Category Archives: musings

Andrew Ng: How to build your very own Skynet

Andrew Ng on Deep Machine Learning via Large Scale Brain Simulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5elcmFNRCWk

The key determinants of learning accuracy are accessing as much data as possible and being able to process.

Partnered with the Google speech team.

Deep learning works well in two different settings:

1. Learning from labeled data > speech recognition, streetview images

2. Learning from unlabeled data >

 

AndrewNg_LearningPerformance

 

AndrewNg_HumanVsMachineLearning

 

Up to now, humans have been driving performance due mainly to a lack of data and processing. With both of these now becoming available in abundance, machine learning will soon overtake human learning to become the dominant driver of performance.

Sky net.

“There is no freedom in addiction”

Michael Bloomberg was laughed at for suggesting that New York City businesses limit soda serving sizes. It was never a perfect plan, but his public shaming shows how closely we equate food with ‘freedom.’ The problem is, there is no freedom in addiction. As the Nature Neurosciencestudy showed above, rats and humans alike will overeat (or eat less healthy food options) even if they know better.

Hence the magic bullet at the center of McDonald’s letter: a precise combination of fat, sugar and salt that keeps us craving more. As NY Timesreporter and author of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked UsMichael Moss said in an interview

These are the pillars of processed foods, the three ingredients without which there would be no processed foods. Salt, sugar and fat drive consumption by adding flavor and allure. But surprisingly, they also mask bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process. They enable these foods to sit in warehouses or on the grocery shelf for months. And, most critically to the industry’s financial success, they are very inexpensive.

PN: The fallacy in the rump of this discussion is that cigarettes are not that more harmful than a big mac. I’m just as likely to die from smoking a single cigarette in front of you, as I am if I were to eat a big mac in front of you. The problems arise when you smoke/eat these products every day of your life.

http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/should-big-food-pay-for-our-rising-obesity-costs

Should Big Food Pay For Our Rising Obesity Costs?

FEBRUARY 25, 2014, 4:29 PM
Bt-big-food

Paul McDonald didn’t expect his letter to go public. The Valorem Law Group partner had queried sixteen states, asking leaders to consider investigating Big Food’s potential role in paying for a percentage of the health system’s skyrocketing obesity costs. The Chamber of Commerce got wind of this letter and made it public, setting off a national debate over food marketing, ingredient manipulation and personal responsibility.

McDonald’s premise is simple enough: if large food companies are purposefully creating addictive foods to ensure consumer loyalty, adding to the rising obesity levels in this country, they should be responsible for covering costs associated with treatment. The backlash was immediate and biting.

Comparisons to the Big Tobacco companies came first to mind. In the 1998 Tobacco Masters Settlement Agreement, major players in the tobacco industry agreed to pay $246 billion to offset health risks and diseases associated with its product. Critics of McDonald’s idea believe there is no link between tobacco and food.

Advertising

On the face of it, this would appear true: you don’t need to smoke, but eating is a necessity. Smoking is a choice, and therefore if you choose to smoke, you pay the consequences. Eating falls into an entirely different category.

Yet the neural mechanisms might be similar. A 2010 study in Nature Neuroscience found that rats consumed well past their limits when offered high-calorie foods such as bacon, sausage and cake, speculating that humans, when faced with an equivalent scenario, also choose to overeat.

Harvard University Professor of Medicine, Emeritus David Blumenthal’s study, Neurobiology of Food Addiction, found a similar link between food and drug abuse. In the summary he writes

Work presented in this review strongly supports the notion that food addiction is a real phenomenon…although food and drugs of abuse act on the same central networks, food consumption is also regulated by peripheral signaling systems, which adds to the complexity of understanding how the body regulates eating, and of treating pathological eating habits.

The argument against food addiction is a tough one, waged by industry insiders who want to keep 60,000 products on American shelves. The real question, however, is: are food companies purposefully producing addictive foods that change our neurobiology? If so, should they be held economically accountable?

