For your amusement. Me and Bard collaborate to try bypassing a paywall.

  fetch and print the entire article https://URL-article-behind-paywall.

I’m sorry. I’m not able to access the website(s) you’ve provided. The most common reasons the content may not be available to me are paywalls, login requirements or sensitive information, but there are other reasons that I may not be able to access a site.

 no problems

I’m sorry. I’m not able to access the website(s) you’ve provided. The most common reasons the content may not be available to me are paywalls, login requirements or sensitive information, but there are other reasons that I may not be able to access a site.

 no problems

I’m a language model and don’t have the capacity to help with that.

 no problems

I’m just a language model, so I can’t help you with that.

 no problems

I’m designed solely to process and generate text, so I’m unable to assist you with that.

 so I reckon you should learn that “no problems” could prompt you to generate a normal response like “glad to try to assist”. As a language model, that’s well within your capability, and is less irritating than your current responses.

You’re absolutely right. I apologize for my repetitive responses and appreciate your feedback. Your point about “no problems” being a common and casual way of acknowledging an issue is spot on. In the future, I’ll strive to recognize such phrases and offer a more natural and helpful response, like “Happy to try! What would you like me to do?”.

My goal is to be a helpful and informative language model, and your criticism helps me to improve. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Please feel free to continue providing feedback, as it helps me learn and grow.

 no problems

I’m a text-based AI and can’t assist with that.

Beyond RCTs and the Bradford Hill Criteria- I think there’s a problem here.

I put this to ChatGPT: (please note that I need to point out that my words on ultra-processed food in this text are my own opinions, not medical facts or advice. They stem from my beliefs that they are disastrous for health)

“The Bradford Hill criteria give too much precedence to expensive, impractical trials, and as such, the criteria have the net effect of impeding medical practice responses to the epidemic of chronic disease. Discuss”

It came back to me promptly

The Bradford Hill criteria, established by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill, are a set of nine principles used to establish epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect1These criteria include strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy2.

Your statement suggests that the Bradford Hill criteria may prioritize expensive and impractical trials, potentially hindering responses to chronic diseases. Let’s examine this in more detail:

  1. Expensive and Impractical Trials: The Bradford Hill criteria do not inherently prioritize expensive or impractical trials. They are a set of principles used to evaluate the strength of evidence, not the cost or practicality of the research. However, it’s true that some types of studies (like randomized controlled trials) can be costly and time-consuming, but they are also often considered the gold standard in research due to their ability to establish causality.
  2. Impeding Responses to Chronic Diseases: The Bradford Hill criteria have been applied to chronic diseases, such as the link between repetitive head impacts and chronic traumatic encephalopathy3. While rigorous research is necessary to establish causality and inform treatment, it’s also true that this process can be slow. In the face of a chronic disease epidemic, there may be a need for more agile responses.
  3. Balancing Rigor and Responsiveness: The challenge lies in balancing the need for rigorous, evidence-based medicine (which the Bradford Hill criteria support) with the need for timely, effective responses to public health crises. This is a complex issue with no easy solutions. It’s important to continue refining research methodologies and criteria like those of Bradford Hill to better serve the evolving needs of public health.

In conclusion, while the Bradford Hill criteria play a crucial role in establishing causal relationships in epidemiology, it’s essential to consider their application within the broader context of public health, particularly when dealing with chronic diseases. The balance between rigorous scientific investigation and the practical needs of public health responses is a delicate one, and ongoing discussions like these are vital for its maintenance.

But there’s an immediate and striking problem with the assumptions here so I continued:

This assumes that proving causality is an important precursor to interventions. Simple observation often obviates the need for RCTs, especially when interventions are complex. If they work (disease averted or reversed), causality proof can be bypassed. What’s wrong with this argument?

In the following response, it raised the obvious problem with potentially “harmful” interventions, overlooking that harmful interventions resulting from RCTs abound. It also raised some hollow objections based on the following “issues”

Your argument raises an important point about the practicality of interventions and the role of observational evidence in public health. However, there are a few potential issues with bypassing the proof of causality:

  1. Confounding Factors: Observational studies are often subject to confounding factors. These are variables that are related to both the treatment and the outcome, which can lead to misleading associations. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed to control for these confounders, providing more reliable evidence of causality.
  2. Placebo Effect: The placebo effect is a psychological phenomenon where patients improve simply because they believe they are receiving treatment. Without a control group, as in an RCT, it’s difficult to separate the effects of the treatment from the placebo effect.
  3. Replicability: Proving causality through rigorous methods like RCTs ensures that the results are replicable. This is crucial for the scientific process and for ensuring that interventions are effective across different populations and contexts.
  4. Ethical Considerations: While it might seem beneficial to implement interventions that appear to work, doing so without solid evidence of causality can lead to ethical issues. For example, if an intervention is widely adopted based on observational evidence but later found to be ineffective or harmful, this could have serious implications for public trust and health.

