This was totally the hotness, Pal. Thanks for doing this with me!
I’m 7 minutes in and getting bored, sadly. I’m missing the motivation behind the effort to communicate. Perhaps things warm up later as you down more of your drinks?
I have the attention span of a goldfish and likely don’t represent your other readers, PalMD.
Isis – there’s a Logitec camera that comes with this amazing software that automatically puts just your eyes and mouth on a pic of some other face –puppy, baby, kitty, cartoon, etc. It does goofy things to your eyes, like making the iris wobble or the eyes bug out randomly. Very entertaining. Would preserve your anonymity. We have it at work but I don’t know what it’s called. Might be worth looking into as the mask and sunglasses aren’t fun to look at for very long.
24 minutes in PalMD agrees that doctors don’t get much didactic training in nutrition. That woke me up because I don’t agree. I’d never claim to be on the bleeding edge of nutrition science. But I do remember writing TPN orders. I remember physiology, endocrinology, and nutritional biochemistry. So which bits did I not get training in? How to make up sciency sounding dietary advice like the naturopaths? Ok, guilty as charged.
Good point about the way MDs trivialize PhDs –e.g., “You might have to redo an experiment when you’re wrong whereas grandma dies when we make a mistake.” LOL. Yeah, that is a fun MD sport. But most MDs know that one bad study can screw up the scientific community and kill a lot of people (e.g., Wakefield).
The blog wars loose me but probably are important to others.
“Can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is not a valid argument. See Russell’s teapot.
Better argument: “How I do science has nothing to do with who I hang with in my private life. I have my reasons for being a Catholic which I’m under no obligation to share with you. Nor is it my job to defend every action by the Catholic Church throughout history. Next question.”
65:00 How are non-quantifiable variables in the physician-patient relationship not a form of woo?
My answer: Being science-based doesn’t mean you do a double-blind study on every friggin’ thing going on. Doctors don’t have to rationally justify decisions over interior decorating, shaking hands, coffee or tea, etc. The just have to be honest. They can’t pretend they have data when they don’t.
Medical woo is pretention. It’s sciency. It’s pretending something is proven or known when it isn’t.
I had pretty much given up on Bloggingheads. But I’ll download this one. What I do is download the mp3 version and then play on my player at fast speed, while I’m doing stuff like pulling weeds.
I would like to hear another PALcast soon.
I watched to the very end–I really enjoyed seeing you talk to each other. Your blogging voices are very true to your personalities, from what I can tell, which is why I like both of your blogs. I really appreciated your comments about interdisciplinarity fostered in the blogosphere.
Oh, and was that a Bell’s IPA you were drinking? I’m soooooo envious. We’ve got great microbrews out here in Colorado, but Bell’s is probably my fave evah.
Hostoriann, I’ve always been impressed with you, but spotting the Bell’s…genius.
Poor dead cats, attacked by viscous psychic dogs…
boring! could not watch two minutes. is isis spasdmodic or what? jerking around the screen like she’s got crabs in her shorts – freaky man, freaky.
New comments have been disabled.
You can follow me at the old-new location. Just follow this link. There I…
My formal ethical training began in medical school with an introduction to the basic concepts of…
The Midwest loves extremes. Our spring is a quick, cold bucket of water to the…
I shouldn’t see any cases of pertussis (“whooping cough”), but I do. We have a…
Since the Pepsipocalypse, several excellent science writers (some of the best, really) have sought out new…