Health/Medical Fads

-
Last week, my mother was on the phone with a nurse from her HMO, trying to describe lights she was seeing in one eye. About every forty-five seconds, I’d hear her sigh and say, “No, my eyes are not dry.” The nurse seemed to be eager to recommend drops for Chronic Dry Eye. You’ve undoubtedly seen commercials for these miracle drops, featuring the optometrist with the body of a Bond girl. While the nurse’s stubbornness was annoying, she’s not alone. The tendency to succumb to the latest health/medical fad is hardly a new phenomenon.

Typically, when we talk about fads, we’re talking about fashion, music, movies, books, TV, or the culinary realm. However, medical history is heavily peppered with fads which have dominated the “medical wisdom” of a particular era. I, of course, can’t name them all, but there are a choice few which stick out like sign posts along a desert road.

In the late nineteenth century, companies, such as Bayer, were pumping out concoctions of opium, cocaine, and alcohol to treat pain, sleeplessness, consumption, PMS, menopause, and other ailments of the body. In fact, ladies of means had their daily tonic to help get them through the day. Of course, they needed it to get through the day, they were addicted without realizing it.

The nineteen sixties came along, and overweight people were told that a motorized belt could shake the fat from their bodies. These machines were more silly than harmful, merely jiggling skin and fat around.

Before we pat ourselves on the back for not giving in to such nonsense, we must sadly acknowledge that while this device has disappeared from the market, it's been replaced by two other products. The first is a belt which shocks abdominal muscles in sequence, forcing them to contract. I’m sure that once it’s no longer marketed as a health product, this puppy will have future within the S&M community. The second gem is The Shake Weight, which users are supposed to hold as it vibrates to reduce upper arm flab.

In 1976, the President of Tuft University, Jean Mayer, vilified salt by calling it, “the most dangerous food additive of all.” Doctors made money, for thirty years, by telling people to reduce salt intake in order to avoid high blood pressure and heart attack. Everybody jumped on the bandwagon, marketing low-sodium this and salt free that.

We know now that salt isn’t harmful, unless a person is already hypertensive. In fact, doctors today, even recommend iodized salt be part of one’s diet in order to combat iodine deficiencies resulting in thyroid problems, and to promote circulatory health.

Then came oat bran, which was supposed to lower cholesterol. Food companies were tripping over each other to come up with new oat bran products, add oat bran to existing products, and hype products which already contained oat bran, “Cheerios is the only leading cold cereal clinically proven to lower cholesterol.”

Most of this hype died down once The New England Journal of Medicine funded its own clinical trials and concluded, “oat bran has no special cholesterol lowering benefit.” Yes, if you eat Cheerios/oatmeal and fruit for breakfast instead of bacon and eggs, your cholesterol will, most likely, drop, but it has nothing to do with the properties of the oat bran.

There are way too many fad diets to talk about. It seems like just about anyone can publish a diet book these days. The one that most sticks out as a pop cultural milestone in my mind though, is the low carb craze of early this decade. Everyone was talking about The Atkins Diet and necessity of minimizing dietary carbohydrates in order to lose weight. Low carb products filled grocery stores and restaurants developed Atkins approved menus. Low carb was the weight loss catch phrase of the day.

People found themselves slightly disillusioned however, when Dr. Atkins was purported to be obese (6ft, 258lbs) at the time of his death. Making matters worse, George Stella, host of Food Network’s “Low Carb and Lovin’ It,” kept gaining visible weight from episode to episode, until the show was finally canceled.

Most recently, we’ve been in the midst of a slightly different kind of fad, which isn't a product or lifestyle recommendation, but a marketing strategy. In 1999, the FDA made it legal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription medications directly to consumers. We’ve all seen Bob, the perpetually smiling Enzyte guy, and the aforementioned sexy optometrist peddling Restasis. They’re part of pop culture, along side Tony the Tiger and Ronald McDonald.

Information’s empowering, right? Thanks to these ads, those of us suffering from hair loss, chronic dry eye, incontinence, irritable bowel syndrome, and erectile dysfunction know there’s hope, and that one day we can watch the sunset with our lover from the bathtub on the beach, if only we can get our doctors to prescribe the right drug.

