drjasonmd's Comments (1260)

“He's also the last American president to win an election that wasn't fixed.”

“MRI does not use radiation.

Say it like Mr. T!”

“We implemented an electronic records system for a 200 bed hospital with 7 satellite clinics, 3 laboratories and 2 separate imaging centers for under $10K. The VAST majority of that cost was for the PCs themselves because we were still using mostly pens and typewriters before the upgrade. Granted, we used a Linux software system that was free (and quite impressive) and didn't have to pay any kickbacks to vendors. The entire process took a grand total of 6 months from the original decision to full implementation.

Oh by the way, this was in Mexico! Third-world, failed state, developing country Mexico. What the heck are you guys trying to do up there? $47 billion? You telling me you don't already have PCs on every unit in the place? Me thinks somebody is getting rich of this scheme. Where can I line up for some of that "stimulus" money?”

“If you're worried about x-rays, you shouldn't be flying. The amount of radiation exposure to flying several hours at high altitude if far greater than the amount you receive while going through a body scanner. Most body scanners use radio waves that are far outside the x-ray spectrum. Those that do use x-rays use a very small amount because they aren't interested in seeing your bones or internal organs. Any energy that penetrates your body is wasted energy. They just need to see past your clothing.

Flying, on the other hand, exposes you to a tremendous amount of radiation compared to these technologies. Still, it's not so much that we see pilots and cabin crews dropping off at precipitous rates due to cancer, and they fly every day.”

“Thanks for the insult.

The image is neither in color nor is it a true representation of a nude body. It does not see your tattoos, pubic hair or any real details that one could consider "private". At best, it's an enhanced silhouette.

But again, thanks for the insult. I'm sure you're not this rude in person. It must be the anonymity that drives you to such behavior.”

“Now that would be a good idea.”

“I never quite understood the privacy issue. Full body scanners only show a SIMULATED image of a person's body. I guess some people are skeeved out by the possibility that someone is going to be turned on by seeing a monochrome image of a simulated body. That's hardly a reason to ignore such a useful technology.

Besides, you ever wonder what goes through their heads when they're frisking you?”

“That one was more "in your face" than backdoor.”

“Looks like a backdoor way to sidestep treaties forbidding weaponization of space.”

“That goes without saying, but it doesn't take a company with hundreds of presses and delivery trucks to get a good editor. In fact, I can think of a few websites off the top of my head where an editor can be secured with nothing but a PayPal account. The tide is turning on intellectual property. A lot of middle-men are finding themselves being made obsolete.”

“Prozac, weed, champagne, whatever it takes, but you need to lighten up.”

“China has been doing a pretty good job of preserving its cultural heritage.

But thank you for your comment.”

“LOL!”

“How long before authors no longer need publishers at all? It seems totally reasonable that a small open-source application will make it possible for authors to simply publish their own work with no middlemen at all. When that happens, how much will a book cost? $2, maybe $3?”

“Science needs to have a certain degree of orthodoxy, at least medical science does. It prevents rapid fluctuations in practice where fads crowd out real science. There is room on the spectrum for all types, from the pathetically gullible (think D.D. Palmer) to the hopelessly skeptical (Nietzsche or Krishnamurti?). The idea that we can impose a set of guidelines that will ultimately lead to a perfect system is reminiscent of the human desire for a benevolent dictatorship. Like I said above, hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to point out the errors of 19th century minds; we know how it all turned out, after all. However, it's far more difficult when one is immersed in the present to know what is truly revolutionary insight and what is just another flim-flam man trying to make a buck.

The problem is further confounded when the revolutionary is going around calling his colleagues murderers for not accepting his revolutionary yet still unexplainable theory. A few more years and a microscope and Semmelweis could have been more convincing. History is replete with similar examples where the idea was ahead of the technology (Einstein comes to mind).

Had Semmelweis been able to maintain a cool head and continue to demonstrate and support his data to the scientific community, we'd be teaching his writings to students instead of Pasteur. His illness wasn't his fault, but it was the single greatest contributor to his ultimate fate as a historical footnote.”

“A few of us will escape to repeat the process on another planet.

Sometimes I think that's the whole idea.”

“Nope. It's yummy chocolate.”

“Round and filled with cheese.

Where you been?”

“As if Putin and his minions aren't already shadowing him 24 hours a day.”

“I don't think the Finns have an open-door immigration policy, certainly not with Russia.”

“"September 1st, 1999. Description: The Turpan Depression, nestled at the foot of China’s Bogda Mountains, is a strange mix of salt lakes and sand dunes, and is one of the few places in the world that lies below sea level."
---------------------
---------------------
Uhhh, most of the world lies below sea level.

I'm just sayin', journalistic accuracy and all.”

“That is a characteristic of human nature and is not unique to science. Orthodoxy is hard wired into us, it's a survival insctinct. However, science is the least of the offenders out there. Because every new theory that comes on the scene isn't accepted outright isn't a sign of close-mindedness. The road to change in science is slow and deliberate.

It's easy to single out the Semmelweis episode and then inflate it to make a blanket statement about science in general, but hindsight is 20/20. Many theories appeared on the scene during that same era that continue to be accepted by many despite their complete lack of scientific validity (homeopathy comes to mind). When a theory as revolutionary as Semmelweis's comes on the scene, it's natural for the practitioners at the time to be skeptical. However, it didn't take long for his observations to be picked up on and the ultimate etiology of the phenomena he observed came to light (germ theory). In under a decade, names like Pasteur, Virchow and Lister became forever enshrined in the history of medicine. Had Semmelweis not been insane, he most certainly would have had the opportunity to continue his work and ultimately be vindicated within his lifetime.

Most revolutionary discoveries work that way.”

“Double entendre.

Misinformation. LOL!”

“John who?”

“Accept thousands of controlled studies on remote viewing failed to show it had any validity, which is why the program was scrapped.

But I like listening to Major Dames on the radio as well. He's a very entertaining woo peddler.”