Funmurphys: the Blog

The Triumph of Hope over Experience

Archive for category Science

New Meaning To Dress For Success

Oct 13

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Fun, Science | 1 Comment

After reading this story about how researchers investigated how women dressed differently during their menstrual cycle and discovered, I kid you not:

A new study shows that young women in relationships may dress a bit more enticingly as they reach the ovulation phase of their monthly fertility cycle — the time when they are most fertile.

I’ve decided I clearly went into the wrong line of work. Researchers studied 30 college women and took a bunch of pictures of them (mental flash – should I report these guys to the FBI per the fallout over Rep. Foley?) over time.

First, who thinks up these studies – nerdy men who want to meet college women? This really addresses a burning question about human behavoir.

Secondly, I’m not surprised that women would dress “more enticingly” and that’s because women are a lot hornier as ovulation approaches. I’m wondering when that bit of research gets done.

Bonus tip: Men are always horny, except when sporting events are on TV.

Tags:

A Jug Of Wine, And Thou

Oct 11

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Fun, Science | No Comments

You can get a grant for a study like this?

Studies to date looking at the association between alcohol consumption and risky sex, however, have largely used potentially biased clinic-based samples or alcohol venue-based sampling strategies [2,4,10,13,16,17]. In addition, risk factors for heavy alcohol use itself with regard to sexual behavior have not yet been adequately characterized. Finally, there are few data on whether the relationship between alcohol and risky sex is the same for men and women, and on the interplay between alcohol, intergenerational relations, and sex exchange. We therefore set out to assess the following in a large, population-based sample covering rural, urban, and semi-urban areas in Botswana: (a) the prevalence and correlates of heavy alcohol consumption; and (b) gender-specific relationships between heavy alcohol use (as a primary independent variable) and a number of HIV transmission risk outcomes, including having unprotected sex with a nonmonogamous partner, having multiple partners, and paying for or selling sex in exchange for money or resources.

As Gomer would say, surprise surprise surprise. When drunk, people are more likely to engage in risky sex. I could have told you that more clearly for less money. Far less money. It’s the basis for men buying women (and vice versa) drinks in bars. In fact, I’ll give this one to you for free – alcohol consumption lowers inhibitions.

Tags: ,

Lasers And Chlorine Dioxide

Oct 9

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

You want to eat healthy, which means eating your vegetables, but you’re scared because of outbreaks of food pathogens like E. Coli and Listeria. You’ve read that washing it, even by the supplier, isn’t always effective. And when you find out that growers in the Salinas Valley, where most of the country’s produce is grown, use tertiary treated sewage effluent for irregation, you really don’t want to eat your vegetables.

But Purdue has your back. Researchers at the Purdue University have devised a one-two punch to knock out food pathogens. First, they have a laser system to detect the pathogens, and then they kill them with Chlorine Dioxide gas.

“If the product is safe, but nobody will eat it, that’s not what we want,” Linton said.”We are always thinking in terms of, “Will this work for industry?’ In this case, I believe the answer is yes. I would like to see this technology used regularly by industry in a couple years from now.”Both technologies have the potential to help prevent food-borne illness, Linton said, but he also noted that following proper agricultural practices is as important, if not more important, for food safety.

Since E. coli, or Escherichia coli, is found in the intestines of warm-blooded animals, it does not naturally contaminate most produce. Therefore, following more stringent sanitary policies, as well as practicing better manure and water management, can go a long way to help prevent future outbreaks, Linton said.

I’m with Dr. Linton on this – let’s do all the things we should be doing, and not just rely on trying to clean up the mess at the end. But I’m glad we may well have a more effective way to clean up the mess at the end.  

Tags: ,

The New Phonebooks are Here!

