The Sandra Bullock Trade

By David Brooks, published as an Op-Ed article in the New York Times on March 29, 2010

In this article, David Brooks uses the recent media storm around Sandra Bullock as an angle on the age-old problem of happiness. Apparently, Bullock's professional life has just gone through the roof, with an Academy Award, at roughly the same time that her marriage went down the drain.

So, what's more important in life: A good income or a happy marriage? There's a lot of research on this topic now, and the message I got from Brooks's article is that if you're planning to get happy by making money, rather than by being happily married, you need to aim for at least $100.000 extra per year.

Research has, in other words, confirmed the story of the romantic movies and novels: You gain more happiness by marrying for love, than by marrying for money.

Towards the end of the article, Brooks has a paragraph that I think is important, and which don't want to compress:

"Most people vastly overestimate the extent to which more money would improve our lives. Most schools and colleges spend too much time preparing students for careers and not enough preparing them to make social decisions. Most governments release a ton of data on economic trends but not enough on trust and other social conditions. In short, modern societies have developed vast institutions oriented around the things that are easy to count, not around the things that matter most. They have an affinity for material concerns and a primordial fear of moral and social ones."

Amen
:-J

Another look at the Danish study of the MMR vaccine and autism

The famous Danish study comparing the vaccination and autism rates of Danish children born between 1991 with 1998, has been in the news again lately. The reason is that one of the key witnesses for the defense of the MMR vaccine has gone missing along with approximately 10 million DKK (2 mill USD) of other people's money.

This morning, I took a closer look at both the study and Ulf Brånell's analysis of it. Brånell's conclusion starts out soundly enough:

"All the sources of error identified in the study distort it in the same direction: obscuring the role of the MMR vaccine and exonerating it from any suspicion that it may cause autism. This strongly indicates deliberate fraud".

I can follow him all the way here. The study authors have designed their study so that it counts vaccinated children too young to be diagnosed with autism, as non-autistic. What kind of proof is that? To me, it's proof of either stupidity or dishonesty. Brånell points to four other sources of error as well, all leaning the same way.

Brånell doesn't stop there, however. Here's how his conclusion continues, in a crescendo of improbables:

"The reason is not hard to guess. Most of the authors of the report are medical doctors and it is safe to assume that they are - or have been - ardent pro-vaccinators. By now they should be well aware of the many scientific studies of the injuries caused by vaccines. They will know that there is now an autism epidemic, that only the vaccinated are affected and that autism always occurs after vaccination and not before. In other words the authors of this report are people with blood on their hands, who fear the retribution of parents, whose children they have killed, mutilated and rendered autistic. People who are prepared to kill and injure helpless children for money will hardly hesitate to lie and cheat if it will keep them out of jail and enable them to avoid paying compensation to their victims. This report is a desperate and despicable attempt by child abusers to remove the noose that is tightening around their necks. Their report (and this one) belongs in the hands of the prosecutor."


What's going on here?

I believe that the study authors and Ulf Brånell are unwittingly illustrating the same principle, which is that we find what we're looking for, and we don't find the evidence that points the other way. The sad thing is that this process ends up with both sides "preaching to the choir". It drives a wedge between the parties, right at the point where they ought to have been looking for common ground.

If I were to assign a prize for intellectual integrity here, it would still go to Ulf Brånell. At last, he's honest enough to admit that he's guessing and making assumptions based on thin evidence.

The weaknesses of the study are so glaring, that it's hard to understand why anyone ever took it seriously. The conclusion alone should be enough to give it away, when the authors claim to have found "strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism". Really? All that I can see is that they've failed to find evidence for the hypothesis, through a study that looks tailormade for the purpose of not finding it. (Read Brånell's analysis for a full overview of the five most serious weaknesses in the study design)

It's interesting, and also a bit gratifying to see that one of the study authors has now gone missing. 10 mill DKK sounds like a low price to pay for getting such people out of the way.


:-j

No reason to continue PSA screening

The Great Prostate Mistake

This article in the NYTIMES, byt Richard J. Ablin (who invented the PSA test) is Recommended Reading for anyone who considers taking a PSA test. The test seems to be a great tool for finding out how big your prostate is, but that's about it.

The problem is that a big prostate doesn't necessarily mean you have a malignant growth, and vice versa. You can have a small prostate with a malignant cancer in it, and score negative, or a big prostate that scores positive, but is completely harmless (unless, maybe, you're planning to live to 150).

The high number of false positives means that the only way of reacting to it that will save lives, will have the cost of placing 50 times as many at high risk for incontinence and/or impotence.

