Basically, no controlled studies have been done on HRT. They are sure it eases hot flashes, and based on years of using regular women as guinea pigs, they have determined it prevents some bone loss. Other than that, there's no proof of any of it's supposed benefits:
The main lesson from this turnaround is the importance of conducting clinical trials of medical treatments whenever feasible. Most of the evidence suggesting wide benefits from hormone replacement therapy came from observational studies, in which large numbers of women were followed for years, and those who chose hormone therapy were compared with those who did not. But such studies have an inherent weakness. One can never be sure that the women who choose a treatment and stick with it are not inherently healthier than those who shun the treatment. NYTimes [requires registration]
Many claims of safety, benefit and danger of drugs and therapies are not based on controlled studies at all. Soy is being pushed on women now as a sort of natural HRT, but in fact may depress thyroid function as well as production of androgens which help spur natural hormone production in women's bodies.
I'm all for alternative therapies being out there, and I really don't want to see natural supplements pulled off the market, but maybe we should question the labeling of these things. Most supplements simply say what they contain and make no claims at all. As far as I know, the is the FDA standard. Lately, I've been seeing a lot of soy supplements or isoflavones in pill form that make direct beneficial claims right on the jar. Who, exactly, is claiming that we need to supplement our SOY intake?
I wish I could say that the pharmaceutical industry has done a better job researching benefits and dangers of HRT, but clearly they have not. Big pharma pushes half-assed prodcuts on us to get them to market with as much patent time as possible, and then the natural food industry tries to imitate their product...meanwhile neither product is being adequately tested but perversely winds up being touted as a MIRACLE BREAKTHROUGH.
I have my doubts that it's possible to do any long-term controlled studies on benefits or risks of drugs. Look at cigarettes, for instance. I know people will find this a regressive statement, but do we really know smoking is as dangerous as we are being told? Now a Swedish study that claims bread and potatoes are dangerous is going to be taken up by the WTO because the results are so disturbing. Bread and potatoes, people.
As far is smoking is concerned, how on EARTH do you isolate smoking as a cause of, say, heart disease in an individual eating a lousy diet? Why does the rest of the world smoke heavily and why does it not impact their death rate? Because they eat a different diet. Always, ALWAYS people end statements of health dangers with the statement "it's still less dangerous than smoking." How do they know?
We are told obesity is a major cause of death and disease in the U.S. We can look around and verify that one for ourselves. When an obese person dies of heart disease, the cause of death goes down as obesity. If that person happens to smoke, the cause of death goes down as smoking-related. What percentage of their risk is from smoking? We truly have no way of knowing because there is no way to separate out the Big-Mac-a-day risk from the smoking risk.
The same occurs with long term drug studies -- how can we know what the real dangers are? The moral of the story is that we all need to do our homework before we believe that anything being marketed towards us is actually safe.
7 miles hiked between 8:30am and noon
I woke up this morning feeling dehydrated, but I had a hard time getting any water down. The only thing that looked good for breakfast was a tomato cup-of-soup, so I went for that. Since it's only 70 calories though, it's just not enough. When I try to drink water, I have to force myself to swallow. With the food, I get hungry, then when I put the food in my mouth, I feel nauseated again and have to force myself to swallow...it's really awful. That bit with the food and water started yesterday before Laurel Creek Shelter. I tossed some of my dinner even, something I do very rarely.
I decided to go ahead and get started. This did not work out well as now that I was dehydrated and underfortified, I felt incredibly bad climbing the 2000' and one mile up to Lone Pine Peak. In fact, when I was within 50' of finishing, I had some chest pains (something which has not even come close to recurring, thank god) and extreme nausea...I couldn't get any water down at all. I gave up and called Tino to the rescue.
I didn't know if I would feel worse if I continued (but I suspected I would). I didn't know if the next time I had a moment THAT bad I would be somewhere with a cell phone signal and a road near by that was actually on my map and thus explainable to someone trying to find me with a car, so I bailed. If I had all the time in the world, I might have just taken a nap and rested there, and then camped for the night only 7 miles past War Spur at Bailey Gap, taking things very slowly until I felt better. As it was, I was on a schedule, and there was no way on earth I could make it 17 miles that day. I felt really, really bad.
I hiked back down the mountain a bit to the War Branch Trail...which then went back up to the altitude I'd just left, then remained flat (and very, very nice BTW) until it got to the Salt Sulphur Turnpike where there was a strange brown rangery looking box in the woods that from all appearances contained a camera. I knew there was a lake down the road, so I figured I'd walk toward that, and eventually Tino would find me. As it turns out, there is a very spendy resort on Mountain Lake. Had I known *that* I never would have called Tino at all. I would have gone down to the lodge and tried to bribe someone to drive me to Pearisburg. I sincerely wish I had known -- it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, damn it.
Anyway, I got pulled out and driven to Pearisburg where I attempted (mostly failed) to eat some lousy food at Pizza Hut. Eventually I got home, and gradually recovered my ability to eat and drink over the next couple of days. As it turns out, it got very hot the day I left and the next day. This would have made me even sicker, so I think I made the right choice.