Oct 6

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Fun, Science | No Comments

The Nobel prize winners have been in the news lately, and so here is a complete listing:

  • NUTRITION: Wasmia Al-Houty of Kuwait University and Faten Al-Mussalam of the Kuwait Environment Public Authority, for showing that dung beetles are finicky eaters.
  • PEACE: Howard Stapleton of Merthyr Tydfil, Wales, for inventing an electromechanical teenager repellant — a device that makes annoying noise designed to be audible to teenagers but not to adults; and for later using that same technology to make telephone ringtones that are audible to teenagers but not to their teachers.
  • ACOUSTICS: D. Lynn Halpern (of Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, and Brandeis University, and Northwestern University), Randolph Blake (of Vanderbilt University and Northwestern University) and James Hillenbrand (of Western Michigan University and Northwestern University) for conducting experiments to learn why people dislike the sound of fingernails scraping on a blackboard.
  • MATHEMATICS: Nic Svenson and Piers Barnes of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization, for calculating the number of photographs you must take to (almost) ensure that nobody in a group photo will have their eyes closed
  • LITERATURE: Daniel Oppenheimer of Princeton University for his report “Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly.”
  • MEDICINE: Francis M. Fesmire of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, for his medical case report “Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage”; and Majed Odeh, Harry Bassan, and Arie Oliven of Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, for their subsequent medical case report also titled “Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage.”
  • PHYSICS: Basile Audoly and Sebastien Neukirch of the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, in Paris, for their insights into why, when you bend dry spaghetti, it often breaks into more than two pieces.
  • CHEMISTRY: Antonio Mulet, Jose Javier Benedito and Jose Bon of the University of Valencia, Spain, and Carmen Rossello of the University of Illes Balears, in Palma de Mallorca, Spain, for their study “Ultrasonic Velocity in Cheddar Cheese as Affected by Temperature.”

That would be the Ig Nobel prizes, that is. They are awarded to those who first make people laugh, then make them think. Something we strive mightily for here at funMurphys, but without the coveted award.

Some winners got into the spirit, as this press release shows.

BIOLOGY: Bart Knols (of Wageningen Agricultural University, in Wageningen, the Netherlands; and of the National Institute for Medical Research, in Ifakara Centre, Tanzania, and of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna Austria) and Ruurd de Jong (of Wageningen Agricultural University and of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Italy) for showing that the female malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae is attracted equally to the smell of limburger cheese and to the smell of human feet.

Tags:

LSD and Alcoholism

Oct 6

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | 1 Comment

You can’t make this stuff up. A history of medicine professor at the University of Alberta, Erika Dyck, has rediscovered studies from ’60s Canada that show LSD can be an effective treatment of alcholism.

According to one study conducted in 1962, 65 per cent of the alcoholics in the experiment stopped drinking for at least a year-and-a-half (the duration of the study) after taking one dose of LSD. The controlled trial also concluded that less than 25 per cent of alcoholics quit drinking for the same period after receiving group therapy, and less than 12 per cent quit in response to traditional psychotherapy techniques commonly used at that time.Published in the Quarterly Journal for Studies on Alcohol, the 1962 study was received with much skepticism. One research group in Toronto tried to replicate the results of the study, but wanted to observe the effect of LSD on the patients in isolation, so they blindfolded or tied up the patients before giving them the drug. Under such circumstances, the Toronto researchers determined LSD was not effective in treating alcoholism.

The Saskatchewan group argued that the drug needed to be provided in a nurturing environment to be effective. However, the Toronto researchers held more credibility than the Saskatchewan researchers–who were led by a controversial, British psychiatrist, Dr. Humphry Osmond–and the Saskatchewan group’s research was essentially buried.

I just have to wonder, did they researchers in Toronto tell the subjects they were going to be tied up or blindfolded?

Wikipedia has more about Dr. Humphry Osmond, the man who coined the term “psychedelic” and who’s middle name was “Fortescue”, including this bit about the study in question:

Osmond is also known for one study in the late 1950s in which he attempted to cure alcoholics with acute LSD treatment, resulting in a claimed 50% success rate. He also treated Alcoholics Anonymous co-founder Bill W. with LSD with positive results. There exists however an alternate version of the events that is told by psychiatrist Abram Hoffer, MD. Osmond and Hoffer not only worked with LSD but also with niacin, which is now called vitamin B3. It is Bill W. himself who made this term popular, after he realized, thanks to the two researchers, the antipsychotic potential of this vitamin when given in supraphysiologic doses. B3 became known as a treatment for alcoholism, as well as for LSD-induced and schizophrenic psychosis Vitamin B-3: Niacin and Its Amide by A. Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D.. The underlying adrenochrome and kryptopyrrole (mauve factor) hypotheses were met with stiff, unsubstantiated opposition. The B3 protocol for alcoholism, despite encouraging results, fell into oblivion amongst the Alcoholics Anonymous organization, which gradually became a faith-based organisation reflecting the orientations of the other AA co-founder.

