Freaks of Nature

Birth is called the miracle of life. New babys are adored and coddled whether they be human or puppies or kittens. There is always that lurking chance that something went wrong and what emerges could be a Freak of Nature. Let's be honest, if every baby born was normal then life would be pretty boring. Freaks of Nature spice things up. Mark Blumberg seeks to explain the process of producing these Freaks of Nature in his book Freaks of Nature.

In the book, Blumberg tries to set the record straight on the so-called Freaks of Nature. In general most people assume abnormal births are due to bad genetics, or a genetic "error" of some kind. Whle those exist and can explain some birth defects, they do not explain all. Blumberg focuses on the developmental "errors" that affect a developing baby. The environment withing the womb has significant impact on a fetus as it develops and slight variations can lead to drastic results. The tempurature is one such factor. Snakes can develop two heads in cases where there was too much heat.

While the book covers a lot of different freaks, from siamese twins to missing limbs, the most fascinating thing for me was the discussion of facial development. What most people do not know is that the human nose begins development on the forehead. Below the nose the eye begins to develop. The eye must split to form two eyes by a certain point or the nose can not move down to its proper place. If the eyes split too early, you can end up with two heads. If it's too late, you end up a cyclops (with a proboscus on the forehead). So contrary to the movies, a cyclops should not have a nose. It was interesing to learn that timing is essential and it is amazing how often things come out right considering all the things that could go wrong.

Blumberg does a decent job of making Freaks of Nature readable for the lay person. He also provides some decent pictures and illustrations. These are important to better illustrate the areas he covers. While I enjoyed the book, I did struggle to finish it. It did not capture my attention as much as I had expected. I still found it to be a enjoyable book. It could be helped by even more pictures and illustrations. It seemed most were stock and I think Blumberg could have endeavored to create some of his own. I thinks its worth reading for people interested in science and that's about it. It might make a good companion volume for a Biology/Zooloogy class.

Simon Singh in Action

Trick or Treatment

Rare are the people who don't consider themselves some kind of medical expert. This is a real problem, because most people know medicine as well as they know the composition of the Jupiter's inner core. I am not a medical expert, I don't even watch one TV. I notice the problem of the lay medical expert tends to be followers of Supplements, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine (SCAMs). I've been presented with a few SCAMs in my lifetime. The sellers are quite convincing, I think it's their confidence. What can you really count on though? Are they telling the truth. Two men dove into this cess-pool of crap and produced the work entitled Trick or Treatment: the undeniable facts about alternative medicine. Those men are Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst*.

As I stated, I am no medical expert. After reading Trick or Treatment I feel like one for sure; like I could correct Dr. Oz on a few things. Trick or Treatment is the best book I've read this year. If you read Trick or Treatment and still feel that much of Alternative Medicine is valid, check into Bellevue. Singh and Ernst take SCAMs to the cleaners.

The books it broken into four main chapters with each covering one of the major SCAMs: Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, and Herbal Medicine (the appendix provides an overview of several SCAMs with a brief analysis for each). In addition, the authors detail the history of medicine, specifically the emergence of the scientific trial and double-blind studies**.

While I found the whole book interesting and hard to put down, the opening chapter was the most important part. In this chapter, the authors detail the growth of the scientific trial and the emergence of a practice that can be referred to as Science-Based Medicine. Understanding how we can conclude what treatments are effective is essential in making sure people can recover from illness with minimal risk. All medicines and medical treatments must pass the FDA to be used in the US. Part of that process is showing the treatment works using double-blind studies to show the treatment works better than placebo and it is safe, relatively speaking. SCAMs do not have to go through the same rigor. In fact they don't have to go through any rigor.

In researching the treatments discussed in Trick or Treatment, the authors set a standard for their studies they were willing to accept. To insure they were getting the best information available, they left out studies that did not utilize proper scientific controls. Unfortunately including all studies would inaccurately skew the data. When the proper controls are not in place, many of the treatments appear effective. When the proper controls are put into place most of these positive results dry up. What good is a treatment if it only appears to work when you don't scrutinize it very well? Not good.

While four main treatments are covered, I'll focus on Homeopathy for the review. Homeopathy is the most nonsensical of all the treatments. Samuel developed the concept of Homeopathy in the late 18th century. At the time it worked better than the conventional medicine of the time. It worked better, not because it was an effective treatment, but because the conventional treatments of the day were dangerous. We're talking about things like bloodletting, which killed George Washington. The Homeopathic patients survived because they were avoiding the treatments of the day. As medicine improved and the scientific method was applied, the tables turned.

