“Oops! …I Did It Again”

/in /by

Did you see the news?

I am sad to report, for Britney Spears and her children, that she has filed for divorce stating that her marriage has “irreconcilable differences”.

It was just this past June that Spears, pregnant with her second child, did an interview with Matt Lauer on Dateline NBC to try to dispel the myth that her marriage was in trouble. She wanted you to believe her marriage was awesome, understandably. At that time Spears was in denial, and no one can blame her for being there when she was pregnant. It is part of the human emotional-survival response. I do not judge her for it.

Sadly, however, when Spears did that interview, I could clearly see the denial. Britney was trying to soothe herself. She wanted to believe her marriage would make it, though in her heart, clearly before her, she was struggling with the reality–pushing it away.

Read my June post about Spears interview with Dateline NBC and Matt Lauer here.

I truly wish Britney Spears, and her family all the best in finding true happiness.

Sometimes I wish I didn’t see all the things I see. It’s painful to secretly carry, and face the pains other can’t (in my private life), yet it is relief when they face the truth and move on–because that is a huge positive step. For when we face the truth, it is the first opportunity we have to seek out, and find true happiness.

Ted Haggard Quits

/in /by

I wrote almost a year ago to the day that I did not trust Ted Haggard, the leader of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Did you know the membership at Haggard’s Colorado Springs church totals 14,000 (excluding Haggard’s national following)?

Haggard gave me the heebie-jeebies in his interview with Dan Rather a year ago. Haggard had a plastered fake smile that never left his face. He gave me the feeling he was only out for one thing: the mighty buck.

He set off my warning bells, that’s for sure. I am not surprised by these allegations at all.

Read my post about Ted Haggard last year here.

Thanks to my uncle Dave for pointing the news story out to me as it broke last night! He remembered seeing my post a few months ago about Haggard and the New Life Church.

Delurking call/Open Forum

/in /by

Okay, all of you visitors who lurk around here — and don’t say hi! Now is your time. Introduce yourself!

I don’t bite, really 🙂

Also, if you have any questions, comments, thoughts or ideas — feel free to share them!

I believe, therefore I am…

/in /by

This week, a reader asked me my opinion about a media story where two men are claiming to be the father of the same baby. For those of you in the know, this story involves the recent birth of Anna Nicole Smith’s daughter. Ms. Smith is a sensational character as we all know — not someone who usually interests me — but of course, the truth does. So when a reader asked for my opinion, I sought out answers.

But this case is very interesting. Two men theoretically could each believe he is truly the father of this baby. AND IF THEY DO GENUINELY BELIEVE (not just hope or try to convince themselves), then they aren’t lying. Right? Right.

Beliefs can affect the truth.

One can believe something that has no bearing in reality. One can truly believe he is being honest when in fact he has (a) been misinformed, or (b) doesn’t know all the facts, or (c) has, in a deranged way, convinced himself fiction is fact.

If one truly believes what he is saying is the truth, I believe I will see that, and feel it. With that, I could theoretically meet two men who believe they are each the father of the same baby — and I know I would have no clue as to which one was and which one wasn’t the father. I would be in the dark.

This could happen.

But I don’t believe it has happened in this case. One man shows steadfast confidence, gives details that logically support his claims — and he gives reasons why Anna Nicole Smith has run away from him to the Bahamas. Everything is plausible and I do not see any inconsistencies in speech, stated facts taken at face-value (I didn’t go verify them), emotions, behavior, etc.

The other man comes across as very timid, insecure and full of self-doubt, and his reasoning and justifications just don’t add up. Howard Stern says Anna Nicole Smith wants to live a “normal” life in the Bahamas hence that is why she left the U.S., but she does plan on continuing her work in the U.S. A normal life in the Bahamas, commuting long distance? I just don’t see it. And there is more.

Howard Stern doesn’t explain the time lines to us about his involvement, that he had a secret affair, etc. He still could have had a secret affair with Anna. I can’t dispute that. I haven’t seen him answer questions to this point, to know any better. But he doesn’t stand strong in his belief, offer us anything convincing, etc. He doesn’t talk with conviction. Why? It gives me pause.

There are two outcomes that could come out of this situation. Howard Stern may have had a secret affair with Ms. Smith months ago — but isn’t sure he is the father — hence why all of the self-doubt — because he knew Ms. Smith was involved with her then boyfriend Larry Birkhead. Or, Howard Stern is flat out being deceptive perhaps to protect Ms. Smith. I believe his behavior hints that he is being less than honest.

I personally believe we will eventually learn that Larry Birkhead is the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby through DNA testing because the excuses that Howard Stern is giving just don’t add up, and aren’t logical — furthermore, he supports this with his timid, insecure behavior.

Statistically speaking, I’d say the likelihood of Stern being the father is 10% (affairs do happen!), and Birkhead being the father is 90%.

Only time will tell. Either way, Ms. Smith has some explaining to do!

More posted here on Feb 27, 2007.

Medical Deception?

/in /by

Updated

Slate ran an interesting article last week about a health stat that you should know about, but probably don’t. EVERY AMERICAN should know about this health stat– but somewhere along the way medical companies made sure it was confusiong enough you didn’t. It doesn’t have to be confusing after all — but it was made to be.

What do you need to know? It’s called N-N-T. “Numbers Needed to Treat”. Just because a drug has a a 31% reduction in say heart attacks, doesn’t mean that 31 people out of a hundred face reduced odds if they took the drug.

That’s what you thought? Didn’t you? I certainly did. Simple math.

Not so quick.

The article says, ” What, after all, does a 31 percent relative reduction in heart attacks mean? In the case of the 1995 study, it meant that taking Pravachol every day for five years reduced the incidence of heart attacks from 7.5 percent to 5.3 percent.”

“Suppose that 100 people with high cholesterol levels took statins. Of them, 93 wouldn’t have had heart attacks anyway. Five people have heart attacks despite taking Pravachol. Only the remaining two out of the original 100 avoided a heart attack by taking the daily pills. In the end, 100 people needed to be treated to avoid two heart attacks during the study period –so, the number of people who must get the treatment for a single person to benefit is 50. This is known as the ‘number needed to treat.'” (Treat Me?The crucial health stat you’ve never heard of.By Darshak SanghaviPosted Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2006)

So, a 31% reduction in heart attacks, means two people out of 100 were spared a heart attack. Did you know that is what this meant?

Next time, when you are taking a prescription drug, ask for the NNT, then look at the side effects.

Don’t miss this article. Read it here.

You decide: Is this practice deceptive? Or do you think it is necessary for 50 people to take a drug for the benefit of one?