Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Selling Snake Oil, The Modern Way

Medicine, today, can seem quite miraculous to individuals.  There are meds for this particular disease, and meds for that particular disease, unlike, say, some of the elixirs sold in the 1800’s, which in many instances were proclaimed as cure alls for everything from abcesses to warts.

But are the meds proclaimed as being so beneficial to individuals, and society, today, necessarily any more effective than the elixirs of the 1800’s?  Not necessarily, as the following quote illustrates.

Sifting through the underlying science reveals that the way in which scientists and drug companies describe the benefits of many medications—by framing the question in terms of “relative risks"—systematically inflates their value.  The result is that patients frequently buy and consume medicines that do very little good.

The article the above was quoted from illustrates the snake oil aspect of modern medicine by looking at the example of cholesterol lowering drugs, or statins, specifically Pravachol, which proclaimed a thirty-one percent (31%) reduction in heart attacks for those downing the pills.  Here’s a more reasoned examination of the above claim.

A 31 percent reduction in heart attacks, after all, seems impressive. Yet this pervasive way of describing clinical trials in medical journals—focusing on the “relative risk,” in this case of heart attack—powerfully exaggerates the benefits of drugs and other invasive therapies. What, after all, does a 31 percent relative reduction in heart attacks mean? In the case of the 1995 study, it meant that taking Pravachol every day for five years reduced the incidence of heart attacks from 7.5 percent to 5.3 percent. This indeed means that there were 31 percent fewer heart attacks in patients taking the drug. But it also means that the “absolute risk” of a heart attack for any given person dropped by only 2.2 percentage points* (from 7.5 percent to 5.3 percent). The benefit of Pravachol can be summarized as a 31 percent relative reduction in heart attacks—or a 2.2 percent absolute reduction.

In real numbers this means that if 100 individuals are taking statins, to reduce the risk of heart attack, only 2 of the 100 individuals will benefit from ingesting the drug.  I’m no statistical wiz bang, but it almost appears that you could ingest one of those elixirs from the 1800’s, or a bowl of oatmeal, which is measurably cheaper, and just possibly reap the same benefit as you would receive from say, Pravachol.

A more conducive method for evaluating the meds so readily prescribed today is termed NNT, or numbers needed to treat.  Not being associated with the medical fields, I was unaware of this term, but, if I some day end up being prescribed one of our moderns medicines, for the ailments I’ll supposedly be susceptible to as I age, I’ll be certain to ask the prescriber for the NNT data on the med being prescribed before I plunk down my hundred bucks for a med that just possibly could be snake oil.

The entire article on this subject was published by Slate and is titled Treat Me?  The crucial health stat you’ve never heard of

Posted by John Venlet on 10/04 at 03:19 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Prepare to be Muzzled Due to the "Truth Predictor"

Google’s CEO, and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Eric Schmidt, recently made some comments in Britain, regarding the internet, which, I would wager big, will act as a catalyst for government control of the internet.

Imagine being able to check instantly whether or not statements made by politicians were correct. That is the sort of service Google Inc. boss Eric Schmidt believes the Internet will offer within five years.

Politicians have yet to appreciate the impact of the online world, which will also affect the outcome of elections, Schmidt said in an interview with the Financial Times published on Wednesday.

He predicted that “truth predictor” software would, within five years, “hold politicians to account.” People would be able to use programs to check seemingly factual statements against historical data to see to see if they were correct.

Republicans and Democrats alike will join hands across the aisles to prevent this from coming to fruition.

Google boss warns politicians about Internet power

Posted by John Venlet on 10/04 at 06:59 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

High Tech Concrete

Concrete has been around for a long time.  According to this concrete history timeline, the earliest known, spontaneous, appearance of concrete occurred approximately 12 million years ago.

Today, according to an Economist.com article titled Concrete possibilities, concrete is going high tech.