I’m glad I’m not an alcoholic so I don’t wind up tied to a bed on an acid trip in the name of science. I think I’ll just stick with the niacin I take to help lower my cholesterol.

Tags: , ,

Natural Frankenfoods

Oct 3

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

Where do you stand on genetically engineered crops? Personally, I’m all in favor and don’t see a whole lot of difference between seed companies selecting for traits and a scientist taking a short cut and inserting the actual gene(s) they want, even when the gene comes from a completely different organism. But not everyone sees it that way, and they do raise some valid points. Certainly not all engineering is equal, but what about the most basic complaint — that such engineering is not natural? Well, research into the past genetic history shows that such staple crops as rice and corn (maize for all you britishers out there) have undergone massive genetic alteration over time:

“Our findings elucidate an active evolutionary process in which nature inserts genes much like modern biotechnologists do. Now we must reassess the allegations that biotechnologists perform ‘unnatural acts,’ thereby creating ‘Frankenfoods,'” said Professor Joachim Messing, project leader and director of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.By comparing corresponding segments of two maize (corn) chromosomes with each other, and then to a corresponding segment of rice, project scientists reconstructed a genetic history replete with “reconfiguration and reshuffling, reminiscent of working with Lego blocks,” Messing said.

Public awareness groups have argued that genetic engineering of crops deviates from “natural processes” when biotechnologists insert genes at seemingly random places, altering the normal order of genes in the genome. The view of genes being fixed in their position in the genome is largely based on studies in animal genomes. In contrast to those studies, however, the authors show that plant genomes evolved from a far more dynamic structure than previously believed.

Well, I think that answers the basic objection; all the rest are really ones of process and can dealt with by reasonable people — and should be.

Tags: ,

Giant Anti-Sucking Sound

Oct 3

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

I just couldn’t resist the title of this article: World’s biggest whoopee cushion helps kids understand the science of sound. Who says science can’t be fun? Not Professor Trevor Cox, that’s for sure:

Trevor Cox, Professor of Acoustic Engineering at Salford University, will deliver this Royal Institution Science for Schools lecture. It is the biggest live event ever to be organised by the Royal Institution of Great Britain and their first-ever collaboration with the Royal Albert Hall. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded the research that forms the basis of the lecture and helped to fund the development of the show.Audience participation will feature strongly throughout the event. Volunteers will be encouraged to sit on a specially made 2 metre-diameter whoopee cushion — the largest in the world — to demonstrate exactly how wind instruments work. The physics involved when whoopee cushions make a noise is the same as blowing through the mouthpiece of a saxophone, for instance (although the sound produced is quite different!). Trevor’s whoopee cushion will also be assessed at the event for a place in the Guinness World Records.

Ah, reminds me of the school science night when I made a flush toilet out of a plastic pretzel jar, a funnel, tubing, a bucket, plenty of caulk, and wood framing — only a whole let better.

Tags:

Dobson, Seipp, and HPV Vaccination

Oct 2

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Economics, Faith, Science | No Comments

Cathy Seipp is a smart person, so why does she her analysis of the response to an HPV vaccine stumble so badly?

First off, she claims that certain religious fanatics are attacking the new vaccine for HPV:

One of the first things I had my 17-year-old daughter do when she began college this fall was make an appointment to get the new anti-HPV (for “Human Papillomavirus”) vaccine at the university’s student health center. HPV is the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer, and the new vaccine (which in my view should only be celebrated, as should all medical progress) has been attacked by religious fanatics almost as soon as it was introduced. “Why, this will only encourage young girls to have sex!” Or so that kind of thinking goes — if you can even call it “thinking.”

