"Whether I engaged with health ministers or community health workers, I found an equal commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS – because “no” is no longer an option. "
"Access to the app enforces a person's freedom to pursue their own interest according to their own free will without interference from outside interests."
"This and other recent cases shine a light on the need for regulation that goes beyond ensuring hygienic environments in sperm banks."
" [...] Dr. Ren has operated on hundreds of animals in his research."
"[...] this is the first federal bill to emerge in the recent years."
"The FDA investigation found several violations of research regulations, including falsified documents and poor record-keeping regarding case histories, as well as violations of protocol [...]"
"Private-public partnerships need to be made a cornerstone of our society, especially within health."
"[...] many seniors prefer it to painkillers and sleeping drugs [...]"
"[...] attacks on physical health institutions discourage patients from seeking care and professionals from working to provide that care [...]"
Good philosophers must be friends you see, as they love the same things in their heart.
Overcome by amazement and curiosity, it’s hard to know just where to start.
They want to know how, and what and why on the most general possible scale.
But any answer they hear, they’re likely to sneer, and try really hard to derail.
You have to be careful from what thoughts you begin, as they often show where you’ll end up.
Whether you point up or down, make sure your argument’s sound, and don’t mix your word meanings up.
Start from what’s obviously true, like one plus one equals two, then go where no one can follow.
If you need turtles big and round, all the way down, your ideas will sound bloated and hollow.
Epicycle on epicycle, please don’t act all like you’ll, never say anything ad hoc.
Try as you might, if you just want to sound right, do us a favor—just stop!
Now not just any thinkers become friends, but good thinkers make amends, when they acknowledge mutually.
That this world is a puzzle, it will bamboozle and fuzzle, with confounding absurdity.
Your assumptions and mine, happens all the time, lack internal consistency.
But…I’ve really enjoyed this, and I hope you have too, maybe on that at least we agree.
Are we angels or apes, oh…let’s decide later…
But whichever, I’m glad you’re one with me.
"[...] people with mental disorders are most commonly excluded from the possibility of accessing PAD under the pretense that their request may be symptomatic or their mental competence is to be questioned."
"[...] bring to attention the effect of science on human physical and mental health."
"[...] it must decide which standards and regulations to maintain or risk taking a huge step backward."
"When we see such a strong correlation with gun deaths we must ask, can we do more?"
"...it is clear that wholly ineffective, sweeping methods of disease prevention . . . are both unwarranted and unethical in combating the spread of Zika."
"Although we have made leaps and bounds to address and treat HIV, the virus and its counterpart disease AIDS should not be taken lightly."
Humans have been genetically modifying organisms for thousands of years. Through selective breeding, the genetic makeup of crops has been altered to provide more desirable traits. As our understanding of genes progressed, so did our capability to alter plant genomes. Biologists created disease resistant and higher-yield crops genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in an attempt to develop a greater, more economically friendly food supply (Forbes). The most popularly known example of this success is the Vitamin-A enriched golden rice, which many believed would be the solution to global malnutrition issues at the start of the 21st century.
However, these alterations caused a great deal of controversy as their complexity increased. Many feared the newly labeled “frankenfoods,” and demanded investigations into their effects on environmental and personal health. As public fear held strong, multiple government institutions, including the FDA and National Academy of Science, launched extensive studies. After collecting data across multiple years, it was unanimously concluded that GMOs are completely safe for consumption (New York Times).
Even after the publication of many studies backing these conclusions, some Americans believe in further control of GMOs. Recently, many anti-GMO groups including “Right to Know” are demanding special labels on genetically modified foods. The group’s name truly states their demands. They believe that Americans have the right to know if their food has been genetically modified in any way, as they still believe GMOs can be harmful to personal health (GMO Awareness Site).
There is a plethora of reasons why this movement has no place in American politics. To begin, essentially all food has been genetically modified at some point in time. Even legally labeled “organic” foods have undergone some form of artificial selection to produce a greater crop yield or other desirable phenotypic traits. This alteration is genetic modification in and of itself. By labeling all genetically modified foods as such, essentially every fruit and vegetable, “organic” or not, is a GMO.
