Thursday, September 20, 2012

Nicotine Lollipops and THE Regulators


We received a call from THE regulatory agency last week. I was being "invited" to a conference call scheduled for this morning at 11:00 am eastern time. I was out of town and missed the first call. Being the persistent bureaucrats, they called again yesterday and spoke to my wife. She asked what the topic was and but didn't receive a clear answer - something about the compounded nicotine lollipops we have sold.
I received another call this morning about 10:00 central time asking if I was going to call in to participate in the conference call. The caller sounded like she was in a steel drum. Actually, it was a speaker phone. It was clear to me that she wasn't alone. This was an interesting scenario playing out: numerous official-regulator-people against me.
The combined salaries of THE calling regulators was probably greater than my gross sales for a year. Regardless, they were interested in talking to me. I inquired about the topic and about how many people were on their end of the call. It seems there were "4 or 5" listening in. I voiced my concerns and THE regulators agreed to call back with more details about the topic of the conference call. Yes. They did what they said.
Again, the speaker phone was in play, so I turned mine on as well.
Four of THE agents introduced themselves. There may have been dozens more in the room, but I believed them when they said there were only four. Why would I doubt THE regulators?
After citing numerous documents from THE official regulations, I was informed that I could continue to make and sell lollipops if I complied with yadda, yadda, yadda. I said, "that isn't going to happen, so we'll just stop making the lollipops". However, I asked to receive an official letter from THE regulators.
I figure I'd like to have something solid, in hand, to prove that I have accurately understood what THE regulators want me to do. Of course, I'll comply. After all, THE regulators were concerned about a whopping 285 lollipops I've sold over the past two years - some of which were purchased by and analyzed by THE regulators themselves.
In the end, it seems THE regulators have saved the day by getting me to stop the sale of nicotine lollipops without a direct prescription from a doctor.
I think nicotine supplements are a decent way to gradually cut back on cigarette smoking. The lollipop has advantages over the other products on the market. Some of the addiction associated with smoking is the involvement of the hands - putting the cigarette to the mouth, puffing, then moving the cigarette away. Sucking on a lollipop keeps the person's hands busy while they get the dose of nicotine.
From my perspective, it's far superior to slapping on a patch, chewing gum, or sucking on a lozenge. Where's the hand involvement in those activities? From that perspective alone, I suggest that an excellent way to offset the nicotine from a cigarette is to use one of our lollipops. Ask your doctor to prescribe them and you can get started today.
Doctors can also prescribe one of the potent antidepressants, which have been claimed to help people quit smoking. The side effects of the drug might kill the user (or someone in their immediate vicinity), but that would be fine because it is approved by THE regulators and made by a drug company.
Still, to me, the lollipop seems the best and safest method.

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Appreciate that grain of salt


It would be great if this were true. The fact is we don't know what causes anything. We perceive that two things are associated and sometimes the association is so strong that we connect the things in a cause-effect relationship.
For every such relationship there is always an exception;
This means that nothing is 100% certain. However, we can't even be 100% certain about that comment because it might be possible that there are some things about which we can be perfectly certain. I can't come up with any right now, but it is still possible.
What am I driving at? Most of us want to believe that there are certainties and that there are real, certain things that cause other things. We want to believe that eating this thing or drinking that juice will cure our ills. We cite evidence and insist that our belief is certain. The problem is that, while some things are part of the cause, there are probably other things, many of them. We don't know all of the factors and I suggest we can't begin to know all of them. This is important, especially when it comes to health and well-being.
Health is commonly acknowledged to be one of the sciences.
Science is revered because it is through science that we have so many things. Just look around and pick something that isn't associated with a scientific discovery. In a practical sense, we can believe in the almost limitless power of science. After all, science got us to the stars and it helps us make amazing weapons. Entertainment wouldn't be near as dynamic without science. Despite all of the wonders of the process, science still fails us when it comes to health.
All of the "failure" we can think of might actually be the result of not having all the facts, or having facts and using them in a wrong way - but not knowing it. Here's an inane example that might make my point;
If we look at a graph of sneakers sold per year from 1970 to today, it would similar to a graph of obesity rates. A person could make a logical connection between sales of certain athletic shoes to obesity, going so far as to identify a positive correlation. That means that as sneaker sales climb, obesity rates also climb. This is inane because it is clear that there is something missing and we don't have to know the details of the missing parts to understand that the observed correlation between sneakers and obesity is not accurate.
The same kinds of missing elements are possible in all correlations and cause-effect situations. Think of the admonition to "take it with a grain of salt." This is more than just a saying. It holds a truth that tells us how to process and accept information we want to convert into a fact. While it might be a very good analysis, adding just one grain of salt (another detail, regardless of how small), can have devastating implications.
We have long held that there are differences between people. When I was in school we referred to this as "20% biological variability". The number might actually be 15%, 50%, or maybe even 100%, but the idea we were espousing is that what works for some people might not work for others. What is safe in clinical trials might prove deadly when used in larger populations.
This is important when the doctor tells us that we need a certain operation, or a drug. It is true when certain foods are said to be healthy - or even harmful. It is so often true that I suggest we elevate that single grain of salt to a new position of importance. It signifies all of the pieces of the cause-effect puzzle regardless of how many, how small, or how large. There is always something that can interfere with how we believe something will work.
The only reliable source of information about yourself is yourself.
Does this mean we can't trust anyone or anything? Of course not. It means we must be cautious, first listening to our own bodies, then evaluating how other information impacts us. Beliefs are important. We would not survive without them. Question beliefs - all of them. accept the ones that fit you and use them. Question them again and again as more information enters your world. Each data bit is another grain of salt that just might make things better, or at least make more sense.