But like good chefs, materials scientists have long known that they can tweak the basic concrete recipe to create any number of desired effects. For example, adding chemicals that encourage the trapping of tiny air bubbles makes concrete more durable, because it gives water room to expand into when it freezes, thereby avoiding tiny cracks. In the late 1990s researchers began to experiment with another additive—small amounts of electrically conductive steel or carbon fibres. Even though the fibres make up less than 1% of the concrete by volume, they have a large effect: the resulting concrete gains the ability to conduct electricity.

Another high tech development in concrete, with implications for the building industry, is Grancrete.

Grancrete, a company based in Mechanicsville, Virginia, has been working on a new type of ceramic, cement-like material for making quick, durable and cheap “spray-on” housing for the billion or so people in the world who lack it. Grancrete, as its invention is known, has its origins in a material invented to encapsulate nuclear waste. Its developers soon realised, though, that its real potential lay in housing people, rather than plutonium.

A small local team can be trained to mix and to apply the grancrete, which is made from a mixture of sand and a special binding agent. The team uses a hose to spray a thin coating onto a simple frame. Because grancrete binds to many surfaces, the frame can be made from wood, metal, or even polystyrene or woven matting. When it hardens, 20 minutes later, the grancrete structure is twice as strong as traditional concrete, and it is durable, fire-resistant, waterproof and non-toxic—more than can be said for most of the poor’s housing. Salt does not corrode it, so it is suitable for use in coastal areas and its insulating properties mean that it can be used both in hot and cold climates. It should also be strong enough to withstand hurricane-force winds.

Interesting stuff, if you ask me.

Via Noodle Food which introduces us to the article with the following quote from The Fountainhead.

"Watch the light metals industry, Howard.... In a few… years… you’ll see them do some astounding things.... Watch the plastics, there’s a whole new era… coming from that.... You’ll find new tools, new means, new forms.... You’ll have to show… the damn fools… what wealth the human brain has made for them… what possibilities....

Posted by John Venlet on 10/04 at 05:59 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Free Speech - Consequences

So, an individual, walking with his son, happens upon Dick Cheney, gladhanding and posing for photos in Beaver Creek, Colorado earlier this year.  As said individual walks by Cheney, and his small, fawning crowd, he says to Cheney

"I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or words to that effect,...

Eight simple words, spoken in passing, expressing an opinion contrary to current policies being executed in Iraq, to a man who has taken an oath to defend your right, and my right, to free speech.

Now, do those words, spoken freely, appear, to any reasoning individual, to exhibit any type of threat or harrassment to Dick Cheney?  I would say definitely not.  But what happens to this individual for freely expressing his opinion, in this country of ours where free speech is supposedly celebrated and protected by that infamous piece of paper.  This is what happens.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards’ lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had “assaulted” the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

Fortunately, for the arrested individual, at least one individual professional job holder still retained the ability to reason, and any charges which had been attempted to be filed against the offending individual were dismissed.

The above information is taken from the Rocky Mountain News, in a story titled Arrest over Cheney barb triggers lawsuit

Via Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by John Venlet on 10/04 at 04:50 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Stop Apologizing to the Muslims Already - II

Earlier today I posted a few comments under the title Stop Apologizing to the Muslims Already. Said title to post has the appearance of prescience, after reading these words, this evening, from a Spiegel Online International interview with Bassam Tibi who is a political scientist in Germany.

SPIEGEL: When something insults Muslims, we often tend to just back off—doesn’t this help defuse the conflict?

Tibi: No. That is simply giving up. And the weaker the partner is viewed by the Muslims, then the greater the anger which they express. And this anger is often carefully staged. The argument over the cartoons for example was completely orchestrated. Nothing was spontaneous. A lot of people don’t know if Denmark is a country or a cheese. Where did they get the Danish flags? Protests like these are weapons in this war of ideas. Or take another example: The president of the Iranian parliament was visiting Belgium where he had an appointment with a female Belgian colleague. He refused to shake her hand, so she didn’t meet with him. He left Belgium and accused her of racism. The accusation of cultural insensitivity is a weapon. And we have to neutralize it.

