Archive for category Health

Interview: Jared Rhoads of the Lucidicus Project

The Lucidicus Project is an effort to promote individual rights and capitalism to the next generation of medical professionals. As statists work to violate a doctor’s right to his life, and lay on him a moral duty to be his brother’s healer, the Lucidicus Project aims to show healthcare providers that their lives are their own, that nobody has a right to their services, and that it is right for them to achieve true, guilt-free happiness in their career.

I am pleased to present the following interview with Jared Rhoads of the Lucidicus Project, who offers insight on the current debate, the Project’s plans and goals, and suggestions for intellectual activism. Donations are being accepted to support the Project’s “Self-Defense Kit” awarded to medical students.



What is the Lucidicus Project?


The Lucidicus Project is a
n initiative that I started in 2005 to encourage medical students to learn more about the moral and economic foundations of a free society.  The purpose of the project is to help young healthcare professionals become better defenders of individual rights, so that someday we can all benefit from the innovation and affordability that comes from a market-based healthcare industry.


We do a variety of things, including publish editorials on Lucidicus.org, write letters to newspapers, and write to Congress (which we can do, since the project is not a registered nonprofit). We have attended several Tea Party rallies, and spoke at one this past October. Last week, we attended a Scott Brown rally here in Massachusetts and also did some election-day coverage through Twitter.


The centerpiece of the project, though, is definitely the self-defense kits that we give away to medical students across the United States and around the world. The kits contain books to help clarify the moral and economic case for individual rights and capitalism. Helping med students learn to defend themselves philosophically against socialized medicine (and advocate for capitalism) is the core of the project.


Tell us more about the Medical Intellectual’s Self-Defense Kit (MISDK).  What’s in it, and what do you hope recipients will get from it?


The MISDK is a small set of books and materials that introduces medical students to the moral and economic case for capitalism. The kit includes a lecture on CD by Dr. Leonard Peikoff; assorted essays by Dr. Peikoff, Ayn Rand, and George Reisman; the book Noble Vision by Gen LaGreca; and the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. We ship the kit for free to any med student who writes to us and expresses a genuine and sincere interest in learning more about these ideas.


The kit is intended to expose students to concepts and ideas that they may not have encountered before.  Most med students do not study philosophy or economics as undergraduates, and are thus at a disadvantage when colleagues, friends, or politicians repeat the erroneous claims made by their professors. Those claims, of course, usually include the notion that capitalism is “unjust” or that individuals have a “right” to healthcare.


The materials in the kit help to make it clear what a right really is, and what capitalism actually consists ofnot the caricature definitions we hear in pop culture (or the universities). The benefit is that the more doctors that understand the objective meaning of these concepts, the better off we will all be in defending medicine.


What motivated you to promote capitalism in medicine, of all fields?


I chose to focus my efforts on medicine for several reasons: First, healthcare is an extremely important issue.  Whatever happens with health reform will profoundly affect the lives of all of us and our loved ones, and I firmly believe that to continue along the path of increased government intervention in healthcare will be nothing less than disastrous.


Another motivating factor for me, personally, is that the complexity of healthcare makes it an intellectually challenging and enjoyable issue to work on.  There are dozens of variables, stakeholders, and other moving parts to consider in any given policy proposal.  In that sense, healthcare policy is similar to economics (another subject I enjoy). Of course, this issue also has tight connections to philosophy, since a proper defense of capitalism must be grounded in individual rights and rational egoism.


Finally, another personal factor is that I work in the healthcare industry professionally. To be clear, I am a healthcare industry analyst and consultant—not a clinician—but I still encounter many of these issues and deal with these concerns on a regular basis.


What kind of success have you had so far?


I am proud to say that we recently surpassed the milestone of having given away our 50th kit, and we are now up to number 52 and counting. The response from those who hear about the project has been almost entirely positive, and thanks to the web, our message has reached all parts of the globe. Most of our recipients are located here in the United States, but we have sent kits to places as far as Poland, Pakistan, and Brazil.


Web traffic on Lucidicus.org is also up dramatically this year, which means that many more people are reading our commentary as well.


Have you had any memorable exchanges or experiences over the past few years?


This may sound schmaltzy, but just about every exchange I have with med students is special and memorable. Many of the students who write to us are so thrilled to have discovered The Lucidicus Project that when they request a kit, they go on and on for paragraphs—usually along a storyline that roughly conveys the following: 1) everyone around them believes in some flavor of state intervention in healthcare, for example single-payer, 2) they know that there is something wrong with that approach, but 3) they don’t know exactly what it is or how to articulate it.  The materials in the kit help recipients discover these answers for themselves, at their own pace and on their own time. The students really are very thankful.