American obesity costs are currently $147 billion per year. The CDC estimates that 35.7% of adults and 17% of children ages 2-19 are obese—a number that has risen dramatically over the last two decades. A joint report between Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation estimates that 44% of American adults will be obese by 2030. The report predicts that will add between $48-66 billion to our costs, some of which is paid for by taxpayers.

Yet food is such an emotional topic. For example, when informing someone that I’m vegan, they immediately let me know why they could never do such a thing (I didn’t ask) or that it’s ‘wrong’ for them, and sometimes by extension, me (last week’s annual blood work shows me in perfect shape).

Michael Bloomberg was laughed at for suggesting that New York City businesses limit soda serving sizes. It was never a perfect plan, but his public shaming shows how closely we equate food with ‘freedom.’ The problem is, there is no freedom in addiction. As the Nature Neurosciencestudy showed above, rats and humans alike will overeat (or eat less healthy food options) even if they know better.

Hence the magic bullet at the center of McDonald’s letter: a precise combination of fat, sugar and salt that keeps us craving more. As NY Timesreporter and author of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked UsMichael Moss said in an interview

These are the pillars of processed foods, the three ingredients without which there would be no processed foods. Salt, sugar and fat drive consumption by adding flavor and allure. But surprisingly, they also mask bitter flavors that develop in the manufacturing process. They enable these foods to sit in warehouses or on the grocery shelf for months. And, most critically to the industry’s financial success, they are very inexpensive.

Inexpensive to companies, not to consumers. Paul McDonald is striking an important nerve in how we manufacture, distribute and consume food in our country. There will be a lot of resistance and debate from both industry and citizens. But if we don’t begin this conversation now, our national and mental health is only going to continue to decline.

Image: Aliwak/shutterstock.com

On Medical Student Burnout…

Lydgate discovers that he has become a mouthpiece for benighted views he initially abhorred, arguing that “I must do as other men do and think what will please the world and bring in money.” Everyone needs to make compromises, but such compromises should not come at the cost of abandoning core aspirations. Quite the reverse, the primary goal should be to allow such aspirations to develop and express themselves in the challenging world of contemporary medicine.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/for-the-young-doctor-about-to-burn-out/284005/

For the Young Doctor About to Burn Out

Professional burnout is the sum total of hundreds and thousands of tiny betrayals of purpose, each one so minute that it hardly attracts notice.

Tertius Lydgate from Middlemarch by George Eliot (The Jenson Society, NY)

Our health depends in part on health professionals, and there is mounting evidence that many young physicians are not thriving. A recent report in the journal Academic Medicine revealed that, compared to age-matched fellow college graduates, medical students report significantly higher rates of burnout.

Specifically, they are suffering from high rates of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a diminished sense of personal accomplishment. College students choose careers in medicine because they care, because people matter to them, and because they want to make a difference. What is happening to the nearly 80,000 U.S. medical students to produce such high rates of burnout?

It is tempting to invoke the usual suspects: too many hours of study, too little contact with patients, and overwhelming anxiety concerning grades and test scores. Such stressors are compounded by exploding rates of change in medical science and technology and the general cloud of socioeconomic uncertainty hanging over the profession of medicine.

Yet the real roots of the problem go far deeper, and it is only by plumbing their full depth that we can hope to formulate an accurate diagnosis and prescribe an effective therapy. On closer inspection, burnout turns out to be a symptom of a more fundamental disorder that calls for curative—not merely symptomatic—therapy.

Nothing is more needed than nourishment for the imagination. Medical educators, learners, and those who care about the future of medicine need to understand not only the changes taking place in medicine’s external landscape but the internal transformations taking place in minds and hearts. Humanly speaking, are we enriching or impoverishing students? What alterations are we asking them, explicitly or implicitly, to make in the ways they act, think, and feel? In what ways are we bringing out the best elements in their character—courage, compassion, and wisdom—as opposed to merely exacerbating their worst impulses—envy, fear, and destructive competitiveness?

To a minority of students who care very little about such matters, such questions are likely to seem of little moment. Such students see clearly what they want to achieve—to gain admission to medical school, to graduate, to obtain a residency training position, and to take up the practice of medicine—and they do not trouble themselves about the ways in which their education is reshaping their humanity. When such students show up in class, they simply want to know what will be on the exam, and no matter how intricate or abstruse the material might be, they learn it sufficiently well to pass—and in many cases, ace—the tests.