My choice: Accept that life is dangerous, that it's going to end, and that the time to enjoy it (while still preparing for the foreseeable future) is NOW.

:-j

Mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup

Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar

Renee Dufault et. al. Environmental Health 2009, 8:2


Abstract

Mercury cell chlor-alkali products are used to produce thousands of other products including food ingredients such as citric acid, sodium benzoate, and high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup is used in food products to enhance shelf life. A pilot study was conducted to determine if high fructose corn syrup contains mercury, a toxic metal historically used as an anti-microbial. High fructose corn syrup samples were collected from three different manufacturers and analyzed for total mercury. The samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations.


My interpretation:

This was something of an eye-opener. If we start with a daily dose (50 grams) of HFCS at the upper end of the contamination scale above (0,570 micrograms of mercury per gram), it's enough to

* renter 14 litres ( nearly 4 gallons) of water undrinkable
* 60 pounds of fish inedible

according to the food safety rules.

If we pour a year's consumption of this kind of HFCS on the ground, and it stays there, it would make ten metric tons of soil so toxic that we wouldn't even be allowed to build on it.

Did you know that the average Norwegian corpse already has 10 times more mercury in its blood than is allowed in the drinking water? Dracula beware!


:-J


PS: If you think that the mercury stops in the blood, think again. It's much more concentrated in other parts of the body.

Do Toxins Cause Autism?

Do Toxins Cause Autism?

Nicholas D. Kristof asked this question in the New York Times the other day.

Here's the answer I sent him:




Dear Mr. Kristof,

Thank you for bringing up the autism/toxicity question. You are closer to the truth than you may have imagined. An example that you didn't mention, is the Somalis: They have one of the highest autism rates in the world - but not at home. It’s only after they come to America.

The problem is huge. Its financial implications are already crushing the families who are raising these children. In the future it will be just as crushing for America. These children are not going to pay any taxes, they’re going to need a lot of care, and they’re not going to die young. In that perspective, one autistic child can equal at least 25 retiring baby-boomers for the long-term financial health of our societies.

This is a problem that hits 5 times more boys than girls. By a lucky coincidence, it takes 5 (female) caregivers to look after my son round the clock. That’s six people out of the productive workforce for 1 case of autism, not counting me ... and I’m TIRED.

We’re starting to look at autism rates of 1%, up from 0,05% when my son was diagnosed.

This is a tsunami story. The wave is already out there. It’s gainging force. New children are being added to it every day. Its first tendrils have already started creeping up the beach, towards health bueraucrats that are sitting with their heads in the sand, thinking that as long as parents are taking care of the children, they somehow don't count in the national equation. What are they going to do when the full force of the wave hits? Divert 5% of the national workforce to take care of the 1% that have been sacrificed on the altar of cheap products and scientific shortcuts?

We’re also looking at a Semmelweiss story. You write in your article that "... fears that vaccinations cause autism — a theory that has now been discredited..." I suggest you study this further.

* Our health authorities have spent enormous amounts of energy on discrediting people who reported what they saw, and asked a question that had to be asked.

* Our authorities have so far only managed to camouflage the problem, with poorly designed statistical studies (unless the point of the studies was not to investigate, but to discredit).

* Meanwhile, other scientists have repeatedly replicated the original findings, and the question is still open: Can we add autism to the list of possible side effects of these vaccines?

* However, the witch-hunt against the scientists who asked the question first, is making everybody else a little jittery about repeating it in public.

All vaccines are not safe for everybody. That's why we have compensation systems. By pretending that they are safer than they are, i.e. that autism is the one side effect that vaccines can't possibly have, even in sensitive individuals with a high toxic load, our health authorities have exposed that their reactions are based on a belief system rather than science. Most people don’t see this yet. When they do, we’re going to need other people in charge who can restore the confidence in the vaccine schedule that it deserves, with proper scientific backing, instead of the present mess.

Another part of this tragedy, now that I’m at it, is that autism can actually be treated if we start early enough, and take into account what we already understand about the underlying pathologies. The chief difference between my son (lifetime need for round-the-clock care) and my stepson (getting good grades in high school, socially integrated and on track to becoming a good taxpayer) is not the diagnosis nor the symptoms nor the treatment they received, but the fact that my stepson received that treatment at 21 months, while my son was 8 years old.

Solving the autism problem will be expensive, because it will involve retiring some products that are cheap and otherwise useful. Not solving it, and not using what we know about treatments, already amounts to a national disaster.

Thank you for your help!
Jorgen Klaveness

The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning

James Lovelock has a problem with populist consensus climate science, and the way it's being used politically. He is deeply concerned that we're wasting our efforts on misguided attempts to "save the planet", when the planet's most certainly going take care of itself, in one way or another. What we need to do, is to save ourselves.