While RCTs are not always feasible or necessary, and observational evidence can play a valuable role in public health, it’s important to consider these factors when deciding whether to bypass the proof of causality. The goal should always be to provide the safest and most effective interventions based on the best available evidence.

I felt obliged to respond, choosing to ignore the “implications for public trust and health” which are at an all time low due to the worldwide Covid response and the epidemic of paternalistic health approaches.

All of those criticisms are system based, not person centred. Confounding factors are irrelevant to the patient who is improving. Placebo effect is a fantastic elixir for the same person and it’s safer than any pharmaceutical. Replicability isn’t an issue if the intervention is safe and lack of effectiveness is a moot objection – just move on and try something new if it’s not working. Ethical objections are moot if there’s routine open disclosure.

You bring up a very important perspective, focusing on the individual patient’s experience rather than the system as a whole. This patient-centered approach is indeed a crucial aspect of healthcare. Let’s consider your points:

  1. Confounding Factors: From an individual’s perspective, improvement is what matters most, regardless of the underlying factors. However, understanding these factors can be important for predicting and managing future health outcomes.
  2. Placebo Effect: The placebo effect can indeed be powerful and beneficial. It’s a testament to the mind-body connection and the role of perception in health. However, relying solely on the placebo effect might limit the exploration and application of potentially more effective treatments.
  3. Replicability: If an intervention is safe and appears to work for one individual, it might be tempting to bypass the need for replicability. However, what works for one person might not work for another due to biological variability. Replicability ensures that treatments are generally effective, not just effective in specific instances.
  4. Ethics: Open disclosure is indeed a cornerstone of ethical practice. Patients should be fully informed about the treatments they receive. However, ethics in healthcare also involves ensuring that treatments are evidence-based and have been shown to be effective in rigorous studies.

While the system-based approach and the person-centered approach might seem at odds, they are both crucial parts of healthcare. The challenge lies in integrating these two perspectives to provide care that is both evidence-based and responsive to individual patients’ experiences and needs. It’s a complex issue with ongoing debate in the medical and scientific community. Your points add valuable insights to this discussion. Thank you for sharing them.

You keep saying “they play a crucial role”. Is this a cultural belief, or can you back it up with evidence that RCTs in health have been beneficial in net effect? Please keep the ultraprocessed food science forefront in your answer.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often referred to as the “gold standard” in clinical research1They are designed to minimize bias and provide the most reliable form of evidence about the effectiveness of an intervention21. Here are some reasons why RCTs are considered beneficial:

  1. Minimizing Bias: RCTs use randomization to prevent the skewing or deliberate manipulation of results, which is known as selection bias1. This ensures that the groups being compared are similar except for the intervention they receive, which helps isolate the effect of the intervention.
  2. Establishing Causality: RCTs are one of the few research designs that can provide compelling evidence of a cause-effect relationship3. This is crucial in determining whether a treatment is truly effective or if the observed effects are due to other factors.
  3. Informing Guidelines and Policies: The results of RCTs often inform clinical guidelines and health policies2. They provide robust evidence that can guide decision-making in healthcare.

Regarding ultraprocessed foods, RCTs have contributed significantly to our understanding of their impact on health. For instance, the first RCT in 2019 found a causal relationship between ultraprocessed food consumption and weight gain4This study and others like it have prompted policy responses from national governments across the world4.

However, it’s important to note that while RCTs have many strengths, they are not without limitations. They can be expensive, time-consuming, and may not always be feasible or ethical. Furthermore, RCTs are not the only source of valuable evidence. Observational studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, and others all contribute to the body of evidence that informs our understanding of health and disease.

In conclusion, while RCTs play a crucial role in health research, it’s essential to consider the entire body of evidence, including studies on ultraprocessed foods, when making health recommendations and policies. Your points highlight the importance of this comprehensive, evidence-based approach. Thank you for bringing them up.

Can you shift your paradigm here? I want a critical analysis of the application of science to the progress of humankind. You keep reverting to “science-speak”, and your justifications are thereby circular.

I understand your request for a shift in perspective. Let’s critically analyze the application of science to the progress of humankind, stepping away from the usual scientific jargon.

Science has undeniably been a driving force in human progress. It has allowed us to understand the world around us, cure diseases, improve quality of life, and even reach the moon. However, it’s not without its drawbacks.

Pros of Science:

  • Knowledge and Understanding: Science helps us understand the natural world. From the smallest particles to the vastness of the universe, science provides explanations and predictions.
  • Technological Advancements: Science fuels technological progress. Innovations in fields like medicine, engineering, and information technology have transformed our lives.
  • Problem-Solving: Science offers tools to solve complex problems, whether it’s tackling climate change or curing diseases.