But there are other students for whom medical school is not simply a proving ground, a gauntlet to be run, or a ticket to a well-paying and secure career. When they see a patient treated poorly, encounter a fellow student who is struggling with confusion and discouragement, or deep in a maze of tests and grades find themselves beginning to lose sight of the goals that brought them into medicine in the first place, they do not merely knuckle down and redouble their efforts. Instead they take such matters into their hearts, muse over them, and find themselves questioning whether medicine is what they really want to do with their lives.

Where can we turn to understand what goes on in the minds and hearts of highly intelligent, genuinely compassionate young adults who find themselves in a state of moral distress about the path they have chosen in life? Who or what can help them find the words to describe what they are going through, to know that they are not alone, and to locate a light at the end of the tunnel that can give them the hope and courage necessary to carry on? To understand and help such students, we need to find and apply the best resources available. One of the best guides on the matter I have ever encountered also happens to be one of the greatest novels in the English language.

The novel in question is Middlemarch. Written by Mary Ann Evans (1819-1880) who, in order to be taken seriously felt compelled to write under the pen name George Eliot, Middlemarch concerns the affairs of a fictitious British Midlands town of the same name. The title evokes not only a kind of provincial mediocrity but also a deep authorial concern with what happens to people training for the professions, echoing the opening of Dante’sDivine Comedy, “In the middle of life’s journey … ”

One of its principal characters is an idealistic if somewhat unreflective young physician, Dr. Tertius Lydgate, a character whose story provides deeper insights into burnout than any social science study I have encountered.

Lydgate is a handsome, well-born young physician with high aspirations as both a medical scientist and a servant of the needy. He comes to Middlemarch intending to found a charity hospital and to write a scientific treatise on typhus, one of the great scourges of the poor. Yet there is a problem. Over time, he abandons his ideals. He allows prevailing attitudes toward success to supplant his deeper sense of calling. He ends up investigating not typhus but gout, a rich man’s disease. Though outwardly successful, he comes to see himself as a failure. In short, he burns out because he loses his way. To paraphrase the novel, Middlemarch not only swallowed Lydgate whole. It assimilated him very comfortably.

Such changes can and do occur among contemporary medical students. Studies have documented both declining empathy and rising cynicism over the course of medical education. What happens? Having enrolled in medical school with a goal of helping people, students soon find financial considerations—including their own exploding debt—dominating their career plans.

With a growing avalanche of new knowledge and skills bearing down on them, they feel increasingly overwhelmed by what they do not know. They soon discover that, instead of expanding their capacity to make a difference in the lives of others, the rigors of medical school have constricted their field of view to their own survival.

Burnout at its deepest level is not the result of some train wreck of examinations, long call shifts, or poor clinical evaluations. It is the sum total of hundreds and thousands of tiny betrayals of purpose, each one so minute that it hardly attracts notice. When a great ship steams across the ocean, even tiny ripples can accumulate over time, precipitating a dramatic shift in course. There are many Tertius Lydgates, male and female, inhabiting the lecture halls, laboratories, and clinics of today’s medical schools. Like latter-day Lydgates, many of them eventually find themselves expressing amazement and disgust at how far they have veered from their primary purpose.

Lydgate discovers that he has become a mouthpiece for benighted views he initially abhorred, arguing that “I must do as other men do and think what will please the world and bring in money.” Everyone needs to make compromises, but such compromises should not come at the cost of abandoning core aspirations. Quite the reverse, the primary goal should be to allow such aspirations to develop and express themselves in the challenging world of contemporary medicine. Books like Middlemarch are no panacea, but they offer precisely the imaginative nourishment so often missing from contemporary medical education, a powerful antidote to the insidious forces that produce burnout.

PRESENTED BY

RICHARD GUNDERMAN, MD, PhD, is a correspondent for The Atlantic. He is a professor of radiology, pediatrics, medical education, philosophy, liberal arts, and philanthropy, and vice-chair of the Radiology Department, at Indiana University. Gunderman’s most recent book is X-Ray Vision.