Ah, there’s the rub. These commercials are designed to create consumer desire for particular medications. Thus, patients are going to their doctor, asking for specific prescriptions, based on what they’ve seen on TV. The really scary part comes when a doctor refuses to prescribe a particular drug, for solid medical reasons, so the patient begins “doctor shopping” in order to fill their, commercially created, desire. If we’ve learned anything from the deaths of Elvis and Michael Jackson, it’s the sad fact that eventually anyone, with enough money, can find a doctor who’s willing to prescribe anything a patient wants.

I don’t want people thinking that every recommendation coming from the health/medical community is necessarily a passing fad, which will one day be disproved as goofy. This anti-smoking kick, doctors are on, seems pretty solid, as does the roughage thing, the sun block thing, etc… Lots of good solid pieces of advice and procedures result from medical research. The trick is to remember that the health/medical industry is driven by money, just like any other market. If advice is coming from someone who’s trying to sell a book or product, you may want to take it with a grain of salt.

Writing 24/7

-
Whether a writer is published or not, people will ask a writer two things over & over again.

1. How does one write?

2. When do you write?

There are multiple classes one can take, and books one can buy, to answer the first question. However the short answer is, know your basic story before you type the first page. Know the beginning, the end, and outline what it’s going to take to get from the beginning to the end. You’ll change the details umpteen times, don’t worry about that. Just know where you’re going and have fun paving the path along the way.

As for things such as voice, point of view, word usage, story flow, chapter structure, and punctuation, make novels, well written blogs, and magazines your text books. Yes, enjoy the works, of course. While you’re enjoying the writing though, pay attention to how chapters begin and end, pay attention to the descriptive words being used to paint mental pictures, pay attention to punctuation, and pay attention to the way the writing flows from one idea/scene to another.

Now, when do writers write? The answer is, we’re writing 24/7. Sitting at the computer/typewriter/pad & pen is merely the last step in the writing process. A good writer is constantly observing life, making mental notes, and refining ideas.

When you’re riding the bus and the lady, who’s telling you the CIA has put Jesus’ brain inside a robot, inspires a character, you’re writing.

When you’re strolling through the mall, while mentally reconstructing paragraphs, you’re writing.

When you’re reading the work of another author, and learning the craft, you’re writing.

When you’re lying awake at three in the morning, trying to figure out what will motivate your character to open the closet door and find the body, you’re writing.

When you’re talking to your mother about a nurse, who was intent on diagnosing her with the newest medical fad, and you say, “Medical fads would make an interesting blog,” you’re writing. (Side note: Once I do some research, medical fads will probably be my next blog.)

Some of my best poems were mentally composed during long strolls around town, and were typed when I got home. While the act of typing recorded the works, the strolls themselves were integral parts of the writing process. Even nocturnal dreams can serve as key pieces of inspiration.

Of course, one eventually has to stop strolling through the mall, sit at a desk, an record the mental compositions of the day.

Odds & Ends

-
When one gets sick, motivation to do anything, except watch TV & Youtube, pretty much abandons a person. I'm just beginning to feel like myself again, so I thought I'd write a blog in order to get my writing juices flowing again. However, the topics on my mind have either been done to death by the media already, or wouldn't be enough fill a page. Thus, I'm taking a page from my friend, Alizabeth's, playbook by touching on a few unrelated topics.
-
We all know, of course, about the run away oil gusher of the coast of New Orleans. Whether or not BP is liable, or the government failed to inspect things before issuing licenses are topics I'll gladly leave to CNN & MSNBC. It's the opportunistic gouging that bothers me. Yes, the polluted environment thing bothers me too, but it's the price gouging that will effect the greatest number of Americans. While seafood from the Gulf region makes up 2 percent of seafood on the American market, prices are predicted to sky rocket over the next year in response to the oil disaster. A 2 percent loss does not a shortage make.
-
I could regurgitate a thousand other editorials, and express my outrage over Arizona's migration law. Why bother though? I mean really, the first time a Hispanic citizen is hauled in for jogging without carrying I.D., the courts are going to strike this thing down. It can't last.