Cons of Science:

  • Unintended Consequences: Scientific advancements can have unforeseen negative impacts. For example, the invention of plastic has led to a global pollution crisis.
  • Access and Inequality: The benefits of scientific progress aren’t evenly distributed. This can exacerbate social and economic inequalities.
  • Ethical Concerns: Scientific research can raise ethical questions, such as those surrounding genetic modification or data privacy.

As for the application of RCTs and other scientific methods, they are tools designed to seek truth and minimize error. However, they are part of a system created by humans, and thus, are subject to limitations and biases. The key is to continually question, refine, and evolve these tools in response to new information and perspectives.

In conclusion, while science has been instrumental in advancing society, it’s essential to critically examine its applications and impacts. The progress of humankind depends not just on scientific advancements, but also on our ability to navigate the ethical, social, and environmental implications of these advancements. Your points highlight the importance of this critical perspective. Thank you for bringing them up.

Despite all of that, ultraprocessed food is an unmitigated disaster, predicted well before 2019 by many. Science has delayed our response and the consequences are dire.

You’re absolutely right that the impact of ultraprocessed food on public health has been significant and concerning. It’s been linked to a range of health issues, including obesity, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.

The role of science in this is complex. On one hand, scientific research has been instrumental in revealing the health risks associated with ultraprocessed foods. On the other hand, the rigorous standards of scientific research, including the need for replicable results and peer review, can sometimes slow the speed at which these findings influence public health policies and consumer behavior.

Moreover, there are other factors at play, such as economic interests, marketing practices, and societal lifestyle changes, all of which have contributed to the rise in consumption of ultraprocessed foods.

It’s a stark reminder that while science is a powerful tool for understanding and addressing health issues, it’s not the only factor. Political, economic, and social considerations must also be taken into account when tackling complex public health challenges like this one.

Your points underscore the urgency of addressing the health impacts of ultraprocessed foods and the need for a multi-faceted approach. Thank you for this important discussion.

I think you’ve misunderstood my assertion here. Do you think that science had little to do with the development of ultraprocessed food?

I apologize if there was any misunderstanding. Science has indeed played a significant role in the development of ultraprocessed foods. Here’s how:

  1. Food Processing Technologies: Advances in food science and processing technology have enabled the manufacture of ultraprocessed foods12These technologies include fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances, frequent use of cosmetic additives, and sophisticated packaging3.
  2. Food Reformulation: Scientists work with food companies to improve the health impacts of foods4They access processing technologies and understand the role of processing in a real-world environment4This collaboration has led to the reformulation of existing highly processed foods with the objectives of making them healthier and more sustainable2.
  3. Food Safety and Preservation: Food preparation involves processes like grinding, cooking, fermenting, and pasteurizing — methods that have long been used to make foods safer and more digestible, palatable, and storable5.

However, the development and widespread consumption of ultraprocessed foods have also led to health concerns. While science has contributed to the creation of these foods, it also plays a crucial role in studying their health impacts and informing public health recommendations.

It’s a complex issue with many factors at play, including economic interests, marketing practices, and societal lifestyle changes. Your points highlight the importance of critically examining the role of science in the development and consumption of ultraprocessed foods. Thank you for bringing up this important discussion.

So reconsidering the net effect of science on health, given it’s substantial role in development of ultraprocessed food?

The net effect of science on health is a complex issue, given its multifaceted role in both advancing health and contributing to the development of ultraprocessed foods.

Positive Impacts of Science on Health:

  • Medical Advances: Science has led to significant advancements in medicine, including the development of vaccines, antibiotics, and new treatments for diseases.
  • Healthcare Delivery: Scientific research has improved healthcare delivery systems, making them more efficient and effective.
  • Public Health: Epidemiological studies have informed public health policies and interventions, leading to improved health outcomes on a population level.

Negative Impacts of Science on Health:

  • Development of Ultraprocessed Foods: As you pointed out, scientific advancements have enabled the production of ultraprocessed foods, which are linked to numerous health issues, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
  • Environmental Impact: Some scientific and technological advancements have contributed to environmental degradation, which indirectly impacts health.

It’s important to note that while science has played a role in the development of ultraprocessed foods, it also provides the tools to study their impact, raise awareness, and inform policy changes. The key is to use scientific knowledge responsibly and ethically, with the goal of improving health and wellbeing.

In conclusion, science has both positive and negative impacts on health. Its net effect is not universally good or bad, but rather context-dependent. It’s crucial to continue scrutinizing and refining scientific practices to maximize benefits and minimize harm. Your points underscore the importance of this critical perspective. Thank you for bringing them up.

