....because we all have those moments. Visitors of the page, please enjoy!
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Cute (Lame) Biology Pics..
....because we all have those moments. Visitors of the page, please enjoy!
Diabetes rant.
I would like to begin this post by saying that this comment of diabetes has definitely succeeded in getting me all riled up. I would like to put my foot down and say that irresponsibility of someone's diet does not always correlate with diabetes. Do not assume that just because a person is diabetic, it shows they have no self control over what they eat. While the statement may be true for some people, who do not pay attention to what they eat, and thus leads them to a life with diabetes, they can't represent the entire population of diabetics. More often than not, diabetes (or rather, the risk of developing it) is passed from generation to generation. It's hard to tell where to cross the line at "controlling a diet" because if some people are more susceptible to diabetes than others, then it doesn't take much for them to start showing the symptoms and thus eventually diagnosed with diabetes.
Once again, the idea of the government stepping in to take over control is always a bad idea. Since we are a democracy, if citizens don't like the idea of the government taking complete control of our diet, then we can always rebel against this rule, and get rid of the government if we're not satisfied with what they're doing. This is our lifestyle, our health, and ultimately, our choice if we want to live better, or live an eventual life of constant insulin shots. This freedom and the right to lead the life we want is what gives significance to our democratic society, so taking away this freedom of choosing what we get to eat would defeat the whole purpose of democracy.
Besides, if people originally weren't willing to control their diet, what makes you think that making the government step in would make any changes? If anything, it will cause an outrage amongst the people, and they will look for ways to get the freedom they had constantly had throughout their life.
The best solution would be to continue to educate the people on the dangers of diabetes. Education costs money, but since the rate of diabetes is increasing drastically each year, should it not be a worthy cause? One can only hope that people will decide to make the right choice, and if they don't, then in the end, it's their life. It's up to them to decide how they want to spend it, whether it be dying sooner or dying later, as long as they are aware of what they are doing to their own lives, which is what the aim is through education.
Once again, the idea of the government stepping in to take over control is always a bad idea. Since we are a democracy, if citizens don't like the idea of the government taking complete control of our diet, then we can always rebel against this rule, and get rid of the government if we're not satisfied with what they're doing. This is our lifestyle, our health, and ultimately, our choice if we want to live better, or live an eventual life of constant insulin shots. This freedom and the right to lead the life we want is what gives significance to our democratic society, so taking away this freedom of choosing what we get to eat would defeat the whole purpose of democracy.
Besides, if people originally weren't willing to control their diet, what makes you think that making the government step in would make any changes? If anything, it will cause an outrage amongst the people, and they will look for ways to get the freedom they had constantly had throughout their life.
The best solution would be to continue to educate the people on the dangers of diabetes. Education costs money, but since the rate of diabetes is increasing drastically each year, should it not be a worthy cause? One can only hope that people will decide to make the right choice, and if they don't, then in the end, it's their life. It's up to them to decide how they want to spend it, whether it be dying sooner or dying later, as long as they are aware of what they are doing to their own lives, which is what the aim is through education.
Are Vaccines Worth it?
While it may be true that vaccines can have horrible side effects, that can ultimately lead to severe brain disorders such as autism, ADD, and Parkinson's,the other side of the argument is if a person doesn't get vaccinated, they can die from deadly illness like HPV.
In a situation like this, where both options seem equally devastating, you have to ask yourself; which one of these two bad options seems more bearable? And the truth is, it depends.
If you are living in a town that is sexually active, then the better option for you is to get that vaccine shot. However, if you are in a town where everyone is abstinent, what's the point of getting vaccinated other than to playing Russian Roulette with the chance of getting brain disorders? I guess all I'm trying to say here is to be rational about this. Vaccines are an important, and effective way to prevent illnesses from spreading, and a method for citizens to protect themselves. The chance of getting a brain disorder and other harmful effects is minute, and unfortunately, that's one of the risks you have to take to protect yourself from the disease. We can't always live our lives in a nutshell, as good and pleasant as it sounds at times. If you're afraid of taking risks, then don't even bother stepping outside of your house anymore.
We as citizens should have been educated about the side effects of the vaccines, but told the truth of it, that there is only a rare chance of experiencing the side effects, and how important it is for us to be vaccinated at the moment for the disease we could potentially get if we don't vaccinate.
Knowledge is power, afterall.
Parasites.