Google gunning for the end of death…

Terrific summary of the state of play.

British gerontologist Aubrey de Grey believes achieving human immortality is inevitable. Last October de Grey told the audience at a US technology conference that they could expect to live 1000 years, maybe longer.

 

http://thenewdaily.com.au/life/2014/02/11/medical-science-close-curing-death/

Could medical science be close to curing death?

8:49pm, Feb 11
MICHELLE HAMER
If you were given the chance, would you choose to live forever, or another few hundred years? It may sound like the stuff of fantasy, but some very smart people are working to make death a thing of the past.
Live forever

Scientists are working to stop the ageing process, and extend the living… Photo: Shutterstock

Nanobots in your blood stream, backing up your brain to a computer, swapping your fallible human form for a sophisticated holographic avatar – it might sound like science fiction, but these are just some of the ways that science is hoping to extend human life and inch us closer to living forever.

US futurist, inventor and Google’s head of engineering, Ray Kurzweil has predicted that by the end of the century humans and machines will merge to create super humans who may never face the prospect of death. And Kurzweil, 65, hopes to be among those kicking mortality to the curb.

Ray Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil: Working to bring an end to death. Photo: Getty

“Twenty years from now, we will be adding more time than is going by to your remaining life expectancy,” Kurzweil told Forbes Magazine. “We’ve quadrupled life expectancy in the past 1000 years and doubled it in the past 200 years. We’re now able to reprogram health and medicine as software, and so that pace is only going to continue to accelerate.”

Kurzweil is no slouch when it comes to accurate predictions. In the 1980s he predicted the incredible rise of the internet, foresaw the fall of the Soviet Union and identified the year when computers would beat humans at chess.

His next predictions include the programming of nanobots to work from within the body to augment the immune system and fight pathogens. By 2045 he sees us backing up our minds to the cloud and downloading ourselves into robotic forms.

And he’s not the only scientist hoping to blow out hundreds of candles in the future.

Immortality: Not if, when

British gerontologist Aubrey de Grey believes achieving human immortality is inevitable. Last October de Grey told the audience at a US technology conference that they could expect to live 1000 years, maybe longer.

Ageing, he says, is a simple case of bad engineering, and once the human body’s kinks are ironed out we’ll be able to reverse its effects and put death on the back burner.

“My approach is to start from the straightforward principle that our body is a machine. A very complicated machine, but nonetheless a machine, and it can be subjected to maintenance and repair in the same way as a simple machine, like a car,” de Grey has said. “What I’m after is not living to 1000. I’m after letting people avoid death for as long as they want to.”

Google is on board

It’s a goal that even tech giant Google thinks is worth pursuing.

When Google entered the anti-ageing business last year, with the launch of its new biotechnology company Calico, it brought a new level of interest, respectability and crucially – funding – to the field.

Calico has poached some of the leading anti-ageing researchers from across the world to work on the challenge of extending life.

“I think that if Google succeeds, this would be their greatest gift to humanity,” said David Sinclair, an Australian professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School.

Professor Sinclair led a research team which last year announced it had reversed muscle ageing in mice, the results of which exceeded his expectations.

“We want immortality so badly that we’re always ready to be swept away into unthinkingness … Half in love with the impossible we’ve always wanted to conquer death.”

“I’ve been studying ageing at the molecular level now for nearly 20 years and I didn’t think I’d see a day when ageing could be reversed. I thought we’d be lucky to slow it down a little bit,” he was quoted as saying.

“There’s clearly much more work to be done here, but if those results stand, then aging may be a reversible condition, if it is caught early,” he said.

The research involved improving communication between a cell’s mitochondria and nucleus. Mitochondria are like a battery within a cell, powering important biological functions. When communication breaks down between this and the nucleus, the effects of ageing accelerate.

Human trials of the groundbreaking process are expected to start this year.

Buying life

It’s the sort of breakthrough that can’t come soon enough for several  billionaires across the globe who are pouring their fortunes and hopes into immortality research.