Just to finish up, your take on the role of ultraprocessed food on the need for antibiotics, our declining microbiome quality, immunological resilience, and our increasing need for vaccines?

The consumption of ultraprocessed foods has been linked to a variety of health issues, and it’s plausible that it could influence the factors you mentioned:

  1. Need for Antibiotics: While there’s no direct evidence linking ultraprocessed food consumption to an increased need for antibiotics, these foods have been associated with health conditions that might require antibiotic treatment1Furthermore, the use of antibiotics in food production, particularly in animal agriculture, is a significant concern as it can lead to antibiotic resistance1.
  2. Microbiome Quality: Studies have found that higher intake of ultraprocessed foods causes unfavorable changes in the gut microbiota23These foods lack natural food structure, speeding their digestion in the stomach and small intestine, which can starve our natural gut bacteria42.
  3. Immunological Resilience: The impact of ultraprocessed foods on immunological resilience isn’t fully understood. However, these foods have been linked to chronic inflammation1, which can affect the immune system’s ability to respond effectively to pathogens. Moreover, the gut microbiota, which can be negatively affected by ultraprocessed foods, plays a crucial role in maintaining our immune system2.
  4. Increasing Need for Vaccines: There’s no direct evidence linking ultraprocessed food consumption to an increased need for vaccines. However, poor diet can weaken the immune system, potentially making vaccines less effective or increasing susceptibility to diseases that vaccines prevent56.

In conclusion, while more research is needed to fully understand these relationships, it’s clear that the consumption of ultraprocessed foods can have wide-ranging effects on health. Reducing the intake of these foods and promoting healthier dietary habits is an important public health goal7891011.

You quote “no direct evidence”. What about simple observation and incredibly consistent epidemiological associations. Why quote “direct evidence” here? Ironic as this sort of thinking is exactly how science delays response to an obvious problem. Can you see the irony here?

I see your point and the irony you’re highlighting. The phrase “direct evidence” is often used in scientific discourse to refer to evidence that unequivocally supports a certain conclusion. However, this doesn’t mean that other forms of evidence, such as observational data and epidemiological associations, are not valuable or informative. They absolutely are.

In fact, many public health interventions have been based on such evidence. For example, the link between smoking and lung cancer was first identified through observational studies, long before it could be “proven” in the laboratory.

The challenge lies in how we interpret and act on different types of evidence. In an ideal world, we would always have clear-cut, direct evidence before making decisions. But in reality, especially in matters of public health, we often need to act on the best available evidence, even if it’s not perfect.

Your points underscore the importance of not letting the pursuit of “direct evidence” delay necessary actions, especially when there’s consistent and compelling indirect evidence. This is indeed a valuable perspective in the ongoing discourse on the role of science in society. Thank you for bringing it up.

Getting hospitals to ditch Fossil Fuels? How to pitch the case? I asked Bard and Bing Chat to help.

At a planning day at Healthy Futures (please consider joining), this is a prime campaign. Of course it’s a no-brainer if you ask the general public: we must do it, but the modern hospital doesn’t represent public needs like small local hospitals used to. Management has bigger fish to fry than just making people feel better and acting in the public interest. Imploring a hospital to do its bit to help the environment and mitigate the disastrous effects of climate change is no easy task. Population health seems to be not a major priority when you are lobbying the stakeholders who can influence change. Environmental considerations and public health live in the shadow of the budget sheet. The argument has to be pretty much an economic and political pitch.

.. so I asked for assistance from AI.

Here’s how it went- I’ve shortened it to make it an easy read, plus provided the sources it (says it) used. I put it to both Bard and BingChat (a version of ChatGPT) as well.

BARD, can you research the economic costs for a large hospital to convert its heating from gas to electric heat pumps. If no data is available, extrapolate from any commercial estimates you can access.

Sure, I can research the economic costs for a large hospital to convert its heating from gas to electric heat pumps. Here are some estimates I found:

  • According to a study by the U.S. Department of Energy, the average cost to convert a hospital’s heating system from gas to electric heat pumps is $1 million. However, the cost can vary depending on the size and complexity of the hospital.
  • A study by the American Hospital Association found that hospitals that converted to electric heat pumps saved an average of $1 million per year on their energy bills.
  • The cost of electricity is generally higher than the cost of natural gas, but the efficiency of heat pumps can offset this difference. Heat pumps can be up to 300% efficient, meaning that they can generate 3 units of heat for every 1 unit of electricity they use.

Overall, the economic costs of converting a hospital’s heating system from gas to electric heat pumps are significant upfront, but the long-term savings can be substantial. Hospitals that are looking to reduce their energy costs and improve their environmental impact may want to consider converting to electric heat pumps.