Keep in mind though, people don't go overboard while trying to solve nonexistent problems. Illegal immigration is a criminal act, which needs to be curtailed. We simply have to find a way to address the problem without infringing on the rights of legal citizens of any race.
-
Obama's administration has come out in support of legislation which would make it legal to arrest & question "terror suspects" without reading them their rights. I'm a huge supporter of law enforcement, but come on people. Really? If I rob Safeway with a shot gun and scare, or terrorize, everyone in the store, does the newly proposed law apply to me? No? Are you sure? OK, what if the suspect of the robbery is from Pakistan and his third cousin belongs to Al-Qaeda? What then?
-
Finally, on a note closer to home, I must confess to being somewhat lazy. Portland is a food Mecca, boasting more chefs per capita than any other American city. Yet, when I eat out, I go to The Olive Garden and Red Robin. I need to hit some quality places as long as I'm living here. Thus, I've added the following list to my bucket list.

Restaurants I Want To Try
Hillsboro:
Helvetia Tavern - 10275 NW Helvetia Rd.
Portland:
Ringside - 2165 W Burnside
Voodoo Donuts - 22 SW 3rd Ave.
Salvador Molly’s - 1523 SW Sunset Blvd.
Ringside - 2165 W Burnside
Blueplate - 308 SW Washington
Bunk Sandwiches - 621 SE Morrison
Pause Kitchen & Bar - 5101 North Interstate Ave.
Russell Street BBQ - 325 NE Russell St.
Seattle:
Mike’s Chile Parlor - 1447 North Ballard Way
Salumi Artisan Cured Meats - 309 3rd Ave S (butcher shop)

You'll notice none of these are 5 star dining places, but rather are places I've heard of which supposedly have exceptionally good every day food. In fact, I'm ashamed to admit, I wouldn't know about a few of these places if not for Food Network, and I've lived here for 40 years.

Common Sense

-
I often tell people, with tongue in cheek, “I blog therefore I am.” While I’m jokingly paraphrasing Descartes, there is some truth to the statement. Being someone who thinks about a variety of issues, and not being an ideal public speaker, blogging is my best way of expressing such thoughts without having to sell a publisher on each idea. Lately, people have debated whether freedom of the press applies to blogs.

According to The Criminal Justice Program at Lincoln University, "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that ‘Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press…’ Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. In the United States, both the freedom of speech and freedom of press are commonly called freedom of expression.

The First Amendment's protection of speech and expression is central to the concept of American democracy. The core purpose of the freedom of speech is self-governance: enabling people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions to the government. Beyond the political purpose of free speech, the First Amendment provides American people with a ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Rather than having the government establish and dictate the truth, freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions."

In other words, the amendment is designed to protect the free flow of thoughts, ideas, and information. Surely, this has to apply to the digital flow as well as the printed flow. Critics argue, freedom of the press doesn’t apply to blogs because bloggers aren’t professional journalists.

I’d remind such critics, Physician John Locke’s “Two Treaties of Government” outlined, for the first time, the natural rights of man, which laid the ground work for the American revolution eighty-some years later. Thomas Paine, failed tobacconist turned journalist, wrote “Common Sense,” an independently published pamphlet calling for revolution. New York farmer, J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur, wrote a series of “letters” to the inhabitants of Europe, describing American life and defining American ideals.

What is a blog, if not a letter to a mass audience? If I print the blog and distribute copies, isn’t that a pamphlet? It’s not hard at all to imagine that if computers had existed back then, that such works would have been blogs. Paine, Locke, and Crèvecœur were the bloggers of their day. These were thinkers writing works which challenged standard schools of thought. Unfortunately, Paine and Locke were forced to write their works anonymously to keep from being arrested. It was exactly these kinds of writers which the freedom of the press was designed to protect.

Of course, there were no computers back then, the abacus aside, nor could they have possibly conceived of, what amounts to, a printing press in every home. However, they also had no vision of TV or radio news, both of which are considered legitimate sources of journalism.

The best argument against bloggers being considered as members of the press is that a blogger can write anything regardless of the facts. I agree, there’s a heap of misinformation out there posing as fact. Bloggers, if they are to be taken seriously, must adhere to standards by refraining from committing liable and spreading unsubstantiated rumor as fact. However, one only needs to watch Fox News to see that a willingness to skew the truth, in itself, does not disqualify a source from being a member of the press.

The difference between Glen Beck and most bloggers is the fact that most bloggers don’t have a corporation to answer to. I submit, it was independent sources of news, commentary, and ideas which the founding fathers most intended to protect with the first amendment. Thus, they must be considered as members of the press. It's just common sense.