OK, what is Focus on the Family’s position? Oddly enough, they have a .pdf position statement on their web site:

Recognizing the worldwide detriment to individuals and families resulting from HPV, Focus on the Family supports and encourages the development of safe, effective and ethical vaccines against HPV, as well as other viruses. The use of these vaccines may prevent many cases of cervical cancer, thus saving the lives of millions of women across the globe. Therefore, Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school. The decision of whether to vaccinate a minor against this or other sexually transmitted infections should remain with the child’s parent or guardian. As in all areas of sexual health and education, Focus on the Family upholds parents’ right to be the primary decision maker and educator for their children. The use of these vaccines should involve informed consent for parents as well as education for both parents and youth regarding the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine. In making this decision, parents should consider the following:
* No vaccine is 100% effective against disease;
* There are more than one hundred sub-types of HPV and the current vaccines being tested are effective against, at most, four of these;
* The sub-types of the virus that these vaccines protect against are the cause of most but not all cases of cervical cancer;
* The possibility of HPV infection resulting from sexual assault, including date rape;
* The possibility that young persons may marry someone previously exposed to and still carrying the virus;
* The HPV vaccines do not protect against other STIs or prevent pregnancy;
* The HPV vaccines do not, in any circumstance, negate or substitute the best health message of sexual abstinence until marriage and sexual faithfulness after marriage.

Hmm, how about Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council welcomes the news that vaccines are in development for preventing infection with certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV). We also welcome the reports, like those we’ve heard this morning, of promising clinical trials for such a vaccine. Forms of primary prevention and medical advances in this area hold potential for helping to protect the health of millions of Americans and helping to preserve the lives of thousands of American women who currently die of cervical cancer each year as a result of HPV infection. Media reports suggesting that the Family Research Council opposes all development or distribution of such vaccines are false….

We will also continue to take an interest in the activities of the pharmaceutical companies, the federal and state governments, and of the medical community, as vaccines for HPV are approved, recommendations for their use are developed, and their use is implemented. In particular, we encourage follow-up studies to determine whether use of the vaccine has any impact on sexual behavior and its correlates, such as rates of other sexually transmitted diseases or rates of pregnancy.

We are particularly concerned with insuring that medically accurate information regarding the benefits and limitations of an HPV vaccine is distributed to public health officials, physicians, patients, and the parents of minor patients. It is especially important for those parties to understand that such a vaccine:

* will not prevent transmission of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, of which there are many;

* will not prevent infection with other strains of HPV, of which there are also many;

* will not prevent infection with all of the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer;

* and lastly, will not eliminate the need for regular screening.

We recognize that the most current immunological studies suggest that these vaccines would be most effective in pre-adolescents. Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to twelve-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex “safe.” We strongly encourage the health care community to clearly communicate the medically accurate fact that only abstaining from sexual contact with infected individuals can fully protect someone from the wide range of sexually transmitted diseases.

However, we also recognize that HPV infection can result from sexual abuse or assault, and that a person may marry someone still carrying the virus. These provide strong reasons why even someone practicing abstinence and fidelity may benefit from HPV vaccines.

Because parents have an inherent right to be the primary educator and decision maker regarding their children’s health, we would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorizing it. Because the cancer-causing strains of HPV are not transmitted through casual contact, there is no justification for any vaccination mandate as a condition of public school attendance. However, we do support the widespread distribution and use of vaccines against HPV.

Vaccination at the beginning of adolescence may provide a unique opportunity for both health care providers and parents to discuss with young people the full range of issues related to sexual health. We would encourage this committee to recommend that policy-making bodies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, should develop and formalize clinical counseling interventions directed toward sexual risk elimination strategies for pre-adolescents. Such strategies could be incorporated into anticipatory guidance protocols. Such a strategy would also mirror the risk elimination messages presented to adolescents regarding tobacco, alcohol, and drug usage, and youth violence prevention. This risk elimination message is the best form of primary prevention youth can receive.