The entire idea of parasites just gives me goosebumps. I know that a lot of people are scared of big tough animals like sharks, and rhinos, but personally, I would say parasites. Why? Well, because animals such as sharks and rhinos can be visibly seen from miles away, and thus easily avoidable. Parasites, however, aren't usually noticed with the naked eye, and can sneak up on you when you least expect it, and if you think that just because of their size correlates with the amount of harm they can inflict on a person, you are dead wrong. Parasites lives off of their hosts, exploiting them for food, water, heat, and pretty much everything else that they need to survive. These nasty little organisms can kill you from the inside, slowly. and painfully.
Okay, so now that we have established the hazardous level of parasites, we can move onto solutions on how to prevent for parasitic infections!
Ways of getting infected with parasites:
To be perfectly honest, there are lots of ways you can be infected by parasites, because there are so many different types of parasites, but I'll just list a few of the more common ways:
- Eating food or drinking water that has been contaminated with feces (especially that of contaminated humans or animals)
- Raw meat
- Through insects such as mosquitoes
- Sexually transmitted infections
- Stomach or intestinal infections
- Fatigue and problems with sleep
- Skin Disorders or Allergies
- Mood and anxiety problems
- Weight and appetite problems
- Muscle and joint pain
- Sexual and reproductive problems
Now, onto methods of prevention:
- Washing your hands (generic, but useful!)
- Disinfecting your drinking water (especially when you travel to places where there is no sources of clean water)
- Thoroughly cooking your food, and be aware of where you are getting your food from!
- Getting yourself, your family, and your household pets checked regularly
http://listverse.com/2010/01/13/top-10-most-horrific-parasite-infections/
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Hormone Therapy.
Often times, science is about taking risks. Without taking steps into the unknown, there would be no advancement in science. With that being said, when do we know to take the risks ? Logically, it should be when the pros of the situation outweigh the cons, so that in taking the risk, there is a relatively beneficial result. Given that train of thought, hormone replacement therapy would sit right on the dividing fence between the two sides.
At the moment, hormone replacement therapy is probably most commonly used in women who have experienced menopause, since the decline of estrogen and progesterone in their bodies caused heart diseases and dementia. Since the loss of the sex hormones were responsible for these problems, it was decided that perhaps providing these women with a healthy dose of the sex hormones would resolve the issue. At that time, the pros of replacing the loss of sex hormones seemed to overpower the cons, especially since it was going to help the two most vital organs in our bodies; the heart, and the brain. However, that certainly didn't seem to be the case, as the hormone replacement therapy actually posed more problems than it was set out to cure. Side effects that the women experienced included strokes, blood clots, and breast cancers.
So then, should women use hormone replacement therapy as a solution? It really depends. Even though I put the case as black and white in the beginning, there are tons of grey areas as well. Hormone replacement therapy works great wonders for some women, and the treatment will definitely be worth it for them. However, with other women who have menopause at later ages, and are not in the best health, they should probably avoid hormone replacement therapy and try other options. All in all, hormone replacement therapy is a gamble, as women will not know whether they will receive the side effects until they've went through with the process.
Just whether it's a risk that you should take or not, is really up to the patient themselves. If the pros seem more appealing than the cons, then they should take it, but if they really believe hormone replacement therapy will not be beneficial for them, then they should move on to other treatments. After all, science is constantly advancing, and there will most likely be a better method to treating the diseases that follow menopause.
Personally, I'm also on the fence about the future of hormone replacement therapy, as it can go either way. The risks and side effects of the treatment may increase as time goes on, to the point where there are too few patients actually willing to consider going through with the procedure, thus encouraging scientists and researchers to find better ways to treat the symptoms of menopause. On the other hand, if the kinks and problems of hormone replacement therapy is worked out, then it could be a huge success, and used as treatments for many other diseases linked with hormones, for example, hypothyroidism, or hypoinsulinism.
At the moment, hormone replacement therapy is probably most commonly used in women who have experienced menopause, since the decline of estrogen and progesterone in their bodies caused heart diseases and dementia. Since the loss of the sex hormones were responsible for these problems, it was decided that perhaps providing these women with a healthy dose of the sex hormones would resolve the issue. At that time, the pros of replacing the loss of sex hormones seemed to overpower the cons, especially since it was going to help the two most vital organs in our bodies; the heart, and the brain. However, that certainly didn't seem to be the case, as the hormone replacement therapy actually posed more problems than it was set out to cure. Side effects that the women experienced included strokes, blood clots, and breast cancers.