For the rest of my AT hiking season (which ends on July 4 and begins again after Labor Day) I will be traveling north. Last June in this area, I had a hard time with heat and low energy, thus I think I will attempt something new. Maybe I'll even complete Pennsylvania.
On an unrelated note, I took Tino to the Doyle after we had completed some car-related business in Harrisburg. It poured down rain, of course, just like last time I was in Duncannon. The Doyle's bar and restaurant is closed right now, as it turns out. They seem to be having some licensing trouble.
15.7 miles hiked between 8am and 7:15pm
Today I finished the climb to the summit of Sinking Creek Mountain (about 400'), traversed that bumpy ridge full of slanting rocks, descended (steeply!) to Sinking Creek, crossed the John's Creek Valley (which was hilly), summited Kelly Knob and finished up at War Spur Shelter, which had a water source and setting much like Laurel Creek Shelter. It doesn't sound like that much, but it involved climbing 2600'.
It did not rain enough to make me sorry I left the shelter. Actually, it's raining right now. I might have opted for the shelter tonight (though I'd have no doubt been sorry because of the evil, ever-present mice), but it's full to overflowing.
Today was rough for me. The footing on Sinking Creek Mountain was awful, but the goats were cool. They aren't wild mountain goats, they are feral goats that have survived quite well on this mountain for at least a decade. I was jealous of their ability to move on the slanted rocks of doom. They seem to have no fear of people. I saw a male lounging on a rock, and then a female trotted up to join him. Worse than that, I kept clambering over rocks and tearing up my legs on brambles only to find that I'd lost the trail...again.
Note to ATC: There are not enough blazes for Southbounders on this mountain. I thought the default direction of the trail was SOUTH!?
After Sinking Creek Mountain, I had lunch in the open field on the other slope of the Sinking Creek Valley with gorgeous views. After that, I started to feel really lousy -- nauseated and abnormally tired. I'm even a bit nauseated right now. It sucks, and I sincerely hope I feel better tomorrow. I felt...off yesterday, but nowhere near as bad as I felt today.
I ate dinner at Laurel Creek Shelter (I eat early) and then I hiked here. Kelly Knob has an incredible view, but w/o a panoramic camera, I didn't think I could capture it.
Man, am I tired. And I'll be packing a wet tent tomorrow too. I can hardly wait.
11.3 miles hiked between 1pm and 7:30pm
Why is this always harder than I remember? Always.
Today I hiked from Trout Creek, VA 620, where I left off last June, to a blue blaze near the top of Sinking Creek Mountain. This involved climbing 1575' and traversing Brush Mountain, past the Audie Murphy Monument (which is not very interesting, actually), descending into the Craig Creek Valley and then climbing another 1500' of Sinking Creek Mountain. I saw more thru-hikers than I expected, and I met quite a few people today including three section hikers.
It rained lightly off and on all day, and it's raining right now. I hope it's not raining in the morning. It's such a pain to break camp and pack up in the rain. It's also anti-motivational.
I stopped at Niday Shelter for dinner, so I have nothing to do but sleep. I hope the weather doesn't make me sorry I didn't just stay at Niday, but I really like the idea of having most of the climb out of the way. I don't perform very well until afternoon, for whatever reason.
In the wake of the 9-11 attack, I have developed a taste for conspiracy theory. First of all, I find that seeing alternative views, even if they are totally whack, brings me into contact with media that I would not otherwise see. I think it's healthy to consider everything. At least it makes me feel better. YMMV and all that.
Without further ado, here are my favorite 9-11 conspiracy theories, ranked in a sort of order:
The Rense site is...interesting. It looks like the owner is rational until you see the home page with all the flying saucer stuff.
Indymedia is notoriously left-wing and sometimes poorly researched. There are a lot of wacko things on here, I trust that's in the interest of being open to "all voices." This does, however, leave us to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Per Matt Lebash in The Daily Standard:
After such an excursion, one can see Chief Ramsey's point, that automated enforcement frees up police to carry out other important tasks, such as going on cable television to talk about how they've had no breaks in the Chandra Levy case.
Apparently, the red light cameras in DC are not the great hope for traffic safety in the future. It appears they are instead a revenue generation tool. I know I'm shocked and appalled.
Later on, in reference to DCs cameras: Not a single one of the city's 19 cameras was operating at one of its highest-accident sites. That about sums it up for me.
Posted by nicole at 09:22 PMBush calls terror relative by exempting Arafat from the "war on terror." This is exactly the wrong thing to do, as it further supports the idea that suicide bombings are an acceptable method of conflict resolution.
He is so, so wrong to do this. I can't wait to see him get ripped a new one by the pundits.
Posted by nicole at 12:46 PMDamian Penny: People look at the conflict in the Middle East, see a well-financed Israeli army with considerably more powerful weaponry than their poorer Palestinian opponents, and conclude that the Israelis must be the oppressors.