Both health care providers and parents should reinforce the fact that limiting sexual activity to the context of one faithful and monogamous long-term relationship is the single most effective method of preventing all sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and the whole range of negative psychological and social consequences that can result from sexual activity outside marriage.

OK, how about Jerry Falwell? Silent on the issue.

National Abstinence Clearinghouse? OK, I admit I’m not a member and don’t want to join so I can’t actually see what’s in their resource library, but here are some titles:

07.05.2006 More on HPV and Condoms
06.29.2006 HPV Vaccine: How Much Will it Cost?
06.21.2006 HPV Vaccine: Progress, But the Battle’s Not Over Against HPV
05.24.2006 HPV Vaccine Clears FDA Hurdle
04.26.2006 Data from Eight Collected Studies Shows Enormous Risk of Cervical Cancer from HPV
04.07.2006 New Way to Encourage Someone to Test for STD
04.05.2006 Teens and STDs: A New Message for a Healthy Millennium

Call me crazy, but it strikes me that they are in line with Focus on the Family, not opposed, and I’m assuming their position is best summed up by “HPV Vaccine: Progress, But the Battle’s Not Over Against HPV”.

Now perhaps these organizations have all moderated their opposition after the FDA approved it and I’m (admittedly) late to the party. But that isn’t what is claimed. Now to be sure there may be some people out there actually flat out opposed to the HPV vaccine who are Christians, but I’m sure not seeing some movement by any influential organization.

But it doesn’t end there. Ms. Seipp continues:

This naturally brought out all the true believers in hordes — many of whom insisted that my comparison of vaccines that prevent disease to locked doors that prevent burglars is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don’t see why. Some of these people insist the analogy is flawed because airbags and seatbelts encourage people to drive more recklessly, not less.But while it’s true there are some studies that indicate improved safety features in cars do make some people feel inoculated against road hazards and so more likely to speed, what about people like me? I never speed and haven’t had a traffic ticket in 26 years — pretty much what you’d expect from a typical Volvo-driving fuddy-duddy…whose seatbelts always fastened, and whose car has airbags.

It’s true my analogy about burglars and disease may be imperfect, but it’s nevertheless essentially true. One person, for instance, said I should have used the example of theft insurance instead of locked doors. But I don’t see why. Vaccinating against disease and locking your doors against burglars both recognize that we live in a world where bad things can happen even if we don’t deserve them. Recognizing that fact no more encourages promiscuity than locked doors encourages burglary; both are simply precautions.

Now let’s take up the question of whether or not reducing the risk associated with a behavior increases the incidence of said behavior. That is the what is claimed again by Ms. Seipp as the religious fanatic’s objection to this vaccine.

So her analogy is that since locking your doors at night doesn’t encourage burglars, making sex less risky won’t encourage sex. There are two problems that make her analogy a non-sequitor. The original is about how your ability to lower the risk of your behavior to yourself encourages you to do more of that behavior. The analogy is about how your ability to (1) increase the risk of (2) someone else’s behavior doesn’t encourage them. Gee, when you get to stand the other person’s points on their heads, you can easily refute them.

Now a reader tries to rescue her “One person, for instance, said I should have used the example of theft insurance instead of locked doors. But I don’t see why.” Here’s why: the analogy becomes just because you have theft insurance [lower the risk] you don’t stop locking your doors at night [risky behavior]. The reason you should use it is that it actually conforms to the logic of the objection. I have to admit I don’t have data, but I’d say there are more people who would take less precautions with their property knowing they would be paid for a loss than there are who would take more.

But I don’ have to think too hard about this, because we already have data about this very effect, and Ms. Seipp cites it – anti-lock brakes and airbags have made people feel safer, so we have engaged in riskier driving behavior to the point we are no safer, and even less safe than before. So we have valid evidence that low and behold, if you lower the risk of a certain behavior, people will do more of it.

And how does Ms. Seipp respond to actual real hard data? Anecdote. Hey I own a safe car and I don’t engage in risky behavior. OK, what does that have to do with the measurement of real behavior by real people? Yep, none.

