Can Dogs Detect Coronavirus?

Imagine going to a friendly doctor who , without any invasive, painful, or costly tests takes a sniff of you, tells you that yes you're sick, licks your hand and then asks you for a treat. 

Travelers arriving at Helsinki’s airport are being offered a voluntary coronavirus test that takes 10 seconds with no uncomfortable nasal swab needed. And the test is done by a dog. A couple of coronavirus-sniffing canines began work at the Finnish airport on Wednesday as part of a pilot program that aims to detect infections using the sweat collected on wipes from arriving passengers. 

Over the past months, international airports have brought in various methods to detect the virus in travelers, including saliva screenings, temperature checks and nasal swabs. But researchers in Finland say that using dogs could prove cheaper, faster and more effective. After passengers arriving from abroad have collected their luggage, they are invited to wipe their necks to collect sweat samples and leave the wipes in a box. Behind a wall, a dog trainer puts the box beside cans containing different scents, and a dog gets to work. 

Michigan Mother Jailed over Vaccination Refusal

People have differing beliefs about the efficacy of some scientific or medical procedures. We have, within some very wide parameters, the ability to make these decisions for ourselves. Your body. Your choice. There are limits. You can't legally decide that ingesting cocaine and meth is the best way to spend your weekend. You can, however, eat and drink yourself into a stupor. An adult can refuse medical treatment for conditions or diseases that everyone knows require immediate treatment. The state or concerned family or friends face a high barrier trying to force an adult to accept medical treatment or drugs that he or she opposes. I know some doctors and lawyers who are frustrated by this. They snark that someone has spent a few hours on Google or WebMD and now considers themselves a doggone legal/medical expert. I've had discussions with friends and relatives who have what I consider to be conspiratorial paranoid mindsets. I know how irritating it can be when someone refuses to see reason. But this is our system. An adult doesn't have to justify his or her bad decisions. The state or other adults have to justify why they wish to substitute their judgment for someone else's.  

But children are a little different. With children the state has an independent interest, separate from the parents, in ensuring the child's health and life. When the parents disagree with the state or disagree with each other things can get messy. Rebecca Bredow, a local Southeast Michigan woman, shares joint custody of her son with her ex-husband, James Horne. Horne wanted his son vaccinated. Bredow disagreed, citing health and religious beliefs. The judge presiding over the case was unconvinced
. 

Terry Foster: Hypertension and Health

It's important to keep in mind how fragile and precious your health and life really is.
No one knows the day that he or she will leave this world or how he or she will depart. But sometimes life gives us little reminders that nothing is guaranteed. Local writer, sports radio talk show host, and former Detroit News journalist Terry Foster was reminded of that recently when he had a mild stroke that was apparently brought on by hypertension. Foster was already dealing with Type 2 diabetes. Hypertension and Type 2 diabetes often occur together. Although it appears that Foster had his blood glucose within safe levels he did not have his hypertension under control. So what happened, happened. This is just another reminder of how important it is for people, particularly African-Americans, to avoid these conditions in the first place or stringently deal with the conditions if they are unfortunate enough to have them. Proper diet and exercise are not only what we owe to ourselves and our loved ones as joyful payment for being alive but good food and vigorous movement are also some of the most effective tools we have to fight hypertension and Type 2 diabetes. Some people still consider it a sign of virility to avoid seeing a doctor. I think that the wiser move is to treat going to the doctor the same way you would maintenance on a car or home-- a routine if occasionally unpleasant task that must be done in order to avoid larger costs down the line. The scary thing about hypertension is that you may have it for quite some time and feel no ill effects. You'll feel fine right up until the moment when you have a stroke, go blind or undergo even worse experiences.

Highly engaged listeners and video stream viewers could have noticed a few weeks ago that Foster seemed to be having difficulty with some words. He says now that he was in denial.
“I was struggling with my speech and my fine motor skills in my right hand were off,” Foster said. “I was typing slower, I had slower reaction times and I thought it was the effect of a bad cold that I had, but obviously it wasn’t and I was on the air for a couple of days and I was struggling with my speech. At some point, I was kind of getting scared and said ‘I need to go in and see what’s going on’ and that’s what that was.”
What was the last straw?

“It was slurred, I couldn’t say ‘971 The Ticket,’ I was like saying ‘nine-one the Ticket, like that. There were certain words that I could not say or they were child-like when I said that,” Foster said. “And so, I think, to compensate I started talking louder and slower and that was the big symptom right there.”

Now, he has a message for his listeners, the men, especially. Don’t skip doctor’s visits. And no matter how strong you feel, no one is invincible. Foster said he hadn’t been to the doctor and didn’t know he had high blood pressure, which was 220 over something he can’t remember when he showed up at Henry Ford Hospital in West Bloomfield suspecting something was wrong. Like most, he was eating inconsistently, high-fat foods sometimes and healthy meals other times.