He goes on to say some more interesting things.
Per Ken Layne:
But you people made a very serious mistake: you thought Americans (and Israeli doves) would be charmed by your suicide bombers. Well, buddy, not only were we not charmed, we're still digging up bodies from the suicide-bomber attacks against our nation. And we remember the happy Palestinians dancing in the streets on Sept. 11.
This is actually a response to a mailbag item, which is also worth reading.
Michael Gove in The Times of London: Qualified optimism in Afghanistan and Iraq should not, however, detract from the pessimism one must feel when surveying the real front line in the West’s war. For Terrorism is winning in the Middle East.
Some people feel that the suicide bombers are the problem -- if the Palenstinians are taken seriously, they will get the message that it works to do this. Everyone agrees this would be a disaster, not just for right now, but for all time.
Thomas Friedman in the NY Times (requires free registration):Have you ever heard Mr. Arafat talk about what sort of education system or economy he would prefer, what sort of constitution he wants? No, because Mr. Arafat is not interested in the content of a Palestinian state, only the contours.
No one will give up Jerusalem...like I said yesterday.
James Taranto in Opinion Journal: It's hard to see how Israel is supposed to find a "political solution" with the Palestinian Authority, which, if the reports coming out of Ramallah are to be believed, is little more than a vast criminal enterprise.
The great thing about Taranto is that I almost always disagree with *him* because he blindly supports the president with no seeming application of logic. Yesterday, he finally found some disagreement with Bush.
We have to help Israel. It's more important to do it now than it ever has been. All the money we've poured into their defense over the years could be justified if it helps us actually end the lunacy perpetrated by Muslim fanatics.
Posted by nicole at 09:08 AMI would receive a payment for No. 534 based on his carcass weight, plus a premium if he earned a U.S.D.A. grade of choice or prime. ''And if you're worried about the cattle market,'' Rich said jokingly, referring to its post-Sept. 11 slide, ''I can sell you an option too.'' Option insurance has become increasingly popular among cattlemen in the wake of mad-cow and foot-and-mouth disease.
New York Times Magazine (requires free registration).
This is what commodity trading was created to do. It is also why we don't need subsidies going to farmers, when they know how to work the hedging system.
Intensive farming practices are screwing up our food and using up too many resources. Later in the article, the author points this out:
Corn is a mainstay of livestock diets because there is no other feed quite as cheap or plentiful: thanks to federal subsidies and ever-growing surpluses, the price of corn ($2.25 a bushel) is 50 cents less than the cost of growing it.
We should be paying the true cost for meat, but we should also be getting grass-fed beef instead of the engineered crap we get these days. It's not as if beef is the only thing that's been screwed up in food, goodness knows, but I hope a whole bunch of people read that article. If there were demand for grass-fed beef, maybe it wouldn't be the exception rather than the norm.
"It's important for Israel to understand that," Bush said. "They've signed onto the Tenet agreement, they've signed onto the Mitchell plan, and that is the pathway to peace."
What? Is he kidding? What makes Bush think there can ever be peace in the Middle East based on some negotiated piece of paper? He actually seems to think Arafat is *controlling* these suicide bombers. Does anyone else actually think that? I'm sure Sharon is aware that Arafat has no actual control over these people, and I think our government knows it too. Why the hell are we cutting Arafat any slack and expecting Sharon to stick to a peace plan that requires him to bend over for Palestinians?
I am absolutely disgusted at Bush. Let's pretend for a minute that there was a suicide bombing on Good Friday at a church basement prayer meeting and 20 people were killed and 150 injured. Let's also imagine that the incident was claimed by a terror group that we could locate. Do you think for one second that the headquarters of that terror group would be anything but a smoking crater by now? Do you think we'd make any pretense of NOT trying to kill the leader of that terror group? How does his behavior not contradict the stated reason for everything we are doing in Afghanistan?
Neither side will give up Jerusalem based on a "peace plan" invented by the west and merely enforced by a piece of paper. Until one side lies in bloody ruins with their spirit completely broken, there will be no peace in the Middle East. One side must, for once and for all, DECISIVELY LOSE the battle.
Some say that war never solves anything, but those people are completely ignoring precedents set in the 20th century. This is exactly what we did with the Germans and the Japanese -- we absolutely crushed their sick cultures that wanted everyone-not-them dead or enslaved. Now the Germans and the Japanese are our allies.
Innocent Israelis are being killed every day because it doesn't fit with our plans for the Middle East. We would never tolerate this if it were happening to Americans, so why are we not openly helping the Israelis destroy terrorists? Why are those terrorists less evil than the ones we seek to destroy? Our president's Middle Eastern "policy" is a disaster of hypocrisy. I did verbally support Bush for a while, and I do think that Rumsfeld and Franks are doing a good job with the war, but I'm done going easy on our moronic president.
Gee, that's two days in a row I've harshly criticized the government. Good thing I don't have a big audience, or I'd probably be in jail.