So then, should women use hormone replacement therapy as a solution? It really depends. Even though I put the case as black and white in the beginning, there are tons of grey areas as well. Hormone replacement therapy works great wonders for some women, and the treatment will definitely be worth it for them. However, with other women who have menopause at later ages, and are not in the best health, they should probably avoid hormone replacement therapy and try other options. All in all, hormone replacement therapy is a gamble, as women will not know whether they will receive the side effects until they've went through with the process.
Just whether it's a risk that you should take or not, is really up to the patient themselves. If the pros seem more appealing than the cons, then they should take it, but if they really believe hormone replacement therapy will not be beneficial for them, then they should move on to other treatments. After all, science is constantly advancing, and there will most likely be a better method to treating the diseases that follow menopause.
Personally, I'm also on the fence about the future of hormone replacement therapy, as it can go either way. The risks and side effects of the treatment may increase as time goes on, to the point where there are too few patients actually willing to consider going through with the procedure, thus encouraging scientists and researchers to find better ways to treat the symptoms of menopause. On the other hand, if the kinks and problems of hormone replacement therapy is worked out, then it could be a huge success, and used as treatments for many other diseases linked with hormones, for example, hypothyroidism, or hypoinsulinism.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Psychopaths.
There has always been something creepy about the idea of psychopaths. Perhaps it is in the way that they are portrayed in movies, that makes us so afraid, where they are able to senselessly kill others without a single trace of emotion. Then again, it is always human nature to fear the unknown, and the mind of a psychopath continues to remain somewhat of a mystery to us.
What we realize so that is that psychopaths have absolutely no consciences at all. They are people who have no feelings of guilt, or remorse, or even a slight amount of concern. That means that if they kill someone right now, they can walk away without it affecting them in any way whatsoever. This definitely brings a huge amount of fear and instability into our hearts. However, maybe we can take this as an opportunity to learn instead.
This may be completely crazy of me to suggest this, but perhaps being a psychopath may not be such a bad thing after all. There are quite a bit of advantages of having no consciences as well. For example, have you ever done something horrible in the past that have stuck with you even until now? Something in your mind that you can never erase? Something that keeps you up in the latest of hours and haunts you even in your dreams? If you were a psychopath, you would no longer be confined trapped in your own personal hell. You would be free from all your nightmares, and even though you would no longer feel the benefits that comes with having a conscience, you wouldn't have to deal with the horrible aspect of it either. This is certainly an efficient way of wiping your slate clean.
What about in the present, when you truly desired something so badly that it absolutely kills you not to have it? We are constantly held back by our moral compasses that we put aside what we really want in life, for what is morally right. Is this a fair trade off? As a psychopath, you would never even have to begin to consider it. You are never held back from your desires by any guilt or shame, other than potentially being physically restrained in a mental institute, of course. Even then, you are still set free from your moral restraints.
Maybe if we scaled the personality of a psychopath down just a bit, where you are able to become ruthless when the occasion calls for it, not letting your actions come back to haunt you, and carrying out your desires completely and whole heartedly, then these are aspects that can lead to success.
What we realize so that is that psychopaths have absolutely no consciences at all. They are people who have no feelings of guilt, or remorse, or even a slight amount of concern. That means that if they kill someone right now, they can walk away without it affecting them in any way whatsoever. This definitely brings a huge amount of fear and instability into our hearts. However, maybe we can take this as an opportunity to learn instead.
This may be completely crazy of me to suggest this, but perhaps being a psychopath may not be such a bad thing after all. There are quite a bit of advantages of having no consciences as well. For example, have you ever done something horrible in the past that have stuck with you even until now? Something in your mind that you can never erase? Something that keeps you up in the latest of hours and haunts you even in your dreams? If you were a psychopath, you would no longer be confined trapped in your own personal hell. You would be free from all your nightmares, and even though you would no longer feel the benefits that comes with having a conscience, you wouldn't have to deal with the horrible aspect of it either. This is certainly an efficient way of wiping your slate clean.
What about in the present, when you truly desired something so badly that it absolutely kills you not to have it? We are constantly held back by our moral compasses that we put aside what we really want in life, for what is morally right. Is this a fair trade off? As a psychopath, you would never even have to begin to consider it. You are never held back from your desires by any guilt or shame, other than potentially being physically restrained in a mental institute, of course. Even then, you are still set free from your moral restraints.