Do you have any big plans in the future that you would like to mention?


One of the ideas that I revisit at least once a year is the possibility of converting The Lucidicus Project to registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.  Presently it is simply a private organizationan extension of me.  The nice thing about that is that there are no external administrative hassles or legal fees.  The downside is that donations are not tax-deductible.  If I were to make Lucidicus a bona-fide nonprofit, then some doors would potentially open up in terms of getting funding to grow the number of kits that we can give away to students. It’s just hard to know exactly at what point it is worth doing so, if at all.


Other projects and plans are always in the works, too. For example, I have compiled a detailed mailing list of all the medical schools in the U.S. and Canada, and would like to reach out to those schools in some way this year.  Another example: for the first time since 2005, I am seriously considering adding a new item to the kit: Henry Hazlitt’s book Economics in One Lesson.  The national debate on health reform has made it clear that many people simply do not know how to trace the effect of a policy through to its full effects. This is a decision that will most likely be driven by funding.


Do you have any suggestions for other people who are thinking about engaging in intellectual activism?


Yes.  If the idea of getting involved in some sort of intellectual activism appeals to you, then try it out on a small scale and take it from there.  No matter how much or how little time, money, or effort you can expend, there is always something that you can do.  Pick an issue that is important to you and become fluent in it. Of course, depending on your idea, realize that you may need to be patient.  People are not going to link to your blog right away, or start sending you money, or publish your article without knowing who you are. Some forms of activism (like letters to editors) can yield relatively quick results; others take time. The effort is usually worth it!



For more information, please visit the Lucidicus Project website. I also recommend Leonard Peikoff’s essay, “Medicine: Death of a Profession“.

, ,

3 Comments

The Definitive Guide to Fish Oils

Mark’s Daily Apple has posted a detailed guide to the health benefits of fish oil supplementation. The final paragraph summarizes the results:

Unless you’re eating fatty fish every day, following the Primal Blueprint means you’re a prime candidate for fish oil supplementation. See, the typical MDA reader has a low sugar intake, avoids refined carbs, but is often faced with the prospect of eating less than ideal meat and animal fat. We all wish we could dine on wild venison and fresh caught salmon every day, but most of us just can’t. In cases like these (which is the majority of us trying to eat and live right by Grok’s ways), taking 1-3 grams of fish oil each day is a good way to restore the fatty acid balance in our cells, promote good heart health, provide essential fatty acids for our brains, improve protein synthesis after workouts, and counteract some of the downfalls of modern life.

Personally, I have been taking 3-4 grams of fish oil supplements daily for the last several months. Here is the brand I have used.

, ,

1 Comment

Federal Fines for Forbidden Fruits

By way of Monica at FA/RM comes this New York Times Op-Ed pointing out that farmers who switch their crops from grains to fruits or vegetables can be fined hundreds of dollars per acre by the federal government. From FA/RM:

Did you know that the federal government applies fines to farmers that shift from growing commodity crops like soy, cotton, wheat, rice, and corn? Yes, you read right. Farmers across most of the United States literally can’t decide what to plant on their own land without the threat of federal fines. Not only will the farmer forego subsidies for failing to plant a “commodity crop” on acreage that has traditionally been used for that purpose, he’ll be fined hundreds of dollars per acre for growing fruits or vegetables instead.

, , ,

No Comments

Pastured vs Free-Range Eggs

I had been buying what I thought were the best eggs - “free range” from a health food store, and labeled as coming from a local farm. Then I found out via Whole Health Source that free range chickens may simply be kept in a room with an open door leading to a dirt ground outside. In other words, no nutrients coming from grass, insects, etc. Just grain.

So yesterday after work I drove half an hour out of my way to a local farm that sells poultry and pastured eggs. As I pulled up to the place, I found chickens running free all over grass-covered land, so I knew this was the real deal. I had planned to buy only three dozen, but ended up getting six dozen (enough to last about a month). They’re also going to be selling duck eggs soon, which are supposed to be even better.