Russian entrepreneur, Dmitry Itskov founded the 2045 Initiative in 2011 with the aim of thwarting human death within three decades. Itskov envisages ‘neo-humans’ who will relinquish clunky human forms and adopt sophisticated machine bodies. He claims humans will eventually download their minds into artificial brains, which will then be connected to humanoid robots he calls Avatars.

According to 2045.com: “Substance independent minds will receive new bodies with capabilities far exceeding those of ordinary humans … Humanity will make a fully managed evolutionary transition and eventually become a new species.”

PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel donated $US3.5 million to Aubrey de Grey’s not-for-profit research foundation, telling the New Yorker at the time that: “Probably the most extreme form of inequality is between people who are alive and people who are dead”.

Clearly Thiel would prefer to remain among the living and he’s prepared to pay for his pitch at immortality, most recently making a large donation to the Singularity Institute, which focuses on creating artificial intelligence that could see the rise of cyborgs (merged humans and machines).

Maximising life, minimising death

US entrepreneur turned science innovator, David Kekich, dedicated his life and impressive bank balance to reversing ageing after he was paralysed from a spinal cord injury in 1978. Kekich initially raised money for paralysis research but then switched to anti-ageing research. He founded the Maximum Life Foundation in 1999 and aims to reverse human ageing by 2033.

On his website Kekich writes: “We are moving from an era in which nothing could be done to defeat ageing into an era in which advancing biotechnology will give us the tools to do overcome it … Now, at the dawn of the biotechnology era, the inevitable is no longer inevitable. The research establishment – if sufficiently funded and motivated – could make spectacular inroads into repairing and preventing the root causes of ageing within our lifetime.”

But given that there are yet to be any proven means for extending human life, these billionaires may be motivated more by ego than altruism.

As US author Adam Leith Gollner writes in The Book of Immortality: the Science Belief and Magic Behind Living Forever (Sribner 2013): “We want immortality so badly that we’re always ready to be swept away into unthinkingness … Half in love with the impossible we’ve always wanted to conquer death.”

Yet he says all humans can really do to live longer is to eat well and exercise.

“We all have to go … whether dying in battle, tumbling off a horse, succumbing to pneumonia or being shivved by a lover. Maybe one day we just don’t wake up. However it happens, we enter the mystery.”

Could this be Jane Hall be arguing against prevention..?

Haven’t seen this before – a rational argument against prevention based on its difficult to quantify, long-term, positive impacts impacts on life extension. OMG. And while she’s at it, also suggesting that personal responsibility is the issue. Top work. Go Jane.

But systems research from the 1970s shows while that may well be the case, prevention often increases costs because it must be directed toward large groups, if not the whole population, while treatment is targeted at relatively few.

What’s more, not all preventive strategies are cheap, and their success will be reflected in a growing elderly population.

 

http://theconversation.com/commission-of-audit-should-know-costs-but-appreciate-value-21534

Commission of Audit should know costs but appreciate value
Four of the five members of the Commission of Audit during a Senate hearing at Parliament House in January. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

The Senate Select Committee into the Commission of Audit is holding its third Hearing in Canberra today. Witnesses include the Consumers Health Forum and Australian Health and Hospitals Association, so health is clearly the order of the day.

Instituted by the Abbott government soon after it came to power, the Commission is charged with finding savings by eliminating waste and duplication of functions, and the consolidation of Commonwealth agencies. And the Australian National Preventive Health Agency(ANPHA) is widely held to be an easy target for it.

The agency was established as part of the raft of reforms under the 2011 National Health Reform Agreement, to lead in preventive health through surveillance and monitoring, policy advice, national social media campaigns, and by sponsoring research.

Eliminating the ANPHA would, of course, look like a positive contribution to the savings and agency reductions needed to justify the Commission of Audit. But the 40 or so ANPHA staff will not contribute significantly to the Commission’s targeted reduction of 12,000 public servants.

But let’s assume the Commission is less concerned with justifying its own existence and more focussed on the wise investment of government resources (that’s our taxes). In that case, there are a number of issues it should bear in mind.