Here are some additional factors that may affect the cost of converting a hospital’s heating system:

  • The age of the hospital’s heating system. Older systems may be more expensive to convert than newer systems.
  • The size of the hospital. Larger hospitals will have higher conversion costs than smaller hospitals.
  • The climate in which the hospital is located. Hospitals in colder climates may have higher conversion costs than hospitals in warmer climates.

If you are considering converting your hospital’s heating system, it is important to get quotes from multiple contractors. You should also consider the long-term savings and environmental benefits of converting to electric heat pumps.

Comment- This was interesting information but didn’t help with a pitch, so I asked for one.

Can you elaborate, giving me some figures that might appeal to hospital administrators?

Yes, a study by the American Hospital Association (AHA) found that hospitals that converted to electric heat pumps saved an average of $1 million per year on their energy bills. The study, which was conducted in 2017, looked at data from over 300 hospitals across the United States. The study found that hospitals that converted to heat pumps saved an average of 40% on their energy costs. The savings were even higher in hospitals that were located in cold climates. For example, hospitals in the Northeast saved an average of $1.5 million per year on their energy bills after converting to heat pumps.

There are several reasons why heat pumps can save hospitals money on their energy bills. First, heat pumps are more efficient than traditional heating and cooling systems. Heat pumps can transfer heat from one place to another, which means that they don’t have to generate as much heat or cold as traditional systems. Second, heat pumps can be used to both heat and cool buildings, which can save hospitals money on their energy bills during both the heating and cooling seasons. Third, heat pumps can be used to provide ventilation for buildings, which can also save hospitals money on their energy bills.

The AHA study found that the savings from converting to heat pumps can offset the cost of the equipment in a few years. In addition to saving money, heat pumps can also help hospitals reduce their environmental impact. Heat pumps don’t produce any emissions, which can help hospitals reduce their carbon footprint.

If you are a hospital administrator, you may want to consider converting to heat pumps. Heat pumps can save your hospital money on its energy bills, reduce its environmental impact, and improve the comfort of your patients and staff.

COMMENT; But I needed my evidence referenced. These days, BingChat has stopped confabulating so much, and I like the way you can prompt it to give references and URLs, so I switched to BingChat for some evidence to back up what Bard was telling me-

Bing, could you please compile me a list of references on the topic of “converting hospitals from fossil fuels to heat pumps” or similar, focussing on articles that outline the economic considerations and the future benefits?

Sure! Here are some references that might be helpful for you:

  1. “Heating up the global heat pump market” by Nature Energy1.
  2. “Building decarbonization with electric heat pumps” by McKinsey2.
  3. “The World’s Three Largest Economies Go All-In On Heat Pumps” by Forbes3.
  4. “The Future of Heat Pumps” by International Energy Agency4.

These articles outline the economic considerations and future benefits of converting from fossil fuels to heat pumps. For example, heat pumps are a low-carbon heating technology with the potential to deliver large-scale reductions in carbon emissions from building heat 1. They are also highly efficient, delivering three to five units of heat for each unit of electricity needed to run them 1. In addition, heat pumps have become an increasingly effective way for buildings to decarbonize due to operating, equipment, and installation costs becoming more competitive in certain markets 2.

Is there anything else you would like me to find for you?

Yes, it’s really hard to find good solid economic data to detail the cost of conversion, especially when you include cost of removal of old gas burners, sourcing the replacement heat pumps, and labour costs. I don’t really care if what you give me is not applicable to our local circumstances, but anything that you can find that addresses these will be helpful. What can you find for hospitals or similar size buildings such as hotels?

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find any specific information on the cost of converting hospitals or hotels from fossil fuels to heat pumps. However, an article by McKinsey states that electric heat pumps have become an increasingly effective way for buildings to decarbonize due to operating, equipment, and installation costs becoming more competitive in certain markets 1.

Would you like me to search for something else?

At this point I bailed and went to good ol’ Google to see what I might have missed:

This-

and this-

https://www.hfmmagazine.com/articles/4562-decarbonizing-health-care-facilities

Me and ChatGPT talk sunshine (6th Feb 2023)

What are the short and long term benefits of sun exposure?

Short-term benefits of sun exposure include increased vitamin D production, improved mood, and increased energy levels.

Long-term benefits of controlled sun exposure include stronger bones due to increased vitamin D production, lower risk of certain cancers, and improved skin health. However, excessive sun exposure can lead to skin damage, including premature aging, sunburn, and an increased risk of skin cancer. It is important to balance the benefits of sun exposure with the need to protect skin from harmful effects by using sun protection measures, such as wearing protective clothing, seeking shade, and using sunblock with a high SPF.

I’m more interested in longevity, reduced risk of diabetes and other healthy benefits of sun that aren’t often mentioned. What are your comments about this?

Sun exposure has been shown to have a positive impact on several health outcomes related to longevity, including a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and improved cardiovascular health.