Maybe if we scaled the personality of a psychopath down just a bit, where you are able to become ruthless when the occasion calls for it, not letting your actions come back to haunt you, and carrying out your desires completely and whole heartedly, then these are aspects that can lead to success.
To treat, or not to treat.
The topic of treatment for diseases often becomes very tricky to discuss, as it really depends on the situation that the patient is in, and their own bias on the effectiveness of treatments. Since I have personally never been in a position like that myself, it becomes very difficult to make a decision as to what would be the right thing to do for the patients with Parkinson's.
Parkinson's, as we've all seen, is not an easy disease to deal with. Parkinson's takes over the control of the body's motor skills, and results in tremors, and rigidness in the body. Parkinson's is deadly because, unlike a cancer which will cause a great amount of pain, Parkinson's actually hinders our body's functions on a daily basis. Patients with Parkinson's are unable to properly do the things that they can normally do, such as type, or brush their teeth, or even just drinking a glass of water. In this sense, Parkinson's may even be seen as a disease worse than cancer. Fortunately, there is a treatment for Parksinson's, and if it is successful, then the patients are able to get their lives back almost to the way it was before. However, the treatment also comes with side effects, and risks that may not be worth the success.
Speaking from a person who has had a bit of experience behind the counter of a pharmacy, I can definitely say that drugs are a dangerous thing to deal with. Even though there are drugs that work miracles for patients, and they are able to really help the patients with getting their lives back on track, more times than not, drugs create more problems that they solve. Unfortunately, drugs are only meant as a treatment to the symptoms of certain diseases and illnesses, and doesn't usually cure the problem itself. This then, easily results to patients increasing dosages and the amount of drugs they are getting as their symptoms are increasing and the medication is becoming less effective, as well as an addiction to their medication, or horrible side effects that the medication brings. It turns into a vicious cycle that patients can't escape, as they continue to rely on drugs for the rest of their diseased life. Therefore, being as torn as I am about using treatment for Parkinson's, all I can really do in the end is to support the patient's decision as to what they choose to due regarding their disease.
If the patient is aware of the side effects that come with their treatment, but are willing to go bear through it in order to get their life back on track because they might have others that rely on them, then I am completely behind them on their decision.
On the other hand, if the patient doesn't want to deal with the side effects that come along with the medication, then there are always other options they can choose to at least make their symptoms a little easier to deal with.
Parkinson's, as we've all seen, is not an easy disease to deal with. Parkinson's takes over the control of the body's motor skills, and results in tremors, and rigidness in the body. Parkinson's is deadly because, unlike a cancer which will cause a great amount of pain, Parkinson's actually hinders our body's functions on a daily basis. Patients with Parkinson's are unable to properly do the things that they can normally do, such as type, or brush their teeth, or even just drinking a glass of water. In this sense, Parkinson's may even be seen as a disease worse than cancer. Fortunately, there is a treatment for Parksinson's, and if it is successful, then the patients are able to get their lives back almost to the way it was before. However, the treatment also comes with side effects, and risks that may not be worth the success.
Speaking from a person who has had a bit of experience behind the counter of a pharmacy, I can definitely say that drugs are a dangerous thing to deal with. Even though there are drugs that work miracles for patients, and they are able to really help the patients with getting their lives back on track, more times than not, drugs create more problems that they solve. Unfortunately, drugs are only meant as a treatment to the symptoms of certain diseases and illnesses, and doesn't usually cure the problem itself. This then, easily results to patients increasing dosages and the amount of drugs they are getting as their symptoms are increasing and the medication is becoming less effective, as well as an addiction to their medication, or horrible side effects that the medication brings. It turns into a vicious cycle that patients can't escape, as they continue to rely on drugs for the rest of their diseased life. Therefore, being as torn as I am about using treatment for Parkinson's, all I can really do in the end is to support the patient's decision as to what they choose to due regarding their disease.
If the patient is aware of the side effects that come with their treatment, but are willing to go bear through it in order to get their life back on track because they might have others that rely on them, then I am completely behind them on their decision.
On the other hand, if the patient doesn't want to deal with the side effects that come along with the medication, then there are always other options they can choose to at least make their symptoms a little easier to deal with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)