It's really discouraging, this thing about the truth

Last night I looked at Erik's old medical records. I found the entries by doctors about Erik's condition. Did he or did he not have renal osteodystrophy? Did he, or did he not have rickets? The doctors at the time came to the erroneous conclusion that he did not.

Now nearly 30 years later, it has become apparent that Erik must have had renal rickets then, just as he has renal rickets now. Erik even received calcitriol at that time. Even though it was for only the briefest period, it was strikingly curative for his slipped capital femoral epiphysis. Not one person related cause and effect. Were the doctors, already at that time, more concerned about their reputation, or did they really not know? The truth about cause and effect is a tricky matter, if you don't want to see it. I saw it then, and I see it now. Science strives for the truth. It needs champions now, or else we'll be old Rome all over again.

I was a couch potato today

I just watched soccer and football today. Nothing too exciting. I just watched for the commentary. I like the games because it's motion in front of my eyes. None of my favorite teams played, yet I was not bored. Outside of the window the hooded titmouse, and the kinglet, the mockingbird, and the scrub jay danced, and their chirping could be heard when I opened the door. They played their game a lot better than the football teams on TV in the foreground. I am so glad that the birds have a place to stay in my undisturbed bushes. I again wondered what the birds would do if my garden were in perfect order. There would be no place to hide, not in our immediate neighborhood.

How much does a conflict of interest weigh?

Recently I read two studies on mercury, one by the New England Journal of Medicine about the neurological effects of Thimerosal in vaccines, another one by Environmental Health Perspectives about dental amalgam that concludes that boys do not excrete mercury as well as girls. That is significant because autistic boys outnumber girls by a significant margin. The theory is that boys get autism because they cannot excrete mercury as efficiently as girls

In the process of reading these reports the following question comes up again and again, and that is: Whose interest is the most conflicted? Is it the people who get paid for doing the study, or is it the people who are potentially affected by mercury, or those who are benefiting from an outcome that says mercury causes no harm?

For some reason I can't reconcile myself with the possibility that I have a conflict of interest just because I am stating my opinion against mercury. I am not making money, and I am getting nothing out of it but "Here she goes again, talking about mercury!" I also can't see that a journalist is willingly laying his career on the line to report on a problem that a "fringe" population has chosen to go on a band-wagon about. It is, in my opinion, more likely that the most highly paid entities (amalgam manufacturers, Thimerosal makers, health maintenance organizations and doctors and dentists) are also the most conflicted in their interests. They have the most to lose when mercury becomes truly known to be nearly the most toxic substance known to man.

Doctors and dentists also have an added conflict of interest, one that is unrelated to money. In case the courts make the notion that mercury is indeed what it is, i.e. really toxic (lead is recognized by the courts), doctors and dentists will suddenly find out that they have harmed their patients, and that is a shame.

My state of mind

Most of the time I am at ease. If it were not for the types of misunderstanding that drift into my life, I would have no complaints. So, what makes the little increment of difference that turns the other person into a supporter or someone who regards you with suspicion? I can't say that I know even though, at times, I glimpse the little flinch in someones smile or the little hesitation in speech, and in that thousandth of a second the mind reacts positively or indifferently or with caution.

I was suspicious of Bush's twinkling eyes. He lost those as soon as he became President. It must have been really hard for him to act so out of character during his election campaign. Now you only see his disdain for all of us. I am uncomfortable just seeing him on TV. So, I can see the smirk in others. I would be delighted to see myself as others see me. But there is nobody to reflect my outer being into my own eyes. I have to trust my instincts that my serenity shows itself so my inner self is revealed.