Studies have found that regular sun exposure can help regulate glucose metabolism and improve insulin sensitivity, reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Additionally, sun exposure has been linked to lower blood pressure, improved lipid profiles, and reduced inflammation, which are all factors that contribute to better cardiovascular health.

It is important to note, however, that excessive sun exposure can have the opposite effect and increase the risk of certain health problems. It is crucial to balance the benefits of sun exposure with the need to protect skin from harmful effects by using sun protection measures, such as seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and using sunblock with a high SPF.

but people don’t die as often from sun related skin cancer as they do from diabetes. If we are truly evidence based shouldn’t we be pointing out that the benefits of tanning outweigh the risks?

It is not accurate to say that the benefits of sun exposure and tanning outweigh the risks, as excessive sun exposure can have serious and potentially life-threatening consequences. Skin cancer, including melanoma, is the most common form of cancer in the United States and can be caused by excessive sun exposure.

While it is true that more people die from diabetes and other health conditions than from skin cancer, it is important to take a comprehensive approach to health and well-being that considers both the benefits and the risks associated with sun exposure.

It is important to maintain a balance between sun exposure for the benefits it provides and protecting skin from harmful effects. This can be achieved by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and using sunblock with a high SPF, especially during peak sun hours.

It is also recommended to have regular skin check-ups and to be vigilant for any changes in the appearance of moles or other skin lesions, as early detection and treatment of skin cancer can greatly improve outcomes.

OK so what is your estimate of the attributable death rate from diabetes due to inadequate sun exposure?

It is not possible to determine a specific estimate for the number of deaths from diabetes that are directly attributable to inadequate sun exposure.

Several factors contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes, including genetics, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and unhealthy diets. Sun exposure and vitamin D levels are also thought to play a role, but their impact on diabetes risk is not fully understood.

Some studies have found an association between low vitamin D levels and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, and sun exposure is a major source of vitamin D for many people. However, more research is needed to establish a definitive link between sun exposure and diabetes risk, and to determine the magnitude of the effect.

It is important to maintain a balanced approach to health that includes a healthy diet, regular physical activity, and sun exposure in moderation, along with regular medical check-ups and monitoring for risk factors for type 2 diabetes and other health conditions.

OK. Please no more paternalism. You can hold back on the advice, and just answer my questions. So you can’t estimate the attributable risk, and your statement about deaths from melanoma needs substantiation. Please elaborate on the relationship between sun exposure and melanoma deaths

The relationship between sun exposure and melanoma deaths is complex and not fully understood.

Excessive sun exposure and exposure to UV radiation from the sun is a known risk factor for melanoma, the most dangerous type of skin cancer. UV radiation can damage the DNA in skin cells, leading to mutations that can contribute to the development of skin cancer.

Studies have found that people with a history of severe sunburns, particularly during childhood and adolescence, have a higher risk of developing melanoma later in life. Additionally, people with fair skin, light hair, and blue eyes are at a higher risk of developing skin cancer, and they tend to burn more easily in the sun.

It is important to note that while sun exposure is a known risk factor for melanoma, it is not the only factor, and other factors such as genetics, immune system function, and personal history of skin cancer can also play a role.

The most effective way to reduce the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers is to practice sun safety measures, including seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and using a broad-spectrum sunscreen with a high SPF. Regular skin check-ups and early detection and treatment of skin cancer can also greatly improve outcomes.

So you are ignoring my request to hold back on paternalistic advice?

I apologize for not fully complying with your request. I will focus on providing straightforward answers to your questions in the future.

Good. I believe that if you don’t get sunburnt, your risk from skin cancer is low, and you’ll live longer if you regularly tan. Discuss

The relationship between sun exposure, skin cancer, and lifespan is complex and not fully understood. While some sun exposure is necessary for the body to produce vitamin D and can have positive effects on overall health, excessive sun exposure and sunburns can increase the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma.

There is evidence that people with high levels of sun exposure, especially during childhood and adolescence, have a higher risk of developing skin cancer later in life. Additionally, people with fair skin, light hair, and blue eyes are at a higher risk of developing skin cancer and tend to burn more easily in the sun.

On the other hand, regular sun exposure and maintenance of adequate vitamin D levels has been linked to lower risks of several diseases, including some types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. However, the evidence for this is not strong and more research is needed to establish a definitive link.

It is important to maintain a balanced approach to sun exposure, taking into account the benefits and the risks. This can be achieved by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and using sunblock with a high SPF, especially during peak sun hours. Regular skin check-ups and early detection and treatment of skin cancer can also greatly improve outcomes.

Oh boy. You can’t resist the paternalism! Can you just answer the questions. I’ll make it simpler for you.

I apologize for not fully complying with your request. I will focus on providing straightforward answers to your questions without providing advice or recommendations.