As far as Ms. Seipp’s analogy, how about we ask the question, if burglars were given a “get out of jail free” card that really worked, even if only once, would they commit more or less burglary? I don’t have to think too hard about that one.

But one has to ask, so what? As far as I can tell, what Focus on the Family and Family Research Council are warning against is a false sense of security – that is they don’t want the message to be that because of this vaccine, sex has been rendered safe and complication free. Kind of like, just because you lock the front door everynight, don’t think you can’t be burglarized.

A better response would be that given all of the factors that go into becoming sexually active, the risk of HPV is pretty far down the list and is just not very significant, and that the risk that young girls would misjudge and take this vaccine as a license for risk free sex could be overcome through the proper education — which sound a lot like the positions take by those religious fanatics at FOTF and FRC.

So what did I learn from reading Ms. Seipp in this case? Nothing about so called religious fanatics. But I did learn that even smart, reliable people goof: they don’t accurately represent other people’s positions, they don’t reason well, they dismiss data if it disagrees with their opinion, and in general can just go off half-cocked. And yes, I’m sure if you were a glutton for punishment and went through my archives you could find similar problems from time to time.

Tags: ,

If A Tree Is Not In The Forest, Can You Hear It Fall?

Sep 29

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

What tree doesn’t like a forest? The Live Oak, which apparently is the introvert of the tree family. A study of the live oak by University of Florida researchers reveals that live oaks are under pressure in Florida (an no doubt elsewhere) from the encroachment of other trees:

It is an irony of nature that the successes of reforestation and urban forestry threaten live oaks, which in the past maintained the elbow room they needed from logging, cattle grazing and frequent fires, said Putz, whose work is published in the June issue of Forest Ecology and Management. “We are confusing our natural savanna heritage with forested landscapes and the tragedy is that the forest is killing live oaks,” he said. “If we allow other trees to grow up too close to the live oak, the live oak will die. Our research clearly establishes this fate in both rural and suburban landscapes.”…

Based on these findings, Putz said he believes more than half of the live oaks in the city of Gainesville alone are in danger of being destroyed by encroaching trees, a process that can take anywhere from 10 to 30 years and is most rapid in the suburbs where lawns are fertilized.

The problem is widespread because suburban sprawl and forest expansion are threatening savannas and open-canopied woodlands in many parts of the world, Putz said.

“The trees of these savannas, from the oaks of California and Europe to the acacias of Africa and the legumes of tropical America, are all likely to suffer when forest trees encroach on their crowns,” he said. ‘In the U.S. alone, savanna is the natural vegetation all across the coastal plain from Virginia to Texas.”

Saving live oaks sometimes means having to kill other trees, which can be expensive, but preserving a single live oak can add as much as $30,000 to the value of a house, Putz said. Furthermore, having a live oak nearby is good protection against hurricane damage.

I have to admit it’s counter-intuitive for me to consider the growth of forest can come at the expense of a particular tree species, or to contemplate killing one set of trees to save another.

Tags: ,

Diabetes, Not Obesity Kills

Sep 26

Posted by Kevin Murphy in Science | No Comments

I count this as good news/bad news – obesity by itself carries no extra risk of early death, but diabetes sure is a killer. Since obesity is a significant risk factor in diabetes, and being overweight is no picnic, don’t start ignoring your size. And in light of the last post about how scaring people into action is ineffective, this quote makes double sense:

“Telling an overweight person that they either need to lose weight or they will die is the wrong message,” he says. “There is increasing evidence that aggressively treating diabetes and other risk factors that go along with obesity, like cholesterol and high blood pressure, is even more important than losing weight.”

Not everyone is convinced:

But JoAnn Manson, M.D., of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, doesn’t buy the idea that diabetes alone is responsible for the increased risk of early death in people who are obese. Manson led the team which reanalyzed the CDC data. She tells WebMD that there is plenty of good evidence implicating obesity in death from cardiovascular disease and several types of cancer, as well as diabetes.”There are clearly pathways through which obesity increases the risk of death that do not involve type 2 diabetes,” she says.

That’s the beauty of science — it’s only settled once you’re dead.

Tags: ,