To read or not to read

Both Janice and I are avid readers; of different breeds, though: she tries to read 50 books, page-to-page, a year, and I rarely read a book from preface to epilogue and every page in between.  I went through the list of books she has read past several years and few, if any, overlap with mine.  We both read John Updike, she read his short stories (Museums and Women) and I essays and criticism (Due Consideration).

While plunging into WWII (limited to European theater), I browsed many books that include Churchill’s The Second World War, Martin Gilbert’s Second World War: a complete history, Ike’s Crusade in Europe, Harry Butcher’s My Three Years with Eisenhower, The Rommel Papers (edited by Liddell Hart), Ernie’s War: The best of Ernie Pyle’s WWII dispatches, or even Kay Summersby Morgan’s Past Forgetting: My Lover Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower and more.

The title of this posting borrowed from Oscar Wilde’s that he wrote in 1886, in which he wrote, (may click the photo to enlarge it)    

“To tell people what to read is as a rule either useless or harmful, for the true appreciation of literature is a question of temperament not of teaching, and nothing that one can learn is ever worth learning.  But to tell people what not to read is very different matter, and I venture to recommend it as a mission to the University Extension Scheme.”

He went on to write that his age is “an age which reads so much that it has no time to admire, and writes so much that it has no time to think.” So is our age, if not more so.

Janice once wrote, “I know some people who read constantly but the rigor of their reading material leaves much to be desired.”  I couldn’t have agreed more or said it better.  It is not only whether you’re reading or not, but also what you’ve been reading.  It is safe to say ‘you’re what you read.’ 

I often lament ‘I have much to write, and more to read,’ and I have no hesitation to drop a book that is not informative, insightful, rigorous, provocative, or entertaining to me.  I emphasize “to me” and that’s why I can tell you what book I am reading and there is no use to ask you to read it.  You need to pick it up on your own and do not hesitate to put it down if it doesn't please/help you.

Wilde wrote, “Books, I fancy, may be conveniently divided into three classes: 1. Books to read, 2. Books to re-read, and 3. Books not to read at all.”  Since I am of the opinion of not to tell one what book to read, I’ll copy what he said about the third class,

“Books not to read at all, such as Thomson’s Seasons, Roger’s Italy, Paley’s Evidences, all the Fathers except St. Augustine, all John Stuart Mill, except the essay on Liberty, all Voltaire’s plays without any exception, Butler’s Analogy, Grant’s Aristotle, Hume’s England, Lewes’ History and Philosophy, all argumentative books, and all books that try to prove anything.”

Witty though he might be, Wilde might not be the one telling us what not to read, considering his ‘art for art’s sake’ philosophy.

Physician addresses woman’s club

The Waynesburg Woman’s Club monthly meeting was held at Washington Street Methodist Church on February 26, 2008 and was hosted by Katy Tsai.  Dr. Jer-Yuan Tsai was invited to give a talk on the current news and controversies in medicine, covering many topics of interest.

Making flu vaccine is a calculated and educated guess; he explained why the influenza vaccine this season doesn’t work as well as anticipated and emphasized the science behind the vaccine is still solid and sound and do not lose faith to it.
 
He mentioned many of the medical controversies derive from statistical analysis and jokingly said there is a line in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” and the best way to prevent medical controversy is “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the statisticians.”  On a serious note, he emphasized that, like medicine, statistics is also science, something to be reckoned with.

He talked about the shingles and shingles vaccine in great detail so that one can make an informed decision in deciding whether to take the shingles vaccine or not.

The talk focused on type 2 diabetes.  He explained the concept of insulin resistance and the mechanisms by which many kinds of diabetic drugs work and why some type 2 diabetes patients may eventually end up requiring insulin.

Many in the audience were surprised, just like many doctors were puzzled, to learn that the mortality rate of the Intensive-glycemic-control arm of ACCORD trial was higher than that in the more laid-back standard strategy.  ACCORD is being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  Speaking of whether one should be aggressive in controlling diabetes: “To be or not to be, that is the question” with no answer, at least for now.  Dr Tsai also pointed out the outcomes of many landmark studies didn't agree with that of ACCORD study.

He used the example of current controversy of Vytorin and Zetia (cholesterol-lowering drugs) to illustrate

the relationship of media and medicine and how sometimes physicians may see things differently in a given study.  He pointed out that TV medical news reporting is generally commendable, but due to the time constraint, the details, which can be important in helping us drawing the conclusion, are often let out.
He briefly touched the topic of E-coli O157:H7 and the use of the the medication Evista to prevent breast cancer.

He ended the talk by quoting Moses Mamonides (1135-1204) “Live sensibly—among a thousand people, only one dies a natural death, the rest succumb to irrational modes of living.” Dr. Tsai’s best advice is “Eat less, exercise more, and go extra miles when walking” which is better than every thing he said or every medicine he mentioned.