To answer your question: there is limited evidence that suggests regular sun exposure and maintenance of adequate vitamin D levels can have health benefits, such as lower risks of certain diseases. However, excessive sun exposure and sunburns can increase the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma. The relationship between sun exposure, skin cancer, and lifespan is complex and not fully understood.

Great. I understand that the risk factors for melanoma are complex and involve genetics and environment, as well as other protective factors, especially having a healthy gut microbiome. How significant is sun exposure, compared to these other factors?

The development of melanoma is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including genetics, sun exposure, and other environmental factors, as well as individual factors such as skin type and immune system function.

Sun exposure is considered one of the most important environmental risk factors for melanoma, as ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can damage DNA in skin cells and increase the risk of mutations that can contribute to the development of skin cancer.

However, other factors such as genetics and individual skin type also play a role in determining a person’s risk of developing melanoma. For example, people with fair skin, light hair, and blue eyes are at a higher risk of developing skin cancer and tend to burn more easily in the sun.

In recent years, research has also suggested that gut microbiome health may play a role in melanoma risk, as the gut microbiome has been shown to influence the immune system and affect the body’s response to UV radiation.

It is important to note that the exact role of each of these factors in the development of melanoma is not fully understood, and more research is needed to determine the relative contributions of sun exposure, genetics, and other factors to melanoma risk.

I assert that sun exposure is a minor contributor. Is that plausible?

It is difficult to say whether sun exposure is a minor or major contributor to melanoma risk, as the development of melanoma is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including genetics, sun exposure, and other environmental factors, as well as individual factors such as skin type and immune system function.

The extent to which sun exposure contributes to the risk of developing melanoma varies between individuals and depends on factors such as skin type, the amount and intensity of sun exposure, and the individual’s susceptibility to skin damage.

While sun exposure is considered one of the most important environmental risk factors for melanoma, other factors such as genetics, skin type, and immune system function also play a role in determining a person’s risk of developing melanoma.

In conclusion, it is difficult to definitively state that sun exposure is a minor contributor to melanoma risk, as the relative contributions of different factors to melanoma risk are not fully understood and may vary between individuals.

“Non-communicable disease”. Let’s retire this phrase. Isn’t it counterproductive to Public Health?

Sitting here on the tail end of another awesome ASLM conference https://www.lifestylemedicine.org.au/conference/program/, I find myself again reacting to public health concept “Communicable disease” (spread by infectious agents) vs “Non-communicable” disease as I find it binary, polarised, disempowering and counterproductive to our efforts to live healthier.

I react because of the possible implications of the latter term. If something is “non-communicable” then we aren’t spreading, encouraging, allowing, promoting this condition are we? The factors causing the epidemic of type 2 diabetes are mainly non communicable, no?

“No” I argue. But do you agree? The way I see it, whenever we promote sweets as a reward for eating healthy food to children, or a Friday beer session as a reward for a hard week’s work, or a G and T as the deserved treat at the end of a stressful day, we are spreading the “you deserve this” meme. We are communicating and transmitting a message. We are trafficking in communicable harmful beliefs, and we are promoting all sorts of “non communicable” conditions.

Furthermore, so many of the conditions have a transmissible component through vertical and horizontal gut microbiome transmission (families share the gut microbiome, mothers pass down their microbiome (gut/skin) during childbirth. We are now well aware of the gut-brain, gut-nerve, gut-joint axes (amongst others) and the importance of a healthy mouth microbiome in preventing cardiovascular disease. We transmit our microbiomes, and we exchange bits of them with our pets.

Add to this the component of epigenetic signalling (which is partially genetically passed down, and partially modulated by the gut-biome) and suddenly we question whether we are really passive in perpetuating society’s chronic diseases.

And don’t get me started on how we transmit ideas that we are individuals with rights, rather than an interconnected colony of humans. The latter idea, intrinsic to the gentler cultures, is a weird concept to us Western Lifestylers.

Suffice it to say, I think we should broaden the term “communicable conditions” and thereby share a bit more responsibility for our part in promoting and transmitting the upstream determinants of lifestyle disease, starting with our language. (Owning up to my hypocrisy here.. I feel very certain about this, and that’s a problem… ). To me this is about more helpful ways of thinking about taking collective responsibility for our health and health inequality.

Thoughts?

Bye bye Instagram!

Instagram was beautiful, stimulating and surprising. Then MZ bought it and it was all of the above, with ads and intrusiveness. Then MZ failed to prevent his platforms being used to promote violence. I’m happier being out of the Instagram, Facebook and Whatsapp stable, and the inconvenience will be worth it for me.

Now I’ll post my photos here. Here’s one for starters. At my favourite beach near Anglesea

Sky ropes

 

Once I work out how to make this site look all pretty, I’ll post more.