The following portion of the interview, which immediately follows the portion quoted above, can also be read with interest.

SPIEGEL: Can the Islam conference which the German minister of domestic affairs, Wolfgang Schäuble, organized in Berlin last week, help in this regard?

Tibi: No, because the biggest taboo is that there even is a conflict at all. Everyone denies that. Instead people talk about misunderstandings and how these should be resolved. But a conflict of values is not a misunderstanding. Islamic orthodoxy and the German constitution are not compatible. And that is why the Islam conference failed.

SPIEGEL: So what’s the answer then?

Tibi: Muslims have to give up three things if they want to become Europeans: They have to bid farewell to the idea of converting others, and renounce the Jihad. The Jihad is not just a way of testing yourself but also means using violence to spread Islam. The third thing they need to give up is the Shariah, which is the Islamic legal system. This is incompatible with the German constitution...

Though Tibi is speaking in regards to Islam in Germany, the words ring true for all of Europe, and should be paid close attention to everywhere.

The entire interview can be read here.

Posted by John Venlet on 10/03 at 04:06 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Failure in Two Countries

The installation of closed circuit cameras, by the government, in public areas, is touted by the powers that be as a crime deterrent.  Unfortunately, there is no tangible evidence that the cameras actually provide the service as touted.  The cameras actually simply provide a placebo for professional job holders to hand like candy to the herd, to soothe those pyschologically terrified by crime.

Here’s a blurb regarding their effectiveness in Washington D.C.

Many D.C. police said they had hoped that installing dozens of new surveillance cameras across the city would assist them in cracking down on crime, but the system does not appear to be working as planned.

Here’s a blurb regarding their effectiveness in Britain.

But are people right to believe that cameras are keeping them safer? According to Martin Gill, professor of criminology at the University of Leicester, they are not. He conducted a study for the Home Office of 14 surveillance systems around the country and found that, in general, the installation of cameras has very little impact on crime. In only one of the 14 areas could a drop in crime levels be linked to CCTV.

Blurb regarding cameras in D.C. taken from this article.

Police: Cameras Not Helping Fight Crime Much

Blurb regarding cameras in Britain taken from this Brendan O’Neill piece.

Watching you, watching me

O’Neill piece linked via Samizdata.

Posted by John Venlet on 10/03 at 08:58 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Aren't They All

An AP headline this morning.

Clown Is Running for Mayor of Alameda

All professional job seekers are clowns.

Via Drudge.

Posted by John Venlet on 10/03 at 07:48 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Yeah, Whatever

In a Washington Post column this morning, Sebastian Mallaby pens a litany of complaints regarding the Democratic party, though he seems to think that a Democratic majority in the House of Reps would be “refreshing.”

Mallaby notes the Dems won’t stand up for this, that, or the other thing, but his main lament is as follows.

They clearly want power, but they have no principles to guide their use of it.

Two points in regards to that little quote, above.  First, as I mentioned the other day when the Foley story was first getting its legs, all politics is simply chicanery whose ultimate goal is control and power.  Second, neither party has any principles, as they both rely on chicanery to gain and retain power.  Principles are not in their realm of understanding.

Mallaby’s piece is titled A Party Without Principles

Posted by John Venlet on 10/03 at 04:27 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Stop Apologizing to the Muslims Already

I’m beginning to think that Islam must be the one true faith.  I mean the way people fall all over themselves to apologize for some supposed insult to “The Prophet” or the “one true faith,” or kowtow towards supposed Muslim sanctities, seems to indicate larger unseen forces at work, almost.

First it was the Pope apologizing for quoting a 14th century emperor, then the Germans couldn’t put on a play, and now I read that Twin Cities radio station KDWB-FM has apologized for airing a skit, Muslim Jeopardy, wherein a couple of the categories were “Infamous Infidels” and “Potent Portables.” Sounds like the skit may have been quite funny, to me.