Homeopathy's premise is like cures like. That means an illness should be treated by a substance that features the same symptoms was the illness when ingested. An example would be an illness that causes vomiting. The treatment would be something like syrup of ipecac, which when ingest causes vomiting. The patient is not given the actual substance, but a super dilute substance. It is so diluted, one would need to ingest the entire Solar System to find one molecule of the original substance. This is accomplished by taking part substance to nine parts water. Shake it and take one part of that mixture to nine more parts water. Shake and repeat. The recommendation from Samuel Hahnemann is to dilute the substance 30 times. With Homeopathy, you are not being healed by the substance, but by the "memory" carried in the water from being mixed with that substance.

Homeopathy is pure placebo. There is nothing in the mixture that works. The only illness Homeopathy can heal is dehydration. On the bright-side, it's hard to over-dose. I guess you can drown or die for water intoxication.

The authors demonstrate the clear silliness of Homeopathy. Not one single studies shows any real effect over placebo. That's what's unique about Homeopathy among the SCAMs in the book. It is the only one that is pure BS. The others have some redeeming qualities, though they are few and far between.

In short this is a great book. It's easy to read and I think any ready will come away with a better understanding of the scientific method and modern medicine. This is the kind of book that should be discussed in schools, because it shows the scientific method and shows how it weeds out the bad ideas.

* Simon Singh is a UK science journalist and best selling author. He has a PhD in Particle Physics. Edzard Ernst is a former practitioner of Alternative Medicine as well as the first professor of Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter.

** A double-blind study is one where neither the subject nor the administrator know what treatment is being given. This can be done by assigning each subject a random number and giving them generic pills. That way the subject can not know whether they are receiving the treatment or placebo. Ensuring the administrators don't know whether the treatment is genuine or placebo is important so they can't influence the subjects in anyway.

Cosmos

Carl Sagan is regarded as the greatest popularizer of science. The TV series and book Cosmos were a big part of that. While reading Cosmos is like stepping into the past in a way, it still maintains a timeless quality. It's an interesting and fun book to read. Even though some of the information in the book is dated, I still consider the book worth reading. Sagan does a great job of showing the progression of science and how far back its roots go.

The biggest take away for me really is how far back science discovery goes. There's the persitent myth that I was taught in elementary school that everybody thought the world was flat until Christopher Columbus came along. While I eventually learned that it was a pretty accepted fact in Columbus' day that the world was round. I was still left with the impression that the discovery was still relatively new. Au Contraire, as I found in Cosmos. Erastothenes who lived in the 3rd century BC was aware of the sphrerical nature of the planet Earth. In fact he was able to predict, relatively accurately the circumfrence of the Earth using sticks and shadows. The angle of the shadow at high noon during the summer solstice provided the numbers he needed.

Cosmos is full of other interesting stories. I think it's the kind of book that should be required reading in school. While I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't like it, I think it's a good place to start for getting people to appreciate science. I think this is especially important when we live in a society that endorses things like Homeopathy and Chiropractic like they're actual medically plausible. That's a subject for my next book review.

The Revolution

Among the Republican candidates for president, two stood out for being different: Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes sounded more like he'd forgotten to take his medication, and certainly somebody I want as far away from the Oval Office as possible (Maybe they could give him a padded Oval Office). Ron Paul on the other hand, though some certainly thought he was nuts, was consistent and honest in his views. The remaining candidates, in my opinion, seemed indistinguishable from each other. Ron Paul represented what can be called the true essence of republicanism, if there were such a thing: Small Government, Non-interventionist, and Liberty as the core belief.

I often referred to Ron Paul as the Al Sharpton of the Republican Party. He had little chance of getting the nomination and he was unbelievably honest in his views. The comparison ends there. Though Paul had virtually no chance to win the Republican nomination, he was hard to ignore. He raised an unbelievable amount of money and garnered news attention. He challenged his fellow Republicans on the core issues of freedom and liberty, and questioned the Iraq war. The other Republicans could not ignore him, despite the fact that he was a long-shot. His candidacy was a revolution and this book brings the philosophy of libertarianism to the people.

Revolution, as it states in the title, it is a Manifesto. It's a Manifesto for freedom. Paul starts with the constitution and the founding fathers. Paul asserts the importance of understanding the intent of the founders. I've initially found this concept antiquated. We don't live in the past, but the present and things change. We will see things through different eyes with different experience. I still feel that way in general, but Paul makes a good case for turning back to the intent of the founders. While the idea may seem antiquated, knowing the intent of the founders give the constitution its meaning. Not knowing the spirit in which it was written reduces the value the document has. If we can interpret the Constitution however we see fit, then it does us know good. It might as well be blank. I think this is an excellent point, because having a constitution is central to the mission of the US. A key quote is:
Once we lose our respect for the Constitution and begin interpreting it so that it happens to permit our pet programs, we have no right to be surprised when our political opponents come along with their own ideas for interpreting the Constitution loosely.
It's like reading an ancient document and not know the culture in which it was written.

