The doc who thinks outside the box

I recently saw Dr. Jennifer Ashton on FOX delivering what I thought was an unjustified minimalization of the importance of nutrition. I wondered if she had some financial incentive to say what she did, or if she were too busy staring in the mirror to learn more before she opened her mouth and misled the viewers on FOX who might assume that she really knows what she is talking about because she is a doctor. Dr. Ashton is exceptionally attractive, and she evidently wants potential patients to know that, because her web site currently features a slide show with various large pictures of her. I wondered, “Is she a doctor? Or a model?” She's a doctor, alright, but I doubt that she graduated at the top of her class. If she did, why didn't she know the facts that I mentioned in my message to her? (see below) I don't understand how any doc who knew that info could give the report that she did.

I would be thrilled if Dr. Ashton were ethical enough to send a resignation letter to FOX in which she said the following:

“I am not the smartest doctor in the world, nor am I the most knowledgeable. I am, however, arguably the most attractive female physician on Earth, which is likely why you chose me over other candidates who have better brains but uglier bodies. While I appreciate your confidence in my ability to spellbind viewers, especially men, as a doctor I know that health is too important of a topic to have health presentations on your channel given by anyone except the best and the brightest. I am smart, but not the smartest, so please accept this resignation and, for heaven's sake, please stop pandering to the people who value beauty over brains.”

I discussed the Attractive Expert Syndrome on one of my web sites, explaining why society is almost invariably harmed when the selection criteria for experts includes their appearance.

Here is the message I sent to her:

I saw your report on vitamins this morning on FOX, and I am alarmed by your overall message. Are you aware of the prevalence of genetic mutations producing apoenzymes with decreased coenzyme binding affinity, as evidenced by their increased Michaelis constant (Km)? Are you aware that administering high doses of the vitamin component of the coenzyme can remedy or ameliorate about 50 (and likely far more) human genetic diseases by at least partially restoring enzyme activity? (Incidentally, this therapy is also useful in other cases, including polymorphisms that heighten disease risk, when a mutation affects the coenzyme binding site of the apoenzyme.) Did you know that a substantial percentage of people are affected by polymorphisms? Do you ever take complete dietary histories on patients? I've done this, which has given me remarkable insight into the junk that most people eat. I know that you must be a very busy person (aren't all doctors? :-), so here is a simple way to assess average nutritional intakes without any extra expenditure of time: Just look at what people buy in supermarkets! Many people obtain a substantial percentage of their daily caloric intake from refined sugars and foods that provide little nutritional value.

I've done enough TV and radio interviews myself to know that the need to give a "Cliffs Notes" version of the facts necessitates that the presentation be brief and therefore often lacking in essential information, so I am doing my best to not be overly harsh in judging your presentation today. However, it seemed to me that you had enough time to give a more balanced presentation than what you did.

I attended a medical school that stressed nutrition, yet even though I graduated in the top 1% of my class, I still think that I learned little about that subject — which is really just applied biochemistry and physiology. I've since worked hard to remedy that gap in my knowledge, so I likely know far more about this subject than an average physician, who'd probably say, "Michaelis what?" The more I learn, the more I realize that the average American diet does NOT provide optimal amounts of all vitamins and minerals at all times, nor does it provide optimal amounts of various phytochemicals that are conducive to health. I typically spend an hour every morning studying this subject. After years of doing it, I have acquired thousands of articles which bolster my case that average Americans could benefit greatly from improved nutrition in general — not just the few nutrients you singled out. If you disagree, I'd love to debate you. The loser pays $10,000 to the winner's favorite charity. Deal? :-)

Evidently not. She never responded.

So, FOX, how about replacing that fox with someone who knows more?

