“Can a single drop of an endocrine-disrupting chemical cause us to be fat?”
Very interesting article. I believe adding research and soon after passing a Chemicals Safety Act ought to be a compulsory expectation for our policymakers to pass. I’ve always wondered about siblings who have the same genetic makeup and active lifestyle/diet and, still, one of the siblings ends up being heavier than the other. Endocrine-disruptors seem to be the reason behind what has been perplexing me for a while. Now, I hope the public becomes more informed and advocates on behalf of this issue.
For the seemingly healthy, annual physicals provide no benefit.
This is an interesting article clearly articulating two sides of one issue. I think there is probably a very fine line on whether yearly check-ups are necessary. For the healthy, perhaps the following rule of thumb works best. Go to doctor at the first sign of any symptom that causes concern. This will happen infreqeuntly for the truly healthy. For those with less than perfect health, perhaps they should see a doctor once a year at the minimum and as needed. Though healthy people know they are in good health, it is still probably a good idea to visit a doctor every few years to determine if any chronic conditions undetectable to the untrained lay person are developing.
@ The Europeans building an artificial brain, imagine what the potential from this research can really mean. Could we, in the near future, build neural-nanotechnology that augments our cognitive performance.
For the seemingly healthy, annual physicals provide no benefit.
The caveat is asymptomatic people don’t benefit from an annual physical. If you don’t have symptoms of a problem, don’t go to the doctor to tell you what you already know.
This is controversial because the PPACA guarantees us all this type of care; and forces us to pay for it albeit indirectly (not directly).
If we were all paying using our Health Savings Accounts, we could decide whether an annual physican was worth the cost.
For the seemingly healthy, annual physicals provide no benefit.
I could reasonably see a policy along the lines of “check in 1-5 years as needed” enacted to help curb cost. This line from the article is on point though:
“If you think the wait to see your doctor is too long now, you may want to stock up on some epic novels to keep you occupied in the waiting room in the future.”
“[T]his is a president who still has not had Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton to dinner…“
I don’t necessarily agree with most of President Obama’s decisions… But maybe this “no inviting Bill and Hillary over for dinner” decision is one thing we both agree on!
“Can a single drop of an endocrine-disrupting chemical cause us to be fat?”
Very interesting article. I believe adding research and soon after passing a Chemicals Safety Act ought to be a compulsory expectation for our policymakers to pass. I’ve always wondered about siblings who have the same genetic makeup and active lifestyle/diet and, still, one of the siblings ends up being heavier than the other. Endocrine-disruptors seem to be the reason behind what has been perplexing me for a while. Now, I hope the public becomes more informed and advocates on behalf of this issue.
“European scientists building an artificial brain.”
Wonder what discoveries will be made after the 10-year project is over. I am sure this will have lots of pysco-health benefits.
“[T]his is a president who still has not had Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton to dinner…“
– Interesting article. It’s very good at offering a different view of the president.
For the seemingly healthy, annual physicals provide no benefit.
This is an interesting article clearly articulating two sides of one issue. I think there is probably a very fine line on whether yearly check-ups are necessary. For the healthy, perhaps the following rule of thumb works best. Go to doctor at the first sign of any symptom that causes concern. This will happen infreqeuntly for the truly healthy. For those with less than perfect health, perhaps they should see a doctor once a year at the minimum and as needed. Though healthy people know they are in good health, it is still probably a good idea to visit a doctor every few years to determine if any chronic conditions undetectable to the untrained lay person are developing.
@ The Europeans building an artificial brain, imagine what the potential from this research can really mean. Could we, in the near future, build neural-nanotechnology that augments our cognitive performance.
For the seemingly healthy, annual physicals provide no benefit.
The caveat is asymptomatic people don’t benefit from an annual physical. If you don’t have symptoms of a problem, don’t go to the doctor to tell you what you already know.
This is controversial because the PPACA guarantees us all this type of care; and forces us to pay for it albeit indirectly (not directly).
If we were all paying using our Health Savings Accounts, we could decide whether an annual physican was worth the cost.
For the seemingly healthy, annual physicals provide no benefit.
I could reasonably see a policy along the lines of “check in 1-5 years as needed” enacted to help curb cost. This line from the article is on point though:
“If you think the wait to see your doctor is too long now, you may want to stock up on some epic novels to keep you occupied in the waiting room in the future.”
On building an artificial brain – the brain study will be finished just in time to perhaps harness the power of quantum computing.
For the laymans’ description, see:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm
“[T]his is a president who still has not had Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton to dinner…“
I don’t necessarily agree with most of President Obama’s decisions… But maybe this “no inviting Bill and Hillary over for dinner” decision is one thing we both agree on!
For the seemingly healthy, annual physicals provide no benefit.
What they failed to explain is that no amount of doctor’s visits will cure the psychotic condition known as hypochondria.