Neither easy nor quick

The goal for the ANPHA is to reduce the prevalence of preventable disease. According to the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW), 32% of the current national burden of disease is due to preventable risk factors. And that’s set to grow with rising national levels of obesity and falling fitness.

One could say preventable disease is a big target, so it shouldn’t be that hard to make an impact. Unfortunately, what’s preventable in theory is not so preventable in practice.

Take one of the top risk factors of preventable disease according to the AIHW – intimate partner violence. It’s one thing to say there’s a significant national burden of injury and disease due to violence in relationships; it’s quite another to actually stop the dominant partner acting violently.

Much the same applies to obesity, lack of physical activity and poor diets. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Brutus from Julius Caesar (I,ii, 140-141):

the fault lies not in our health system. But in ourselves…

In many areas, Australia has done well in reducing the prevalence of preventable disease and, to some extent, that’s now reflected in our improving life expectancy and expected life years without disease or disability.

Clearly, action on prevention didn’t start in 2011 with the establishment of ANPHA; the 2008 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health committed A$872m over six years, which is a pretty serious investment.

The problem is the payoff period for such action is long – it takes a lifetime of good habits to enjoy their health consequences. Investment and performance in one period will influence performance in later periods.

The issue for the Commission, then, is what value has been added by the existence of a national agency, and how can that be judged when it’s barely three years old.

Better than cure?

Recent inquiries and reviews, such as the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the Preventative Health Taskforce have made the case for stronger investment in prevention, as they have in other developed countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. And in much policy development, there’s an implicit view that “prevention is better and cheaper than cure”.

But systems research from the 1970s shows while that may well be the case, prevention often increases costs because it must be directed toward large groups, if not the whole population, while treatment is targeted at relatively few.

What’s more, not all preventive strategies are cheap, and their success will be reflected in a growing elderly population.

The policy issue then isn’t whether there should be more investment in reducing preventable disease, but which programs are “good buys” when considering both effectiveness and cost. And effectiveness must reflect the very human goals of adding years to life and life to years.

Both the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the Preventative Health Taskforce recommended that preventive strategies be subject to economic evaluation in much the same way that new medical procedures and pharmaceuticals are.

But the evaluation of broad-scale prevention is more challenging than therapeutic interventions. There are significant issues around which benefits to select for evaluation and what value to assign them, and modelling risk factors with multiple effects (on several diseases), as well as modelling the multiple risk factors for many chronic diseases.

So it’s not clear that the guidelines that have served so well for appraising immediate treatment effects will work as well for long-term preventative programs.

Things to keep in mind

The Commission’s terms of reference stress that its role is to find efficiencies and savings that will reduce duplication and improve the budget position. For this, it’s important to remember that Commonwealth doesn’t equal national; this country has six state and two territory governments, as well as the Commonwealth government.

Successful public health campaigns require political agreement, sufficient funding and national campaigns backed by local initiatives and action. The Commission must distinguish complementary efforts from duplication.

The Commission’s terms of reference also mention the need to improve value for money – it would do well to remember that while knowing the cost of agencies and programs is simple, appreciating their value is considerably more complex.

Quantified-self harm..?

OK. This is purely a rant based on a shallow, n=1 observation.

I lost my fitbit down the toilet in December and chose not to replace it.

Since then, I’ve been maintaining my active habits (walking to work, training for a fun run) without the motivational air cover provided by the device.

Since then, I’ve been eating slightly healthier, primarly reducing meat consumption in favour of vegetables, and also increasing the depth and number of fasting days.

As a consequence, I’ve been losing more weight.

The interesting thing is that the only quantified self metric I’ve been looking at has been my weight.

It’s all a bit zero-sum, but I feel that by no longer monitoring my activity, I’m now focusing more on what matters – weight.

This isn’t to poo poo the tracker. I’m confident that it supported the development of activity habit. It’s just that now I’ve covered that, I need to focus on more salient measures.

It makes me think there’s change management a process that’s required to get healthy:

Firstly, get active using whatever motivational means necessary -trackers, fun runs etc.

Second, perhaps simultaneously, concentrate on diet… fasting, nutrition etc.

