Comments (4)

By Les Scammell, October 24, 2007 2:03 am

I find this not only hard to believe but also a very negative approach. One problem with research such as this is that it is too narrow in its approach and to its original question. Surely the question should be, does negative thinking and depression reduce the life expectancy of a cancer sufferer.

Cancer is probably one of the hardest illnesses to live with. It can be a long, slow and painful condition which if not dealt with early, leads to death. Quality of life is an important issue for both the sufferer and their friends and families. Being able to approach things in a positive way obviously makes life a little easier on everyone. Being negative often leads to depression which in itself has many effects.

My personal thoughts are that scientist really need to think about how the outcomes of their research findings are going to effect people suffering from various illnesses. In this case, if they had researched the effects of negative thinking on life expectancy of cancer sufferers, the results would have had no negative impact on those sufferers. If negative thoughts reduces life expectancy, the action is to try and improve their feelings; if negative thoughts had no effect, then no action would be required.

As it stands now, sufferers and their families look at these types of reports and come away with the feeling that it is all hopeless, it doesn’t matter if I help them feel good, it has no long term effect; or, the sufferer feels more depressed etc etc etc.

Time to think researchers – there is an obligation to think about how you going to report your findings, what effect your findings are going to have on the broader community, and whether or not you could better phrase the question.

Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 20, 2007 1:01 pm

As Australia moves closer to election day it is becoming more apparent that Labor leader Kevin Rudd will defeat current Prime Minster John Howard, probably by a big margin. The question is why? Why will they will dump one of their most popular Prime Minsters for many years.

The answer, while sounding simplistic, involves in depth psychology. The very fact that John Howard is so popular is also going to be his downfall. Kevin Rudd has one very strong thing going for him – he looks, sounds and acts like John Howard. He looks like a father or grandfather (not that he is that old) – he is confident and compelling in front of the media without looking arrogant – finally, he is down to earth, your regular everyday ‘aussie’.

John Howard on the other hand has become arrogant. Gone are the days when he looked like reliable father/grandfather. He now looks desperate that desperation is showing as arrogance. Some of the legislation that has hurt workers over the last 12 month is also starting to sting – particularly when he insists that no-one has been hurt.

Finally everyone knows that he is not in it for the long haul – he has stated that he will quit after about 12 months and the job over to his deputy, Peter Costello, who is not particularly well likes. For John Howard and the Australian Liberals, it looks like it is going to be their turn on the opposition benches – probably for quite a while.

Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 17, 2007 11:55 am

Drugs in Sport? A controversial issue at any time and with the Olympics just around the corner it is sure to rear its ugly head again, and again, and again. myLot User Profile

I wonder if it is really worth the fuss. Athletes, more to the point, drug manufacturers are constantly finding ways to and drug types that can enhance the performance of athletes while beating the drug tests. It would not surprise me to learn that these same drug companies are then developing the testing procedures to discover these drugs – talk about perpetual funding. I would love to own a business like that – earn an income by creating a problem then double that by delivering a solution – wow – cash flow.

The reality is that where money is involved, prestige and public status, people will try to beat the system. The only way to resolve the issue is to stop fighting. Athletes are always going to try and find a better way to perform. The human body is capable of doing so much naturally – drugs are one of the only options available that enable an athlete to push their bodies beyond what it has been designed to do. If we remove the bans on performance enhancing drugs then perhaps we can at least ensure that the drugs themselves do minimal harm.

Even the professional in sport are now starting to come out either in favor of legalizing, or they are at least admitting that winning this battle (substance bans) is a lost cause. Don Talbot, one of Australia’s former leading swim coaches now believes that legalising may be the only solution. You can see his opinions here - http://www.abc.net.au/canberra/stories/s2060567.htm?backyard.

John Fahey, the new president of the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) believes that winning the battle is not possible – see his article here – http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/17/2062092.htm.

The problem with banning performance enhancing drugs is that it is not only the drug itself that is banned – in fact there are really only a handful of drugs that are banned. It is the drugs used to hide the performance enhancing drugs that are also banned that lead to problems. Drugs commonly used for pain relief, contraception, weight control (eg diruetics), epilepsy and even coffee (caffeine in higher than normal doses) are also banned. In fact, some chemicals found naturally in the human body are also banned. One of the common problems some male athletes experience is that of raised testosterone levels – these levels may raised naturally or as the result of illness, over training, injury, sexual activity and many other factors. However these raised levels often lead to problems when it comes to ‘dope testing’.

Athletes have in the past been banned from sport due to high levels of caffeine – because they drank that third or fourth cup of coffee in the morning, pain relief medication – because they had suffered severe pain such as a migraine in the days leading up to competition or testing, or because they had used diuretics to help control weight. It should be noted that none of these drugs are on the banned list because they enhance an athletes abilities. No, they are on the list because they could be used to mask the performance enhancing drug.

I say enough is enough. It is the athletes body. Let them do what they want with it. Do people really care whether the winner is on drugs or not? The answer is yes – but only because of the scandal or because they feel the person that finished second or third should have won. Athletes that have been caught out in the past have been happy enough to give back their medals – you never see them offering to give back the money have made – so really – its not so much the sport these days – its that holiest of holly grails – the DOLLAR.

Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 14, 2007 1:35 am

A recent article on allergies and asthma rates should be causing concern to all, particularly if you are raising children.Some reports suggest that up 70% of the current generation could suffer allergies of some type. It is important to clarify that I am talking about allergies, and not just food intolerance’s. An allergy is where the body actually reacts against a substance causing secondary problems. Some of these problems include, asthma, anaphylactic shock and skin disorders such as hives.

There are many theories in the medical (and not so medical) world regarding the cause of this increase in allergic reactions. Some of these include breast feeding (see article here), the ‘hygiene hypothesis’, (see my article here), pollution and gene technology. I have even seen stories that blame space flight and imported pathogens from either the space craft or space junk entering our atmosphere.

The second area that I think is more likely to cause problems is the hygiene hypotheses which basically says that the more we sterilize our environment, the more ‘good’ bacteria we are killing. If you consider what we are doing in today’s world; antibiotics (kill good and bad bacteria), sterilize everything in the house (kill good and bad bacteria), prevent our children from having contact with anyone who is sick (not building natural resistance) and immunizing our kids (artificial immunity); you can see that our little ones are not getting the opportunity to develop strong natural immune systems. I cover this topic in full here – please feel free to read and comment.

The third area that does need addressing of course is pollution. Probably the one area that can be statically measured is the increase in air/water/ground pollutants and the increase in allergies, particularly asthma. In developing countries that do not have these pollutants, they have a much lower incidence of allergy. (This statistic is also true for the hygiene hypotheses). It is also interesting to note that in developing countries where pollutants are increasing, so too are the incidence of allergic reactions – unfortunately often leading to death as they don’t have the medical facilities to match.

In conclusion, we really do need to be concerned with this problem. I have not flooded the article with boring statistics, I don’t believe I need to. We all probably live with individuals who suffer allergies. Perhaps you suffer as well? And the numbers are growing. Will mankind kill itself off because it becomes allergic to its own environment? I am sure we wont be the first species to become allergic to our own environment – and perish!