Geological history shows that the earth can exist in several relatively stable states with rapid transitions from one to the other. Lovelock does a good job of describing some of the negative feedback loops that stabilize these states. He also describes, in chilling detail, some of the positive feedback loops that can replace them, and cause the sudden transitions.

Lovelock argues convincingly that the conventional wisdom of today is based on oversimplifications rooted in atmospheric physics. His main theme is that things are already wildly out of control - OUR control, that is - and that major climate change is already inevitable. He uses the image of the drink that stays cold in a hot room as long as it's got an ice cube in it. There are several "ice cubes" in our global climate drink. Ice caps that continue, for a while, to reflect sunlight and absorb energy. Oceans that continue, for a while, to mix cold and warm water. Populations of algae, that help keep the world cool as long as temperatures remain under certain thresholds, but not a minute longer. Forests, that regulate their own temperature through controlled evaporation, but will stop doing so when drought spreads.

Lovelock also argues convincingly that many of the steps now proposed to solve the problem, would have the immediate effect of making it much worse. One example is that if we stop burning coal, we'll reduce the amount of atmospheric dust that's currently keeping a lot of the radiation out.

This book won't have the power to save the world as we know it. Acccording to Lovelock, that's far too late, anyway. However, it looks like a very good beginning for independent thinkers who want to understand the future, and how to prepare themselves and their children for it.

I've made up my mind to reread this book, starting next week, and I'll bringe a couple of pens and highlighters to the next sitting. I'll write more about it when I'm done.

A summary of this morning's reading

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff64/English
On how artificial intelligence is poised to reach "escape velocity" and have the same kind of transformational effect on the world economy as has had the emergence of China and India.

My reflection: The best part of this is that it might make top-level university education more affordable for everybody. The worst is a question the author doesn't even ask: Such a leap in productivity will involve losses as well as gains. Who will lose, and who will gain? What if this reinforces the present trend, where low-skilled workers lose more and more of their opportunities? What's going to happen to the cohesion of our societies? Aren't they already fragmented to the point where large blocks of the inner-city populations are feeling worse than useless?




http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/health/02case.html?em
On how old age isn't what young people think.

My reflection: All the more reason to keep going for those walks together.




http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/health/02baby.html?em
On preventing hearing loss in children - and how important it is to start when they're young.

My reflection: The article isn't that important, but it illustrates something: There's a big change going on here. In my parents' generation, and the one before, safety margins were thin. Knowing how dangerous life was, people they gave their children less freedom. Today we actually have a much better starting-point for steering our children in the right directions, but our culture has changed, and children are given much wider latitude for self-destructive behaviour.




http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html?em
On how human culture affects evolutionary changes in human beings. The article focuses on how closeness to dairy animals cause the emergence of genes for handling lactose.

My reflection: This slots nicely in with Nicholas Kristof's article from a few days ago, so I sent the author this letter:

Thank you for "Human Culture, an Evolutionary Force". Since you're interested in the subject, I'd like to point to one more important example: The general rise in the toxic load around us.

Nicholas Kristof pointed out a few days ago, in an excellent article, how this rise may be the driving force behind the current autism epidemic. (The incidence of autism has gone up by a factor of 20 in the last 25 years). Mr. Kristof is absolutely correct in this. An example he didn't mention is the Somalis: Somali immigrants have one of the highest autism rates in the USA, while autism is virtually unknown in Somalia. It's the change in the environment that does it.

The implication for your subject is: Autistic individuals don't reproduce. They may live just as long as other people, but they are not desirable mates, and they wouldn't be good at caring for their offspring.

So, what's going on right now is that we're chopping off an entire branch of the human genetic tree: We're in the process of eliminating the genetic material that can't handle the modern toxic load.

Yours sincerely
Jørgen Klaveness
Autism Dad / Attorney / Fitness Entrepreneur
Norway

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/opinion/02brooks.html?em
David Brooks draws a line from Norway's recent success in the Winter Olympics, back to a wartime survival story. His conclusion is that "There is also an interesting form of social capital on display. It’s a mixture of softness and hardness. Baalsrud was kept alive thanks to a serial outpouring of love and nurturing. At the same time, he and his rescuers displayed an unbelievable level of hardheaded toughness and resilience. That’s a cultural cocktail bound to produce achievement in many spheres".

My reflection: David Brooks is probably jumping to conclusions, but I was still deeply touched by his story, deeply grateful that I was born here, and worried that today's affluence is going to destroy the spirit that he describes. Every improvement in the human condition will also produce a hidden loss.



:-J
Jørgen