article is not an argumentum ad hominem does not mean that you may not identify an argumentum ad hominem fallacy, as Ullman does not appear to know what ad hominem actually means. Nor does he appear to know how the scientific method works.

When Professor Ennis was ultimately sent the protocol, she was shocked at what she received. This protocol was not her experiment (Ennis, 2004). In fact, it was clearly a study that was a set-up to disprove homeopathy.