Below Foster talks about the literal bullet he dodged and some of the warning signs he ignored. I thought this talk was worth sharing. Each of us may have inherited some weaknesses from our parents. We can't do anything about that. But we can control what we do with our body and how we treat it. There's a wealth of information available on how to eat better and exercise more often. Doing those things just might save your life.



Blood Pressure
Dash Diet
LINK

Health Benefits of Exercise

Have you been exercising as much as you should? There really is a use it or lose it calculus that applies to the human body, regardless of gender or age. It's unfortunate to look around as I often do in the great state of Michigan and see people that are not using what God or evolution gave them to the best of their ability. It's like seeing someone with a brand new car treat it like garbage. This is obviously particularly noticeable in the summertime. Clothing gets skimpier but fat rolls become more apparent.

It's easy unfortunately to get so caught up in other things and leave your body to the last. Of course there are a million and one reasons behind this. These reasons can be emotional, psychological, sexual, what have you. Not everyone is meant to be a certain size of course and no one should be shamed into thinking that they're automatically less than human because they are over a certain weight. That sort of thinking is short-sighted and ugly. That said I sometimes wonder if certain heavy people these days don't go too far in denying that they have a problem. Some even attempt to bully other people into saying that morbid obesity is somehow attractive. Morbid obesity isn't attractive. And it's associated with a higher risk for a number of dangerous conditions and diseases.

Exercise and diet are really important in not only extending your life but making sure that the life you have is worth living long into the future. We're still learning a lot about how diet and exercise work on the body. That's why I thought this recent NYT article was so interesting.

Exercise promotes health, reducing most people’s risks of developing diabetes and growing obese. But just how, at a cellular level, exercise performs this beneficial magic — what physiological steps are involved and in what order — remains mysterious to a surprising degree.

Several striking new studies, however, provide some clarity by showing that exercise seems able to drastically alter how genes operate. Genes are, of course, not static. They turn on or off, depending on what biochemical signals they receive from elsewhere in the body. When they are turned on, genes express various proteins that, in turn, prompt a range of physiological actions in the body.

One powerful means of affecting gene activity involves a process called methylation, in which methyl groups, a cluster of carbon and hydrogen atoms, attach to the outside of a gene and make it easier or harder for that gene to receive and respond to messages from the body. In this way, the behavior of the gene is changed, but not the fundamental structure of the gene itself. Remarkably, these methylation patterns can be passed on to offspring – a phenomenon known as epigenetics.

What is particularly fascinating about the methylation process is that it seems to be driven largely by how you live your life. Many recent studies have found that diet, for instance, notably affects the methylation of genes, and scientists working in this area suspect that differing genetic methylation patterns resulting from differing diets may partly determine whether someone develops diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

But the role of physical activity in gene methylation has been poorly understood, even though exercise, like diet, greatly changes the body. So several groups of scientists recently set out to determine what working out does to the exterior of our genes. The answer, their recently published results show, is plenty. ..“Our data suggest that exercise may affect the risk for Type 2 diabetes and obesity by changing DNA methylation of those genes,” says Charlotte Ling, an associate professor at Lund University and senior author of the study.

So there you have it. It's important to exercise. I already knew that. But the idea that you can make genetic changes in yourself and possibly pass these changes along to the next generation was something I did not know. I'm not a scientist but I was fascinated by how some common sense admonitions (get off your a$$ and jam!!!) are backed up by science. I intend to refocus and expand my exercise program over the next few weeks. We don't have a choice in the particular genetic gifts or curses our parents granted us. But to the extent that some of what your parents gave you is negative you can overcome that inheritance by eating well and exercising. So just because say diabetes or hypertension runs in your family doesn't mean that you are doomed to acquire those conditions or that if you do you must have a shortened and less pleasant life. You, all by yourself, have the power to change your body and more importantly, change your health. That's pretty awesome. With changes in the health care system making it more explicit that to an extent, we are all our brothers' and sisters' keepers, I expect that insurance "incentives" to exercise will become a bit more shall we say noticeable.

How often do you exercise?

Have there been times when you've stopped exercising? 

If you don't exercise do you intend to start?

Who Makes Medical Decisions for You (or your kids)?

I have a bit of a libertarian left leaning streak when it comes to private decisions around your life, health, sexuality and so on. Basically if you're not bothering anyone I think the government should leave you alone. That's true whether you're a black New Yorker walking down the street or a white twenty-five year old who doesn't see a need to purchase health insurance. And I feel even more strongly about someone coming between a parent and a child. However intellectual honesty compels admission that there are some cases where government not only has the right but the duty to interfere with your decision making and/or that which impacts your children. We don't look kindly on heroin addicts. We look even less kindly on heroin addicts who share their drugs with their children. I don't care if someone wants to be a sex worker. If that person wants to recruit their underage child into their line of work then they should be as Bo Diddley sang, placed "so far back in the jail that they'll have to pump air in". You can't open a factory and dump lead in the water. And so on.