Additionally, forcing food companies to change labels is nonsensical in both economic and simple logical terms. The passage of such legislature is a senseless economic burden for both companies and the government. By using disease resistant and high-yield crops, companies are undoubtedly going to achieve greater economic success than those who use unmodified crops. Food distributors would need to redesign and print new labels, which is an unfair punishment for using inherently better business practices. Furthermore, whatever government body in charge of enforcing these new laws would need to expand, costing taxpayers more money or shifting funds from one agency to the aforementioned. Both of these resulting changes are completely unnecessary, as they would be performed all to enforce a law that serves no genuine purpose.
In conclusion, GMOs represent the future of food production. They pose no threat to personal health and only provide the global population with the potential for better diet and reduced hunger. Labeling genetically modified foods is completely nonsensical and provides no benefit to the American consumer.
The New York Times. Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Fins. May 17 2016.
GMO Awareness. Anti-GMO Groups in The United States. Web
FDA. Food from Genetically Engineered Plants. Web
Alison Van Eenennaam. The Journal of Animal Science. (Article unavailable online until October 1st, 2016)
Forbes. The Debate About GMO Safety is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion-Meal Study. Web
For a comprehensive list of many GMO related studies, please visit the following website: http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=52&autotry=true&ULnotkn=true
After the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, blood banks from the surrounding areas put out a call for donors. Gay men were ready and willing to donate but were unable to unless they were celibate for the 12 previous months because of a ban imposed by FDA. For some time now, gay rights activists have argued that the ban perpetuates the stigma of being gay. The largest mass shooting in the United States brought attention to the topic and some felt that it added “insult to this nightmare” (Mcneil, 2016).
The FDA holds that their restriction is based on science and that the policy is the same in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK (Firger, 2016). The FDA also estimates that currently, 1 in 1.5 million blood donations transmits HIV to a recipient and that removing the ban would change this to one in 375,000 donations. The window period for transmission, or when a test will give an accurate result, of HIV is nine to eleven days, but this is for a typical patient and under the most exhaustive testing (Mcneil, 2016). Gay rights advocates argue that much more blood would be available if those who are in monogamous relations, take drugs to prevent HIV transmission, and always use condoms were allowed to donate (Firger, 2016). They maintain that the risks of infection would be low enough to be acceptable if combined with testing, and that the risks would be considerably more acceptable during a crisis like the Orlando shooting.
Firger, Jessica. "WILL THE FDA’S POLICY ON BLOOD DONATION FROM GAY MEN CHANGE AFTER THE ORLANDO MASSACRE?" Newsweek. Accessed June 24, 2016. http://www.newsweek.com/orlando-massacre-fda-blood-donation-ban-gay-men-470226.
Mcneil, Donald G. "Orlando Shooting Renews Debate Over Limits on Gay Men Donating Blood." The New York Times. 2016. Accessed June 25, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/health/orlando-shooting-renews-debate-over-limits-on-gay-men-donating-blood.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health.
Over the course of the previous months, sweeping changes have been brought upon EMS protocols across the nation regarding spinal immobilization. Backboards, which have been thought to be key components in the protection of an injured patient’s nervous system, are slowly being removed from the world of first response. Our understanding of this form of spinal immobilization has been altered significantly, as multiple studies show that these devices pose more harm to a patient than benefit.
The typical image of a motor vehicle accident is a mangled car coupled with a patient restrained to a backboard, head between bright-orange blocks, with his neck secured with a cervical collar. This may become an illustration of the past, as new protocols state that only cervical collars are necessary to protect a patient’s spinal cord.
This massive change should be very beneficial to patients in the future. The abandonment of “backboarding” should produce shorter transport time to hospitals, diminish spinal injuries, and provide a much more comfortable experience for a patient in transport.
For further information regarding these policy changes as well as some of the research behind them, please refer to the following sources.
Research Suggests Time for Change in Prehospital Spinal Immobilization. Journal of EMS. 2013
The North Carolina Office of EMS. Protocols: Selective Spinal Motion Restriction.
Patients Immobilized with a Long Spine Board Rarely Have Unstable Thoracolumbar Injuries
Brian M. Clemency , Joseph A. Bart , Abhigyan Malhotra , Taylor Klun , Veronica Campanella , Heather A. Lindstrom
Prehospital Emergency Care
Vol. 20, Iss. 2, 2016