Barack Obama is talking about re-building our infrastructure, such as schools, bridges, and roads, as a way to put people back to work and invigorate our economy. I have a better idea. What we need is something that will literally transform our nation, rocketing it well into the 21st century, and doing just as much for the physical world as the Internet did for the information world. If we did this, in the end we'd have USA 2.0 — a country far ahead of the world in terms of productivity, efficiency, energy efficiency, convenience, and modernization. By reducing our demand for energy, it would also reduce pollution. However, the primary benefit of this project that I have in mind, and the one that would justify its enormous cost, is how it would kickstart huge improvements in productivity — that's one of the fundamentals that determine how vibrant any economy is. As secondary benefits:

• It would reduce the need for roads and bridges — things that are so 19th century.
• It would enable police to provide much better protection at lower cost.
• It would enable businesses to rapidly expand, reaching far more customers than is currently feasible.
• It would save lives and improve health in many ways.
• It would save everyone hundreds of hours per year . . . perhaps giving them more time to read my books (most are free, by the way), spend more time with their families, or help our furry little friends in the wild.

This project would give investors something to get excited about, so money would pour into our economy, which would roar to life now and accelerate toward even higher peaks in the future.

You're probably wondering what I am talking about. It can be boiled down to a single four-letter word . . . but not one of the profane ones that many folks are uttering now that our economy is crashing! :-) I'll soon write a short book about this and offer it as a free download from one of my web sites (such as www.ER-doctor.com), but before I do that, I'd like to see if anyone can guess what my idea is. I'd also like to hear from anyone who has good, outside-the-box ideas for stimulating our economy. Our future is too important to leave to the politicians. What's especially notable about them is that even the brilliant ones — yes, there are some with high IQs — are characteristically hidebound, with a paucity of original thought.

While you have your thinking caps on, here is something (totally unrelated) else to ponder: How could we eliminate every cell phone company, and every cell phone tower, in the world while giving people MUCH better cell phone coverage at much lower cost? Hint: You and everyone else could make money off this idea, even while you sleep, eat, or browse my many web sites. Why haven't the geniuses at Google or Microsoft thought of this one?

On second thought, I know why Microsoft hasn't thought of this: for the same reason they can't do 10,001 other things correctly. I could fill a book with all of the bizarre Microsoft quirks I've encountered (wasting about one year of my life), but here is one: When you place your mouse cursor over the time in the bottom right screen corner, a date box should pop up, as shown below:

However, about 75% of the time when I mouse over the time, here is what I see:

As you can see**, the box appears, but most of it is obscured behind the taskbar. There is no consistent pattern to this anomalous behavior.

YIKES! I just discovered ANOTHER Microsoft blunder: I use their Windows Live Writer program to generate this blog. When I first inserted those two pictures and published them, they were magnified by about 50% and therefore distorted, because stretching small bitmap images always does that. So why did the geniuses at Microsoft make picture magnification the default behavior for that program? Why not just insert the image at a 1:1 scale? Every other program I've ever seen does that. I sometimes wonder — and I am not being facetious about this — if Bill Gates' real mission in life is to waste our time. If so, he is succeeding.

OH MY GOD! I DON'T BELIEVE IT! YET ANOTHER INEXCUSABLE MICROSOFT ERROR: After publishing those two pictures, I noticed that they replaced ALL of the images I'd previously uploaded that automatically cycle in the top right part of the homepage screen. Now, instead of seeing me, you see those two images alternate! I knew that Microsoft was incompetent, but this is ridiculous! Is sucking on lead lollipops one of their job requirements? (Lead is a potent neurotoxin that can permanently lower IQ.)

** UPDATE: Now you cannot see those two pictures. To restore the original photo album pictures that cycle near the top right corner of the main page, I deleted the photo album that had replaced it, which deleted those two pictures. Sheesh! The mental midgets at Microsoft strike again!

Here's another question for anyone who owns cell phone company stocks: Why would you invest in them? You could obtain a much greater return on investment by investing in my inventions, some of which are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Yes, really. If you have money and are not satisfied with investing in companies that are stuck in the 20th century, contact me.