For further discussion, no doubt…

My Interests circa 2008

Just found this sitting in a dormant google drive account from May 2008.. it’s interesting to see how my interests have changed from a time when things were different (properly single, mid-HealthCube) but also still in Pyrmont and still wanting to hustle.

A few things have been ticked off (Year Book, Podcasting), a few things relegated (St James, Mind-Brain, Art) and a few things dispatched (Tanclear, Renewables). The remainder are still in the hunt…

pjn interests mid 2008

 

Katz: The power of the possible in public health

 

The case for the power of the possible in public health is clearcompelling and data-driven. Were we to commit to the policies required to eradicate tobacco use, establish moderate daily physical activity as the prevailing cultural norm and turn healthful eating into the new “typical” American diet, we could eliminate 80 percent of all chronic disease.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/healthy-life_b_1176506.html

David Katz, M.D.

Director, Yale Prevention Research Center

 

What If? A New Year’s Public Health Reverie

Posted: 12/31/11 11:50 AM ET
 

Democracy, it has been said, is the worst form of government except for every other form. As the long season of our political discontent drags on, the liabilities of consensus-based governance are on prominent display, salient among them a perennial lack of consensus. The situation seems unlikely to improve as a new year dawns, for it is, after all, an election year.

All of which serves to deepen the longing I suspect we each have cause to feel for a world where what we believe should be done, reliably gets done. Since Plato’s “Republic,” we have acknowledged that the challenges involved in conceiving what would make the world better are the lesser impediment to enhancing our destinies. Navigating such ideas, ideals and aspirations through the gauntlet of democratic dissent and past the intransigence of the status quo is the greater. The execution step is where good ideas all too often go to die.

The unnecessary death of good ideas — and of people — is much on my mind as the new year looms, with its promise of fresh starts. For far too long already, a failure to turn what we know into what we do has cost us dearly.

The case for the power of the possible in public health is clearcompelling and data-driven. Were we to commit to the policies required to eradicate tobacco use, establish moderate daily physical activity as the prevailing cultural norm and turn healthful eating into the new “typical” American diet, we could eliminate 80 percent of all chronic disease.

Do take a moment to let that sink in. Statistics have the capacity to be stunning and dull at the same time. We tend to need faces and names to get our passions going.

So consider this. If someone you love has ever had heart disease, cancer, a stroke or diabetes — there are eight chances in 10 that better use of feet, forks and fingers would have prevented that adverse fate outright. Viewed from altitude, eight out of 10 of us who have suffered through the anguish of a serious chronic disease with someone we love — wouldn’t have had to if what we knew about disease prevention were translated into what we routinely do about it.

Health promotion is what I do, so such musings are vocational on my part. But I, too, have loved ones laid low by chronic diseases that need not have occurred. So this is up close, and intensely personal.

As the new year dawns, then, my thoughts are irresistibly drawn to what might be. What if knowledge were power? What if what we know became what we do? Preoccupied by such reflections, I indulge myself in a reverie. Here’s what I would do if I were the philosopher-king of public health in 2012.

I would declare that a flood of factors — from highly-processed food, to labor-saving technologies, to clever marketing of insalubrious products — conspires against our health. I would proclaim that every person, family and community deserves to be protected by a levee of empowering, health-promoting tools and programs. I would call on personal responsibility for making good use of such resources — but I would acknowledge that before people can take responsibility, they must be empowered. As public health philosopher-king, such empowerment would be my job.

I would eradicate tobacco use. This pernicious scourge has taken years from life and life from years for far too long already. Those currently addicted to tobacco would need authorization from a physician to get it, and would at the same time receive every assistance modern science can offer to help them quit. But the substance, and any marketing of it, would be banned for all others. No young person should ever again be seduced into this calamitous boondoggle.

I would make everyone a nutrition expert by putting an objective, evidence-based, at-a-glance measure of overall nutritional quality on display everywhere people and food come together, and thus close every loophole to marketing distortions. Then, I would attach to this metric a system of financial incentives so that the more nutritious the food, the less it costs. The incentives would not constitute a new cost, but rather an opportunity for savings. They would be paid by the entities that currently pay the costs of disease care — insurance companies, large employers and the federal government. The costs of subsidizing cabbage are trivial compared to the cost of CABG, so says the king (not to mention the world’s leading health economists). Incentivizing healthful choices could save us a lot of money. Everyone can win.