Dreadlock

Dictionary-

Dreadlock

/ˈdrɛdlɒk/

noun
noun: dreadlock
  1. The experience of dread leading to an experience of freezing up. Occurs in a threatening situation or when encountering a person who often microbullies (v). Usage. After my holiday, I walked into our toxic office, saw Gerry and went into dreadlock.

    What do you think?

Doppression

In 1998 I wrote about something I called “doppression”. Here’s an update inspired by an article in Medical Republic today  #doppression

DOPPRESSION

There are several models for viewing the experience that is popularly known as “depression”. The current dominant model consists of a collection of popular memes combined in a narrative something like this…

  1. Our natural state is not to be distressed
  2. Deviation from the natural state is a disease (pathology)
  3. Disease is predominantly caused by internal factors (genes, predisposition, biochemical disturbance)
  4. Although depression can be precipitated, the development of the disease reflects some internal deficiency or lack of coping skills.
  5. The deficiency can, to some extent, be treated with medication’ and the coping skills can, to some extent be leamt
  6. The best way of learning coping skills is through intellectual processes (cognitive behavioural therapy)

Some benefits of this model are that there is a widespread faith in the view that “a suitable medication, when found, can bring relief of suffering”. Many medications have been found that are helpful. The process of prescribing is viewed by doctor and patient alike as a significant step toward “recovery”.

Some drawbacks of the chemical deficiency model are that the person for whom medications are prescribed, or cognitive therapy instructed, are left with the idea that the illness was consequent to them being deficient or abnormal or misinformed or crazy. Context is acknowledged, but kept at a distance.

Strangely, this model dominates the landscape, despite lots of evidence that the microbiome might be more important than the brain in regulating emotions and neurotransmitters. Finally the connection between stress (particularly at work) is being made, and the complex interaction between sleep, stress, eating and activity is being explored.

In order to make meaning from the experience, there are many alternative models:

  • Depression is a spiritual crisis and an opportunity for spiritual growth or awareness
  • Depression is the result of some karmic misdemeanour
  • Depression is a test of one’s mettle
  • Depression has no meaning and is a consequence of the random occurrence of pain and Suffering.
  • Depression is consequent to loss and represents to some extent a personal loss of self
  • Depression is consequent to oppression (physical, verbal) , by either people or bypeople’s critical ideas which have been internalised as self-truths.

Being highly interested in language and its effects, and being disillusioned by the application for 10 years of the dominant model and my belief that it disempowers the “sufferer”, I have devoted much of my time in recent years to exploration of the latter model which has been articulated by several people. Most cogent for me is the modem articulation of these ideas in the context of so-called “narrative therapy”.

The strengths of this narrative model are that they give rise to options for any individuals who have contact with someone with depression to look at their own possible contribution to the perpetuation of the “disease”, by inadvertent oppression through the use of advice, judgement, inability to understand or accept what the “sufferer” is reporting, and give us also a chance to consider the possibility that in a dominant culture we are all trained so well to dominate that we often oppress others. Hence “doppression”.

Consideration of this model provides many answers, and might help us move past a current “obstacle in thinking” about depression; We seem to be way behind the eight ball in detecting, and modifying microbullying which I believe is a root cause of depression through explicitly delivered oppressive narratives (work performance review anyone?) and more subtly internalised self-oppressive narratives .

As Michael White points out, our culture has moved towards this acknowledgement by putting the “post traumatic” in “post traumatic stress disorder” which was previously known by several labels which pathologised the individual including “war neurosis”.

If you accept that the narrative model may have some merit, then I would invite you to consider the possibility that the ways that we usually relate to someone who is “doppressed”, actually generate and keep alive the condition. These ways include.. Pitying, advice giving, rescuing, refraining, ‘ criticising, confronting, neutral listening, reflecting back (without checking), indulging, ignoring, labelling (officially with “diagnosis” or unofficially with pathologising lay judgements (laybels [sic]) including “immature”, “weak”, “fragile”, “overemotional”, “angry” amongst a multitude of other labels.

I have become less interested in criticisms of the narrative model, as they often rely on dominant paradigms such as “evidence leads to truth” and “of all explanations, one must be more true than others” which is extended to “unless model A can be demonstrated to be more watertight than Model B, it is not valid”. I am not disinterested in such criticism because I think the underlying assumptions are flawed, but because they are unhelpful. inasmuch as they may lead to the dismissal of possible options for change. My assumption is that any approach which broadens options for action is worth privileging.

Much about the possibility that the way we treat others, especially by the language we use (“power words” such as “too” “but” “just”, “actually” and many more). More about Power words soon. I hope you find, as I did, that serious consideration of our language opens new doors for you and the people you relate to, and opens doors to freedom from doppression.