If you're feeling sorry for UAW workers, whose incomes will likely soon plummet, you should read Rivethead: Tales from the Assembly Line, written by Ben Hamper, a former autoworker and the ex-husband of my sister-in-law. That erstwhile best-seller will likely cause your sympathy to quickly evaporate by revealing a pathetic work ethic and an alarming lack of conscientiousness on the part of autoworkers. They dug their own graves by demanding too much from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, and by screwing their employers via a variety of scams and unethical practices that ultimately weakened the automakers. If the UAW brass had any brains — and apparently they do not — they would have had a man-to-man talk with their members years ago, saying something along the lines of:

"GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't the enemy. Instead of endlessly bellyaching about management, you should thank your lucky stars that a person like you, who probably has never been to college and may have slept through high school, can earn more in wages and benefits than some doctors [here's proof]. So, men, let's not make a habit of calling in sick on Mondays and Fridays, drinking on the job, or using drugs to get high. You can't build high-quality cars when you're stoned. You also can't build high-quality cars when you're not at work. Yes, we know about the scam some of you are pulling: Having a co-worker punch your time card for you and rush to do both his job and yours so you can go home four hours early. Men, the real enemy isn't your employer; it's the foreign automakers who are doing everything they can to make customers buy their cars, instead of ours. By stealing our customers, they're stealing our jobs. And, frankly, many of you are doing a great job of helping them achieve their goals! So stop whining about management. Leave the booze and drugs at home — or better yet, give them up. Many of the diseases you have are traceable to your diet, exercise, penchant for tobacco, and other lifestyle choices. Those diseases aren't just killing you, they're killing us, because they're costing us billions of dollars in excess healthcare premiums that force your employer to increase car prices, thereby making them less competitive. The best job security isn't using our power to force your employer to knuckle under to our demands at the bargaining table; the best job security is building better cars at lower cost so customers want to buy our cars, not those of our competitors. Without customers, we can't force your employer to do anything except go out of business or go bankrupt, so we cannot survive and prosper by undermining your employer. Basically, we can't continue doing what we've been doing. If you don't agree, walk out the door and don't come back. If you want to drag us down with you, you don't deserve to be here. The rest of us will get to work and do our best to put foreign automakers out of work by beating them in the marketplace. There's only one way to win, and that's it, and that's all, men."

Have you heard how politicians talk to real Americans when the camera isn't around? A woman—Karla—called the Mark Levin Show on November 17, 2008 to relate what Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said to her in LaGuardia Airport when she voiced her opposition to reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine.

Like many pieces of legislation, its name is misleading; it should be called the Unfairness Doctrine, because Democrats hope to use it to suppress criticism of them on conservative talk radio programs. Predictably, Democrats are not opposed to free speech when the liberal mainstream media bashes conservatives and Republicans. It's OK for liberals to hang Sarah Palin in effigy, or to talk about raping her, or to suggest that her husband is sleeping with their daughters, or to fabricate countless lies and deliberate distortions. All of that and much more is fine with them, but when a conservative talk radio host lambastes a liberal Democrat . . . heavens no! We can't have any criticism of liberals!

MARK LEVIN: Let's go to Karla, Brooklyn, New York, the great WABC. How are you, Karla?

KARLA: Hi! I am so glad to talk to you. I'm also kind of nervous because I don't want to end up like Joe The Plumber.

After Joe The Plumber asked Barack Obama a question during the 2008 Presidential campaign, multiple Democratic state government officials in Ohio (Joe's home state) investigated him, and the liberal mainstream media immediately launched a massive investigation to dig for any dirt they could find to discredit him, shut him up, and to discourage other citizens from challenging Democratic candidates.

KARLA: I had an, let's just say an altercation with Charlie Schumer in the airport at LaGuardia on Saturday night that was pretty extensive and . . .

LEVIN: Now wait a minute. By altercation, you mean a discussion?

KARLA: Well, yeah. A heated discussion . . .

LEVIN: Yes.

KARLA: . . . about the Fairness Doctrine. I was deplaning; he was ahead of me. There was a fawning Democrat chick who came over to him and was like all over him. And I had heard what he had said on [unintelligible; possibly “I think it was”] Fox News on Election Day. I had heard his comments about talk radio and about the Fairness Doctrine, which really repulsed me. So, I saw him there, his big smile on his face, and I just said to him, “Don't you dare try to take my talk radio away from me.” And he said to me, “I'm not trying to take your talk radio away from you, but we can't allow people to be nasty and rude and say things that aren't true.” I said, “Are you kidding me?” I said, “That's what our democracy is about.” I said, “Our democracy is messy.” I said, “Our democracy is about being able to be nasty and rude and sarcastic and wrong when we want, and say opinions that may be wrong when we want. That's what makes us different than Europe. And he just started out lashing at me. He told me how ignorant I was, and that they were not going to . . .