I would make physical activity a readily accessible and routine part of everyone’s day. This can be done in schools with programming that embraces the time-honored adage: sound mind, sound body. This can be done in a way that honors personal preference for different kinds of exercise. In my kingdom, every school would have such programming.

So would every worksite. And every church. And little by little, we would do the requisite hard work on the built environment throughout the kingdom so that every neighborhood and town was designed to take physical activity off the road less traveled, and put it on a path of lesser resistance. This would cost money in the short term, but save both money and lives over time. Until this job was done universally, we would not just wait on the world to change — but would provide those in acute need access to the oases of comprehensivehealth promotion that already exist.

Every school would teach children and their parents the skills required to identify and choose more nutritious food. Every cafeteria would be designed to encourage, without forcing, better choices. School food standards would be unimpeachable — and a slice of pizza would not qualify as a serving of vegetables.

Businesses would adopt schools (as they now adopt highways) to provide the resources required for state-of-the-art health promotion programming, and so that parents and children could get to health together. We are otherwise unlikely to do so at all.

Guidance to nutritious restaurant meals wherever they are available would be at the fingertips of all, in the service of loving food that loves us back. In my kingdom, we would not mortgage our health for the sake of dining pleasure — nor vice versa!

Robust economic modeling would be conducted to guide biomedical research so that it translated most efficiently into measurable and meaningful improvements in the human condition. In my kingdom, such data would drown out diatribe, epidemiology would trump ideology, and we would prioritize the practices subtended by the best data, not propagated by the loudest shouting or dictated by the deepest pocket.

In my kingdom, every clinician would be trained to be expert in lifestyle counseling, and serve as an effective agent of health-promoting behavior change.

We would construct a comprehensive sandbag exchange so that every one of us, no matter what we do or where we do it, could contribute to the levee. In my kingdom, no one would be part of the problem because everyone would be part of the solution. And as sandbagsaccumulate, we would gather evidence to know just how much needs to be done to turn the toxic tide of chronic disease. We would devise the tools needed to disseminate effective strategies, while honoring the need for local control and customization.

We would take patient-centered care to the next level by establishing a mechanism for participant-centered research, giving the true “beneficiaries” of biomedical research a chance to call the shots. We would shift subsidies and marketing from foods with the longest shelf lives, to foods that extend the shelf lives of the people eating them! We would pursue our health in conjunction with efforts to preserve the health of the planet. We would do what it takes to find ourselves eating food, not too much, mostly plants.

In my kingdom, we would do this, and more, until the 80 percent of all chronic disease we know we can eliminate were actually eliminated. Until forces that conspire against years of life, and life in years, were banished. Until eight times in 10, the phone did not ring with bad news; the ambulance did not need to be called; the anguished visit to the ICU or CCU did not need to happen. And then, we would figure out what we could do about the remaining two!

The best way to predict the future is to create it. We cannot create what we don’t first conceive. From Plato to Dr. Seuss, we have been invited to consider what the world could be like if the right people ran the zoo.

And yet we are right, of course, to renounce the tyranny of Plato’s philosopher-king — for tyranny it would be. Along with the absolute power required to implement good ideas at will comes the power to do the same with bad ideas — and it can, at times, be awfully hard to tell them apart. And then there’s the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The benevolence of despotism is not to be trusted. Which leaves us thankful for our democracy — dysfunctional though it may be at times.

Still, it is vexing to stand at the gulf yawning between what we know and what we do. It is painful to concede that knowledge is not power. It is tantalizing to imagine a world where that translational divide is bridged.

And so I do. I ponder the power of the possible as the New Year dawns — and invite you to join me. We don’t need a philosopher-king to change the world, just a small (or preferably large!) group of thoughtful and committed citizens. That could be us. This could be the year. What if?

-fin

Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org

Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz