Therefor, all men are Socrates

This rant is a reaction to an item on The Current, an excellent show on CBC radio. I am dumbstruck by the strange  reasoning by an MD who otherwise makes good sense.
Those so inclined can listen to the segment here. When possible, always go the source.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/02/06/dr-agus-with-a-cure-to-end-illness/

Dr. Agus is an oncologist who wants to see more emphasis on preventative medicine. 
All in favor. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that. 

He wants to see people eat a decent diet, get some exercise, toss away their high heels, and keep regular hours. Consider it done, at least in intention.

He wants to see people fight inflammation in order to reduce the risk of cancer in the long run. Great idea. 

He questions the safety of isolated vitamins. He rants against the laziness of people wanting to "take a pill" such as Vitamin E instead of making changes in lifestyle. He cites a bunch of studies that prove the danger of vitamins. That is a whole other topic. Studies dissing vitamins are often done with inferior synthetic vitamins. 

And then he makes a leap of reasoning that has me scratching my head. It has been observed that Statins used to lower cholesterol also lower the risk of cancer, because it turns out they are anti-inflammatory.

He wants all of us geezers over 50 to ask our doctors why we are not on statin drugs and/or baby aspirins. Hello doc, I thought you didn't like pills?

If the mechanism of action of statin drugs is anti-inflammatory, should we not focus on non-drug ways to decrease the load of inflammation in the body? Let's see the reasoning.

Statins are anti-inflammatories.
Anti-inflammatories help to prevent cancer.
Therefor all people should.....were you going to say "eat more anti-inflammatory foods"?
Nope. The good doctor wants all people to ask their doctor if Statins would be good for them.

It reminds me a bit of a Woody Allen moment. I can't remember the movie.
But it goes like this:  
"All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefor all men are Socrates."

Discovering Dalrymple

"When we avoid the mistakes our parents used to make, we end up making the mistakes our parents avoided." (anon)

I have become increasingly worried about certain trends in society.

Most of these trends were originally a reaction to something worth reacting against. But in throwing out the stinking bathwater of outdated attitudes we have thrown out some precious babies worth keeping.


More blogs on various aspects of this topic in the future. Many of these points may become moot anyway as the economic meltdown steamrollers over the welfare state.

I am reading "Life at the Bottom", a collection of essays by a British psychiatrist who has devoted his working life to the so-called underclass.
The life patterns of his clients are sharply observed as they are, not as well-meaning do-gooders think they ought to be. The writing is clear, precise, and bitingly witty. I can't put it down. I find myself nodding with approval and cheering loudly at his comments.


The good doctor is exasperated with the excesses of the welfare state and of the mentality of political correctness. He describes horrid lives devoid of meaning, hope, and any sense of personal responsibility.


I have harboured deep suspicions about the psychology industry and the social worker establishment for a while, and find myself applauding.

The doctor considers himself a conservative. I agree with much of his thought. Question: am I still a liberal? Labels, schmabels. As Michel de Montaigne said, "Je prend mon bien où je le trouve." I take my good where I find it.

I am all in favor of both the welfare state and PC when it means Plain Civility, but anything can be overdone.
Achieving a more or less harmonious society is a dynamic process, not a steady state to be achieved once and for all. We zig and we zag.

No, I do not want to go back to the fifties when Father knew best and women were relegated to the home whether they liked it or not.


But is it so bad to give some priority to the raising of children?


I do not want to go back to a time when divorce was a horrible stigma. But is romance really a sufficient basis for a social order? I knew a couple whose wedding vows included the words "As long as love shall last." Is it any surprise they are divorced? 

I do not want to return to the days when a pregnancy out of wedlock would ruin a life and bring unbearable shame on a family. But have we not gone too far in the other direction? 

A friend was talking about a teenage Mom in her extended family. She still lives with her parents and has been supported to stay in school. Good. The welfare state is supporting her to go to college. Great. BUT! Here is her older sister who did not get into trouble, drowning in student loans. Isn't something wrong with this picture? By the way, I have always sympathized with the stay-at-home older brother of the prodigal son.

Would it really be so bad to return some stigma or pity to both divorce and fatherless families? I say SOME. I don't say teach kids abstinence till they're married, and force women to stay in abusive marriages. That would be the pendulum swinging like crazy in the opposite direction.

Excessive pendulum swings are one of my beefs. But we'll make it the topic another time.