As soon as I got back, I hard boiled half a dozen because I wanted to try them by themselves as soon as possible…. the taste is amazing! The yolk is clearly a much darker orange, and thicker/pastier than a standard yolk, with all sorts of flavors you don’t normally get. Not only that, but pastured eggs are more nutritious, despite the official claims of the American Egg Board and the Egg Nutrition Council. They have more Vitamin A, D, E, and omega-3 fatty acids. And as an added personal bonus, these eggs are cheaper than the ones I had been buying.

Check out these comparison shots. The difference is much clearer once the eggs are cooked.

Not much difference from the outside (pastured on left, free range on right)

Not much difference from the outside (pastured on left, free range on right)

At start of frying. Pastured on left, free range on right.

At start of frying. Pastured on left, free range on right.

After thoroughly cooked. Pastured in foreground, free range in background.

After thoroughly cooked. Pastured in foreground, free range in background.

, , , , , , , ,

7 Comments

New Model Links Vitamin D Deficiency to Cancer Development

Whereas the current understanding of cancer development starts with genetic mutation, a new model aims at something more fundamental - intercellular communication. Researchers at the Moores Cancer Center at UCSD have pegged low vitamin D and calcium levels as a primary cause for the breakdown of “the communication between cells that is essential to healthy cell turnover, allowing more aggressive cancer cells to take over.” More from the article:

“Competition and natural selection among disjoined cells within a tissue compartment, such as might occur in the breast’s terminal ductal lobular unit, for example, are the engine of cancer,” Garland said. “The DINOMIT model provides new avenues for preventing and improving the success of cancer treatment.”

Garland went on to explain that each letter in DINOMIT stands for a different phase of cancer development. “D” stands for disjunction, or loss of intercellular communication; “I,” for initiation, where genetic mutations begin to play a role; “N” for natural selection of the fastest-reproducing cancer cells; “O” for overgrowth of cells; “M” for metastasis, when cancer cells migrate to other tissues, where cancer can kill; “I” refers to involution, and “T” for transition, both dormant states that may occur in cancer and potentially be driven by replacing vitamin D.

Based on what I have read from Noodlefood, Whole Health Source, and other health blogs (see sidebar for links), I would recommend about 6,000 IU of vitamin D supplement daily - and make sure it is in fish oil form; the hard tablets are not readily absorbed by the body. Here are the ones I get: Carlson Solar D Gems (4,000 IU capsule + 2,000 IU capsule daily).

UCTV also has an interview with the lead researcher about this new model and its implications for treatment.

, , ,

2 Comments

The Story of Stuff Debunked

Environmentalist Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff is a mind-numbing guilt-trip being shown to elementary students across the nation. What’s most repulsive about this video is its lack of interest in the content of ideas and the meaning of words. Words like “synthetic”, “man-made”, and “production” are used as perjoratives, and all “chemicals” are “toxic” by default, regardless of dose. It’s frightening that, at the time in their lives when concept-formation is most important, little kids are being taught to disregard concepts and use words to mean anything, free of definition. Embrace the non-concept!

Thankfully, YouTube director HowTheWorldWorks has put out a four-part series destroying this monstrous “documentary”. What was most surprising about his research is the amount of false or mis-information in the video - for example, redefining “recycling” so as to exclude recycling that does not 100% reproduce the same product (e.g. a bottle turns into a bottle turns into a bottle). An important point that Leonard fails to grasp throughout the video, and which is repeatedly brought up by HTWW, is the fact that prices adjust with scarcity and will automatically lead to rationing. Leonard repeatedly assumes that consumption can increase exponentially regardless of product availability.

, , , , , ,

3 Comments

Pepsi Throwback

Taken straight from a high fructose corn syrup ad, see Pepsi’s evasive response regarding their decision to release a product made with real sugar rather than HFCS:

These products were not created because of any health concerns. There is a lot of misinformation circulating about HFCS, but the truth is that it’s made from corn and contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients or color additives. HFCS is essentially the same as table sugar and is metabolized the same.

My only question is, if HFCS and table sugar are “essentially the same”, then why make that difference the highlight of your advertising campaign?

, , ,

No Comments

Recipe: Noodleless Lasagna

noodleless-lasagna
About a month ago, I talked my parents into trying out the healthy diet advocated in Gary Taubes’s Good Calories, Bad Calories. Although they haven’t followed my suggestions exactly, they are still seeing big results. In an attempt to add variety to her diet, my mom has been experimenting with low-carb casseroles and substitutes for her (former) favorite foods. One such example is noodleless lasagna. Since she gave us the recipe, we have made it several times, with great results.

