The Geeky Atheist

Over the weekend, I saw numerous reports of swine flu mixed with the word pandemic. Obviously this would make anyone concerned -- a pandemic is not a fun thing. There are a few elements to this story, but let me lead in with this article from Geeks are Sexy:

So what's the take away message from all of this? Can we do anything about this? Well as individuals it's wise to go through the same sanitary practices as we might during flu season. Also, traveling to places which have reported cases probably isn't a great idea. Governments and regulatory bodies like the CDC and the WHO are in an "all hands on deck" kind of status right now. As the outbreaks continue (they are expected to grow for at least the time being), these groups will be tracking any reported cases and trying to treat those infected.

As a young microbiologist, I'd say that for the moment we shouldn't worry too much. There are people who have spent their whole lives preparing for just these kinds of events and they're currently working very hard to provide the public with the best information and advice.

This is the best, most sane article I've seen about this "pandemic." It goes into more about the flu and what's special about swine flu (and avian flu for that matter).

On the other point, the rest of the outrage is over a large portion of the republican party griping about money in the stimulus package for two things: volcano monitoring and pandemic preparedness. While I do think that these were programs that were more worth funding than some of the other things they were griping about, it's not a, "republicans did it" thing. Let's look at a few other facts to consider.

The CDC recommends the use of oseltamivir or zanamivir for the treatment and/or prevention of swine flu viruses.

In 2005 George W. Bush said the federal government would spend $1 billion to buy enough of antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza to treat 50 million people. However, the plan also calls on states -- with some unspecified federal subsidies -- to buy enough to cover an additional 31 million people. That could cost hard-pressed state governments hundreds of millions of dollars.

Tamiflu is the marketed name for oseltamivir, and Relenza is the marketed name for zanamivir.

With this, it would appear that the sole reason we have a stockpile of these drugs that are going to potentially prove very useful in the coming month or two is because of a republican president.

I hope that this doesn't go pandemic. With reported cases literally 45 miles from me, it's certainly a bit too close to home. But after reading up on the subject, I think we're still a little too far away from pandemic levels to be giving into panic. As the other article recommended, wash your hands more frequently and be a little more cautious, and most likely you'll be fine.

As a medically obese person, I've struggled with weight loss. None of the diets really made sense, and even though I lost 45 pounds on Atkins, I never understood why, and it bugged me. There were theories, but I hadn't ever seen a strong study show why the diet actually does work for people.

My current hypothesis with one data point (myself) is that Atkins counting carbs wasn't right, and that "ketosis" wasn't the key, but rather it was all about keeping your blood sugar levels steady throughout the day. This happens to mirror Atkins quite well, but with the side effect that you look at glycemic load instead of net carbs.

Today I noticed a news report Factors Other Than Genes Could Cause Obesity, Insulin Study Shows. Reading through it, it shows a strong correlation with what my hypothesis was.

Findings indicate that the faster a cell processes insulin, the more fat it stores.

Other researchers have suggested that certain "fat genes" might be associated with excessive fat storage in cells. However, the Purdue researchers confirmed that these fat genes were expressed, or activated, in all of the cells, yet those cells varied drastically - from nearly zero in some cases to pervasive in others - in how much fat they stored.

Combine this with the existing knowledge of how we regulate insulin in the body: we reduce "simple" carbohydrates by limiting intake of high-glycemic foods.

As I've been starting back up my quest of removing high-glycemic foods partly for health and partly for weight loss, I'm happy to see studies coming out lining up with my suspicions about being healthy and losing weight.

This was a point I struggled with as I started becoming more skeptical of things, and more trusting of science and medicine. Where do you draw the line of what to be skeptical about? All along I knew that Atkins worked better for me than a specifically low-calorie diet did, and no one could explain why. If I were to trust established science which hadn't really researched this as much as you are to led to assume, why didn't it work for most people (referring to many studies referenced in Rethinking Thin and Good Calories, Bad Calories)?

Anecdotal evidence is some of the worst evidence, and so while I was trusting of my hunches, I'm glad to see scientists investigating this further.