Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) is often recommended for women of a certain age.
While many of the side-effects continue to be screened, I am not sure that a particular side-effect that I have noticed is on any medical researcher's radar:
Some women become progressively shorter and lighter in weight.
What proportion of women who take HRT have this side-effect?
With what other side-effects is that linked?
Are there better ways of tackling the issues of ageing for women?
And why is it that Indian women of the same age-level never suffered the symptoms for which HRT is recommended?
Or did that apply to all women from non-industrial societies?
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Monday, 14 December 2009
Climate Skeptics versus the "Scientific Consensus"
The best summary of these opposing views is at:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhh534j
[Open in new window]
It is clear that there is much to be said on both sides. The truth may lie somewhere between these extremes of opinion. Perhaps human actions have made only a marginal difference and will make only a marginal difference.
So why do I eventually line up with the "Scientific Consensus"?
Because if the Skeptics are right, we need to do nothing - and nothing we do can possibly affect the outcome - which will be benign or devastating for reasons outside our control. The Skeptics are modern fatalists. Whatever will be will be.
The "Scientific Consensus" may or may not turn out to be right. No one knows. There are many imponderables. But at least these Consensus guys are not fatalists. They tell me that my actions, or at least OUR actions as a human race, have made a difference in the past and can make a difference in the future.
Even if they are more wrong than the Skeptics, I would prefer to cast my lot with the Consensus because at least then I will have done the right things in terms of environmental care, even if the actions concerned make very little difference to the eventual outcome.
The question is not what effect our actions might or might not have. The question is: what is the right thing to do. And the right thing to do is certainly to act in a manner that lines up with environmental responsibility.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhh534j
[Open in new window]
It is clear that there is much to be said on both sides. The truth may lie somewhere between these extremes of opinion. Perhaps human actions have made only a marginal difference and will make only a marginal difference.
So why do I eventually line up with the "Scientific Consensus"?
Because if the Skeptics are right, we need to do nothing - and nothing we do can possibly affect the outcome - which will be benign or devastating for reasons outside our control. The Skeptics are modern fatalists. Whatever will be will be.
The "Scientific Consensus" may or may not turn out to be right. No one knows. There are many imponderables. But at least these Consensus guys are not fatalists. They tell me that my actions, or at least OUR actions as a human race, have made a difference in the past and can make a difference in the future.
Even if they are more wrong than the Skeptics, I would prefer to cast my lot with the Consensus because at least then I will have done the right things in terms of environmental care, even if the actions concerned make very little difference to the eventual outcome.
The question is not what effect our actions might or might not have. The question is: what is the right thing to do. And the right thing to do is certainly to act in a manner that lines up with environmental responsibility.
Will the US "Healthcare Bill" inevitably lead to "death panels"?
I haven't seen the details of the drafts that are being bandied about.
However, a vigorous defense of the view that the Health Bill will inevitably lead to "death panels" is at: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybaf2ud
[Open in new window]
Among other points, the argument is that "deas have consequences and that the bills being put forward by Congress and the White House are founded on principles and paradigms that will, in time, lead to death panels just as surely as similar ideas led to the Holocaust in Germany during World War II and abortion on demand in the United States".
However, a vigorous defense of the view that the Health Bill will inevitably lead to "death panels" is at: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybaf2ud
[Open in new window]
Among other points, the argument is that "deas have consequences and that the bills being put forward by Congress and the White House are founded on principles and paradigms that will, in time, lead to death panels just as surely as similar ideas led to the Holocaust in Germany during World War II and abortion on demand in the United States".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)