LEVIN: Wait a minute, wait a minute — so in other words, he was shrill and rude and vile.

KARLA: Well, he was obnoxious and shrill and it was attacking my intelligence and my IQ and . . .

LEVIN: Gee whiz!

KARLA: . . . telling me I was dumb. I told him that there was a very good country that believed in his philosophy: it was called Red China, and he sounded like he was talking right out of Mao's Red Book, and that was not what our country was about, and that our democracy was unique in that we allowed our discourse to be messy, and that we allowed our discourse to be wrong when it's wrong. And that's the nature of democracy.

LEVIN: Let me tell you something. You're a patriot. I wish more people would engage like you, politely but firmly, confronting the left. And you're not stupid; he's a moron. And let me tell you, Karla, what's really upsetting Schumer. You know what it is, Karla?

KARLA: No.

LEVIN: Me. It's me because he doesn't like my mocking him. I know it gets under his skin because he thinks he's greater and better than the rest of us. That's why I mock all of them: to knock them down two or three notches. But when he says “shrill,” he's talking about me, because he doesn't like me, 'cause I'm in his face, because I've challenged him, because I've urged him to come on this show, because I know he's a coward, but he's a menace. He's a menace to this country; he's a menace to this society; he's a menace to the judiciary. I think he should call a hearing. I think he should invite me and a couple of the others [conservative talk radio hosts]. We'll come up there. I'd be more than happy to testify under oath — assuming, of course, that he would swear in, too, so he could be punished under penalty of perjury. [Directing his speech to Schumer:] I'd be more than happy to do that, Schmuckey. I'd be more than happy to educate you about the First Amendment, political speech, and if you don't like it, it's none of your damn business. I'd be happy to educate you, Schmuckey. What do you think of that, you dope? And Karla, your IQ is twice of his, so your IQ is about 140.

KARLA: Well, I told him, I will fight to the death for my talk radio, and for anyone else to be obnoxious, to be as loud and nasty as they want, because . . .

LEVIN: But is he not the most obnoxious member of the Senate?

KARLA: Of course he is. I said, "But the point of our democracy is that we don't censor our tones; we don't control our tones."

LEVIN: Well, of course you're right, and you're extremely intelligent, but he wants to do by brute government force what the Constitution doesn't allow him to do. You see, the Founding Fathers had dealt with people like Chuck Schumer. They dealt with people who would punish people who dared to say things that they didn't believe in. They tried to squelch dissent; they tried to squelch free speech. And that's why when they passed the Bill of Rights, the very first one included the right to free speech. And they would be appalled by Chuck Schumer, but Chuck Schumer doesn't give a damn. He's a power-hungry menace! Thank you, Karla, God bless you, and good job! You take care. Yup, he really is . . . .

On the November 17, 2008 Hannity & Colmes program, Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris explained to Alan Colmes why Hillary Clinton should not become Secretary of State.

DICK MORRIS: Well, it's a terrible idea for a lot of different reasons. The first is the past, which is that Bill Clinton has basically made his living for the last five or seven years running around the world doing favors for major foreign leaders and investors, getting money from them for his foundation, his library, and for his own pocket. And we don't know who they are, we don't know what he did in return for them, and that money goes to the Clinton family. Take a guy like Frank Giustra. He flew with Clinton to see the president of Kazakhstan, one of the most reactionary repressive governments in the world — one our State Department condemns. Clinton then pushed the president to become the head of the organization that oversees elections when he doesn't have any. Giustra who set up the meeting got the uranium contracts from mining in Kazakhstan, and Clinton got a $131 million for his foundation and library, and a pledge of half for the proceeds of the mine. Those deals need to become public. We need to know what they are. And going ahead, in her tenure as Secretary of State, is he going to stop that? Or are we essentially going to be able to rent the US Secretary of State by paying her husband half a million dollars to give a speech?

COLMES: But Dick, let's say there's a vetting process, all that is investigated, all of it comes out, all of it is above board, there's full disclosure and transparency, in that case what's the problem?

MORRIS: OK, well, look, if that's the case, I'd want to know what those are, and we go through them and we look at them, and in the event, they'll all above board, I'll fall over dead.

And so would I.