Those are obvious calls though. Medical care decisions are more complex.
Doctors and scientists have knowledge and information that the rest of us lack. There's nothing magical about that. It's their line of work. A doctor would likely look just as out of place in your line of work if you're not a doctor. If a doctor suggests an action plan for a particular disease you're probably going to listen to him/her..again assuming you're not a doctor yourself with the same or greater knowledge as the bozo who barely made it through medical school and has his papers routinely rejected by scientific journals.

BUT

The doctor does not own you. You can ignore the doctor's advice and continue doing everything the doctor told you not to do. None know the hour or day of our death. Ignoring the doctor's advice is probably a bad idea (lung cancer patient continuing his three pack a day habit, diabetes or gout sufferer continuing to eat second/third helpings at dinner and TONS of sugary desserts), but again, there are people who do just that and against all odds live longer and healthier than they should. There are some diseases for which the cure is almost as bad as if not worse than the disease. If the doctor tells us that we need to have a limb amputated, have our reproductive systems removed, have our digestive systems altered so that we have to use a colostomy bag or have chemotherapy, some of us might decide that we'd rather live with the disease instead of taking the cure. At least we might want to consider options. So we'd tell the doctor no thanks and keep it moving.

But what if the doctor smiled nastily and said, "No dummy I don't think you understood. That wasn't a request.You're getting the treatment whether you like it or not!"

An appeals court has sided with a hospital that wants to force a 10-year-old Amish girl to resume chemotherapy after her parents decided to stop the treatments. The court ruled that a county judge must reconsider his decision that blocked Akron Children's Hospital's attempt to give an attorney who's also a registered nurse limited guardianship over Sarah Hershberger and the power to make medical decisions for her. The hospital believes Sarah's leukemia is very treatable but says she will die without chemotherapy.

The judge in Medina County in northeast Ohio had ruled in July that Sarah's parents had the right to make medical decisions for her. The appeals court ruling issued Tuesday said the judge failed to consider whether appointing a guardian would be in the girl's best interest. It also disagreed with the judge's decision that said he could only transfer guardianship if the parents were found unfit. The family's attorney, John Oberholtzer, said Wednesday that the ruling essentially ordered the judge to disregard the rights of the parents. Andy Hershberger, the girl's father, said the family agreed to begin two years of treatments for Sarah last spring but stopped a second round of chemotherapy in June because it was making her extremely sick.

"It put her down for two days. She was not like her normal self," he said. "We just thought we cannot do this to her." 

Sarah begged her parents to stop the chemotherapy and they agreed after a great deal of prayer, Hershberger said. The family, members of an insular Amish community, shuns many facets of modern life and is deeply religious...

LINK
I'm usually going to follow my doctor's orders. But there have been people quite close to me who have died from cancer. And it's my firm unyielding belief that the treatments killed them just as much as the disease did. If I ever got a cancer diagnosis I would think long and hard about my treatment plan. I've also known loved ones who, despite being repeatedly told that their diet and lifestyle would literally kill them, stubbornly refused to make changes and promptly died, just as the doctors told them they would.

For me the fundamental question is who decides on the course of treatment, the doctor or the patient? I believe that freedom requires that the patient decides. 

And if the patient is too young to decide her fate, then her parents get the last word. If the parents happen to be moronic that's unbelievably unfortunate, but as most parents are not moronic I don't want the government stepping in to override medical decisions unless the decision is obviously insane and the person will die immediately. For example, some devout fundamentalists of various religions do not believe that a woman should be viewed (naked, without her hair/face covered, at all) by any man except her husband. Let's say there was a car accident and a badly injured woman was trapped in a burning car. The only way to save her requires cutting through her outer garments. She will temporarily be only partially clothed. Her husband (sitting safely on the curb) objects on religious grounds. Clearly emergency personnel should ignore him and rescue the woman before she's burned to death. If that same woman goes to the doctor, is told she needs a hysterectomy and declines it on religious or personal grounds, I don't want the government overriding her choice and sending her to the surgeons. 

But those are adults. What about kids? Isn't that different? Doesn't the government have a role to play?

Parents, not the government, are the primary and best caretakers. They have responsibility for their child's medical care. Obviously they will need help on occasion. There are many decisions that parents make regarding their children. This includes everything from when, if or how to tell them the facts of life, to their diet, to what sort of social activities they engage in, to which books they can read, to when or whether to take them off life support after they've been in a coma. It's truly an awesome responsibility. So absent some immediate certainty of death, provable neglect or irrationality, I think the parents should have final say. Choosing not to undergo chemotherapy is not to my mind the same thing as drilling a hole in your child's head in order to let the demons out. It's not an easy call to watch a parent make what I think is a bad decision but I think it's the right one. Of course I could be full of it. It wouldn't be the first time. 

What do you think is the right decision here?

Who should have the final word? The state and/or hospital or the parents?