Paul is a devotee of the Austrian school of economics, as he demonstrates in his book. The Austrian school's star economists were FA Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. The school of thought is based on pure economic freedom, what some might call Capital Anarchy. It's an idea where just about anything goes economically speaking. The government is in place to make the basic rules, but other than that people can act as they see fit. When it comes to freedoms, economic freedoms are essential. Without the right to earn money and spend money as you choose, there is not real freedom. Just looking at the difference between the mobility of the rich and poor, and it's easy to see the importance of economic freedom. Resources, money, are essential in exercising our personal freedoms.

Paul hits our personal freedoms and civil liberties. We often fall into the trap of saying "There should be a law against that" when we face annoyances. I remember in high-school a teacher imploring students to avoid that phrase. There might be somebody fool enough to make such a law and the consequences might be more severe than the annoyances. This is especially important when we consider some of the federal legislation that's been put in place. The PATRIOT Act comes to mind. Republicans were all for it because their guy was in the White House. Now that Obama is in there and it's likely the Republicans might find some of the application of the laws. Of course the Democrats have complained about it, but now that their guy is in office they might not think it's such a bad idea, see the quote above. It's especially interesting when Paul discusses the outlawing of pot since it came largely from racism. One of the legislators in favor of outlawing used "Crazy Mexicans" as evidence that pot was dangerous. The laws passed, despite of evidence that the substance posed not major health hazard.

Revolution was a good read. It's not an evidence based book, so it's weak in that area. Since that's not the intent of the book, that's not that big of a deal to me. I think it is a starting point for folks to become acquainted with the philosophy and ideology and at least re-think some of their positions. On the downside, I think many readers will find the book to be an end point to their philosophy rather than a starting point. It's a good read, especially if you're unfamiliar with libertarianism.

Traffic

While Traffic may not sound like the most exciting subject, Tom Vanderbilt gives it its due. The cover of Traffic was the first thing that enticed me to pick it up and browse through at the local Borders. It amounts to a Freakonomics for the road. I admit to some disappointment that it didn't hold up all of my libertarian ideals, but I will do what I can to see past that. I still found it to be engaging and informative. Vanderbilt contributed to some changes in my perception of a few traffic issues.

Vanderbilt starts Traffic with what might be one contentious issue when it comes to traffic. It comes from those lanes that force traffic to merge, most prominent for construction zones. These are made worse during heavy traffic and usually the lane that ends usually ends up being empty for the 500ft or so. Empty except for those punks who decide to merge at the last possible moment. These folks cause enough ire among the other drivers that they will not let these late mergers in. Most of thoses are the early mergers who are insensed at the ego of the later merger. I confess to being an early merger with a intense dislike of the late mergers.

My intense hatred has tempered since reading Traffic. Vanderbilt makes a case, one that is easy accept since he too used to be an early merger (he's like a traffic brother in that respect). The fact is late mergers actually help the flow of traffic, because they utilize all of the available road. In the end the amount may not be signigicant enough to end a traffic jam, but you have to hand it to them for being gutsy, even if it is ultimately for a selfish reason.

I am against metering lights for sure. To me they just move the traffice jam to the side roads. According to Vanderbilt, they are acually good and overall help the freeways move more vehicles during rush hour. It's compared to pouring rice into a funnel. If the rice is just dumped in there all at once, then it jams and less rice gets through. When the rice is poured at a slower, steady rate, more rice gets through the funnel much quicker. Metering lights do much the same thing, at least in theory. I'm notactually 100% against metering lights as much as I'm not sure I'm convinced that they really work. They still seem to just move the traffic jam and I've been on freeways with metering lights where traffic moves as if there were no metering lights. I'm willing t o accept the theory and trust that they work, but cynically.

The most fascinating chapter by far is entitled "When Dangerous Roads Are Safer". It makes sense when you think about it. On the windy mountain roads with a 1000ft drop and rusty & rotten guard rails we tend to drive more caustiously. In these instances we can percieve the true danger of the situation. It's the same with snowy roads. Though there tend to be more accidents, most are not near as fatal as crashes in good weather. Because we compensate for the perceived danger, the accidents that do happen, happen generally at lower speeds. It's this phenomenon that explains why so many accidents happen so close to people's homes. There is the fact that more driving is done here, thus there are more opportunties for accidents. In addition to that, people are more complacent on familair "safe" roads that they drive regularly. In these situations, folks pay less attention to the road and are less likely to notice dangers. They drive as if they are on a safe road, oblivious to the inherent dangers.

I liked the book as a whole. I did get bored in parts. The research appeared pretty solid, but Vanderbilt failed at times to keep my interest. I came away with a new understanding of traffic and an appreciation for what municipalities have to do in order to keep things flowing. After reading the book, I am now more in favor of toll roads, at least freeways. I think that actually has potential to cut traffic more that the metering lights. When the highway funds come out through taxes, nobody considers the cost, however, if folks have to use their wallets on a regular basis it might cut usage at least a little.