Radio station apologizes for skit

Via The Obscure Store

Posted by John Venlet on 10/03 at 03:56 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, October 02, 2006

An Honest Politician, Or, Lie to Us, Please

I realize that this story is somewhat dated, but, since The New York Times linked to an International Herald Tribune editorial on the subject, today, I figured the subject is still topical, especially with midterm elections approaching.

Recently, in a speech that wasn’t to be overheard except by the chosen ones, Hungarian prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsany remarked,

"We’ve lied in the morning, in the evening and at night” about the budget, he said, in order to get re-elected.

(Above quote taken from The Honest Liar published online by Spiegel Online International.)

Anyway, this brought to mind Mencken’s The Politician, wherein he writes on politicians and their promises, as published in A Mencken Chrestomathy, and I quote,

They will all promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, she or it wants.  They’ll all be roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable.  They will all be curing warts by saying words over them, and paying off the national debt with money that no one will have to earn.  When one of them demonstrates that twice two is five, another will prove that it is six, six and a half, ten, twenty, n. In brief, they will divest themselves of their character as sensible, candid and truthful men, and become simply candidates for office, bent only on collaring votes.  They will all know by then, even supposing that some of them don’t know it now, that votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense, and they will apply themselves to the job with a hearty yo-heave-ho.  Most of them, before the uproar is over, will actually convince themselves.  The winner will be whoever promises the most with the least probability of delivering anything.

A Mencken Chrestomaty, 8. Government, The Politician, pg. 168

Posted by John Venlet on 10/02 at 09:23 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Right As Rain

Former represetative Mark Foley’s little email tête-à-tête is still generating a goodly amount of blather in the media, I see.  Though I’d wager this will only continue until the midterm election polls close, not-with-standing Dennis Hastert’s call for a DOJ investigation, as reported in The Washington Times.

This morning, the Drudge Report trumpets the headline Foley Enters Rehab, and notes a letter allegedly sent by Foley to an ABC affiliate wherein Foley makes the following acknowledgements.

Painfully, the events that led to my resignation have crystalized recognition of my longstanding significant alcohol and emotional difficulties.

I strongly believe that I am an alcoholic and have accepted the need for immediate treatment for alcoholism and related behavioral problems.

On Saturday, with the loving support of my family and friends, I made arrangements to enter a renowned in-patient facility to address my disease and related issues.

I deeply regret and accept full responsibility for the harm I have caused.

This missive should appeal to all the do-gooders, both Democratic and Republican.  Foley exhibits contrition, acknowledges that he’s an alcoholic, that he suffers from other “behavioral problems,” and accepts responsibility for what has occurred. 

Shouldn’t all the do-gooders be rallying around Foley?  Aren’t they always exhorting us to understand and to embrace those who suffer from indescretions beyond their control?  He’s exhibiting all the correct behaviors, now, unlike say, Clinton, who did not have sex with that woman.  Though Clinton may have just been ahead of this time in parrotting the oral sex isn’t sex line which 62.7% of men, and 67.3% of women, squawk according to a recent Men’s Health survey (see question #28).

According to Andrew Sullivan, in a post from Saturday titled The Closet, he seems to think that Foley’s self destruction stems from hiding in the closet.  Though of course Sullivan must first gratuitously congratulate himself for coming out of the closet, because it was his “responsibility,” prior to exhorting Foley to come out of the closet.

My advice to Foley would be to continue feeding the media the type of sound bites he’s sculpted for the ABC affiliate, as noted in the Drudge link above, and then soon everything will be as right as rain.  Consider Brent Musburger, he was back on the air in no time.  Or, look at Jim McGreevy, who has a tell all book out and is on the talk show circuit. 

Foley may not make it back into politics, which is disgraceful anyway, but he may very well come out of this in decent financial shape if he writes a confessional tell all.  It’ll be right as rain.

Posted by John Venlet on 10/02 at 07:53 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 6 of 6 pages « First  <  4 5 6