The difficulty of being right

Conventional Wisdom2 This Kathryn Schulz/The Wrong Stuff blog post provides an insightful interview with clinical researcher Barry Marshall, the 2005 Nobel Prize winner who, along with colleague Robin Warren, proved that up to 90 percent of peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium and not by stress as medical “wisdom” had long held.

The entire interview is interesting, but the most fascinating part is where Dr. Marshall explains the difficulty of attempting to persuade the scientific establishment to abandon the conventional wisdom about ulcers even when he could provide clinical evidence that the conventional wisdom was wrong. As with much of the progress in medical research over the past 50 years, Marshall’s breakthrough in changing the conventional wisdom emanated from Houston:

When and how did you start to convince people?

Part of it had to do with David Graham, who was chief of medicine at [Baylor College of Medicine], in [Houston] Texas, and a thought leader in gastroenterology. Graham started off as a real skeptic but quickly turned around. To his credit, Graham never said that I was wrong. He said, "I don’t know, and I’m going to find out." And a couple of years later, he said, "I’ve checked it out and it looks pretty good, it looks like it could be true."

And then in 1993 or ’94, the NIH had a consensus conference, and Tachi Yamada summed it up. Yamada is currently the head of [the Global Health Program of] the Gates Foundation; he’s a very, very smart guy, and he said, "Looks like it’s proven: Bacteria cause ulcers, and everybody needs to start treating ulcers with antibiotics."

It was just like night and day after that. The whole thing just went ballistic.

So, why do we cling to conventional wisdom even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary? Is embracing the truth not as important as being comfortable with the beliefs – regardless of whether they are right — of what we want to be the truth or what those we live with believe is true? 

Answering the Obesity Paradox

skinny-fat-men On one hand, drinking even diet soft drinks causes higher risk of heart disease?:

A new US study has found that drinking more than one soft drink a day, whether regular or diet, may be linked to an increased risk of developing heart disease, via an increase in metabolic syndrome, a group of characteristics like excess girth, high blood pressure, and other factors that increase the chances of getting diabetes and cardiovascular problems.

But on the other hand, even though overweight people are at higher risk of heart attacks, patients with heart failure have lower mortality rates if they are obese:

[T]he “obesity paradox” among patients with heart failure. The paradox refers to the repeated finding that while overweight people are more prone to heart failure, patients with heart failure have lower mortality rates if they are obese. The reason for this paradox is far from clear, though Dr. Lavie suggested that one explanation could be that once people become ill, having more bodily “reserve” could be to their advantage.

My sense is that the obesity paradox is more the result of overweight people having more muscle mass. It’s not the excess fat that helps them recover from heart failure. It’s the muscle mass and strength.

As Art DeVany has been saying for years: “Muscle is medicine. Strength carries us effortlessly through life.” As we age, our workout routines should be tailored toward maintaining or increasing strength.

Riding a solid rocket booster

The camera that shot this video is mounted on one of the solid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle. The launch clock is in the upper left corner. The first couple of minutes is uneventful, but the rest of the seven minute video certainly is not. Enjoy!

The Rational Optimist

Following on this recent post, here is Matt Ridley’s TED lecture:

The MD Anderson – Anticancer Research Venture

mdanderson This David Agus/TEDlecture from awhile back emphasized the need for new ideas and approaches in cancer research.

Along those lines, David Servan-Schreiber in the video below announces that he has teamed up with Houstonís MD Anderson Cancer Center in a new research project aimed at enhancing and bolstering cancer research and care. Dr. Servan-Schreiberís website about the project is here.

Dr. Servan-Schreiber is the author of the best-selling book, Anticancer, A New Way of Life (Viking 2009). While serving as a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Servan-Schreiber underwent chemotherapy and surgery twice for brain cancer. After the second bout, Servan-Schreiber spent years researching a mass of scientific data on natural defenses against cancer. His book is the result of this experience and research.

As this Abigal Zuger/NY Times review notes, there is skepticism in the clinical research community regarding Servan-Schreiberís conclusions and recommendations. So, M.D. Andersonís interest in Servan-Schreiberís approach is somewhat surprising.

Nevertheless, as Dr. Agus notes in his TED lecture, perhaps Servan-Schreiberís ideas are the type that are needed to spur clinical research into better treatment protocols and innovative care procedures for cancer patients.

Underwater astonishments

David Galloís remarkable footage during his 2008 TED lecture.

De Vany on PED’s, Diet and Exercise

When you have a free hour, don’t miss Russ Roberts’ fascinating EconTalk interview of Clear Thinkers favorite Art De Vany.

Performance enhancing drugs resulted in new records in baseball?

Pure conjecture. More likely the records are simply the result of outliers.

The more exercise, the better?

Nope. Intensity and randomness is the key to an effective exercise regimen. Forget the jogging.

We’re healthier than our ancestors?

Not really, unless you’re fasting frequently and controlling your insulin levels.

Provocative stuff. Don’t miss it.

A stroke of insight

This is one of the most fascinating TED lectures. Brain researcher Jill Bolte Taylor describes the experience of having a stroke.

Update: Interestingly, a number of neuroscientists believe that Bolte Taylor’s lecture is misleading. See here and here.

The epic story of technology

Publisher of the Whole Earth Review and former Wired executive editor Kevin Kelly weaves the fascinating tale.