Ingredients:

  • 2 lb hot Italian sausage
  • 6 eggs
  • 1/2 c Ricotta cheese
  • 2-3 c Mozzarella cheese
  • 1 jar pasta sauce
  • grated Parmesan cheese
  • Italian seasoning
  • topping such as pepperoni (optional)

First, cook the sausage in a pot, mixing in some Italian seasoning. Then, mix in a jar of pasta sauce.

Meanwhile, crack 6 eggs into a mixing bowl, and scramble them up. Add 1/2 cup Ricotta cheese, and gently mix them up. Pour this mixture into a 9×13 glass baking dish. Gently top with a generous portion of shredded mozzarella cheese, at least 1 to 1.5 cups. Sprinkle a thin layer of grated Parmesan cheese on top of that.

Then, gently pour the sausage and sauce mixture on top, being careful not to let the layers mix. Once this is done, you may have to pour additional pasta sauce to fill in any gaps. Try to evenly spread the sausage over the entire surface.

Finally, sprinkle another generous layer of mozzarella cheese, followed by a thin layer of grated Parmesan cheese.

Bake for 50 minutes at 350 degrees. You may wish to bake it for longer in order to better solidify the bottom layer.

Tip: If you would like to make it more like a pizza, add a topping such as pepperoni. Once it is done baking, you could make the pepperoni crispy by using the broiler. Just be careful not to burn the cheese. Other toppings could be used in addition to or in place of pepperoni. Also, a pasta sauce could be chosen that is appropriate for pizza, or that has other ingredients that you might find on pizza, such as meatballs (small or large).

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Laying to Rest Fears About High Fructose Corn Syrup

An upcoming supplement to the June issue of the Journal of Nutrition finally lays to rest worries about the effects of high fructose corn syrup on obesity. “The State of the Science on Dietary Sweeteners Containing Fructose” is the summary of a joint workshop held in March 2008 by the International Life Sciences Institute of North America and the USDA. The results are undeniable:

“high fructose syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners”

“[high fructose corn syrup] and sucrose are similar and one is not ‘better or worse’ than the other”

I feel safer already. I think I’ll chug a liter of Coke in celebration, and get my eight tablespoons of heart-healthy sugar!

But they don’t stop there - by comparing dependent variables as if they are independent, they identify an effect as a cause, and conclude that it is overeating, not sugar, that led to the obesity epidemic.

Since the introduction of high fructose corn syrup 35 years ago, calories from added sugars (mostly sucrose and high fructose corn syrup) increased at a slower rate than calories from all sources. With high fructose corn syrup use in decline since 1999, it is far more likely, writes Dr. White, that this increase in total calories was due to Americans eating more of everything.

Clearly what is needed next is more sociological investigation to determine what caused the degradation of American willpower over the last few decades.

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Soft Drinks Cause Weight Gain… Because They’re Liquids?

An upcoming study from the May 1st issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition examined the effects of reduced consumption of different types of beverages. Of all the categories they looked at - sugar-sweetened, diet, juice, sweetened/unsweetened coffee or tea, and alcoholic beverages - only one was found to be significantly associated with weight reduction over time: sugar-sweetened beverages.

They also found that a reduction in liquid calories had a more significant effect on weight loss than a reduction of calories from solid foods. Given that the only liquid significantly associated with weight change was sugar-sweetened beverages, my initial response is that this finding is due to the high consumption of soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) - dietary fructose being linked to obesity through increased insulin resistance.

But apparently, the researchers did not consider that possibility. Check out their hypotheses:

The researchers offer a couple of possible explanations for their findings. The absence of chewing when consuming liquids may result in decreased pancreatic responses. Beverages also clear the stomach sooner than solid food and may induce weaker satiety signals in the gastrointestinal tract.

Let’s restate their findings again, just to be sure:

  • Liquid calorie reduction was significantly associated with weight loss
  • Liquid calorie reduction was more associated with weight loss than solid calorie reduction
  • Of all liquids, only sugar-sweetened beverage reduction was significantly associated with weight loss

Alright. I conclude from this that there is something about the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages specifically that causes weight gain when compared against both liquid and solid foods. Given the high consumption of caffeinated soft drinks rich in HFCS among Americans, the cause seems obvious to me. They conclude, however, that it is something about the physical state of the calories being consumed - liquid rather than solid - that leads to the weight gain, even though such weight gain was not associated with any other liquid except sugar-sweetened beverages. Does this seem like a sound conclusion?

, , , ,

2 Comments