Students: Need Help with Science Class?

Any college science class will be challenging regardless of your skill and knowledge level.  Even the smartest students are obviously going to have questions. Just in case your instructor cannot answer all of them in lectures and office hours, and if you cannot afford a private tutor, there are plenty of sources online that can help you wrap your head around these concepts.  

A study in the journal entitled Computers & Education in April 2016 looked at what possible influence a YouTube channel for a specific marketing course could have on cross-curricular competencies. The researchers concluded that:

“The use of YouTube as a teaching vehicle has a positive impact on students’ learning outcomes and satisfaction.”

As good as that sounds, there is reason to be cautious. A publication in Anatomical Sciences Education in April 2013 reviewed a total of 55,525 videos by analyzing the quality and overall detail of the data presented in the content. Of which, Only 294 of them made the cut for further analysis. The results indicated that there was an overall poorly conveyed anatomical criteria, and the general quality of the videos were deemed “borderline.” The researchers encouraged anatomists and educational institutes to prepare and endorse good quality material, as well as for students to be selective when using public video databases to aid in learning.

So what are some of the trustworthy sources on the internet to aid learning? There are quite a few of them out there. I’ll share some of the main ones who are credible and have helped me personally.

Brothers, Hank and John Green, created Crash Course in 2006; which is a YouTube channel now boasting more than five million subscribers and more than 520 million total views. A quick glance at the playlists reveals entire courses in core topics such as Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, Anatomy & Physiology, Astronomy, Intellectual Property, Physics, and many others. They have developed partnerships with organizations such as PBS Digital Studios and Khan Academy; and they have plenty of sister channels such as Scishow, Scishow Space, Healthcare Triage, and sexplanations which touch on specific educational topics as well.

AsapSCIENCE is a website and YouTube channel that prides itself on giving you a “weekly dose” of science education. Topics vary from dieting to the science behind motivation to filtering through the political noise and discussing what actually happens during the abortion process. The creators of the channel, Mitchell Moffit and Greg Brown, even published a book entitled AsapSCIENCE: Answers to the Weirdest Questions, Most Persistent Rumors, and Unexplained Phenomena. Bill Nye, CEO of the Planetary Society and author of Undeniable, said in this review of the book that:

“Science is big fun. The ASAP guys get that, and they’ll show you—they’ll even draw you a diagram.”

Aron Ra is an author, science educator, Texas State Senate candidate for 2020, public speaker, host of the Ra-men podcast, and blogger among many other things. However, he is best known for his YouTube channel. The topics he is most notably passionate about are science education and debunking pseudoscience. Aron produces high quality videos about biology for both high school and college level about topics such as heredity patterns and abiogenesis, as well as plenty explaining and debunking the many misconceptions about evolution. He also has a special Phylogeny Explorer Project currently in the development stages.

Bozeman Science was created by Paul Anderson, science educator with a Masters of Science in Science Education, has been teaching the subject for more than twenty years. He has produced multiple videos about various topics such as Biology, Statistics, Physics, and Environmental science. Anderson won the 2011 Montana Teacher of the Year award and was one of the finalists for the 2011 National Teacher of the Year.

There are tons of more content creators on the internet when it comes to science education and breaking down specific subjects. However, these are among the best you will find for science education. These sources could possibly be of use to students currently enrolled in science classes.  They certainly have been for me. 

Read More


Chronic Illness Report: The Global Economic and Public Health Impacts of Chronic Pain

Chronic pain is a global phenomenon which affects hundreds of millions of people and can be caused by risk factors such as injury, trauma, disease, surgery, and surgical complications. There are notable problems when it comes to the treatment methodology and the overall economic impact on society. Just how big of a problem is this, though, and how is our current approach to it panning out?

The issue of chronic pain has long been regarded as just a medical problem, rather than being viewed through the lens of public health. The difference between the two, as the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University explains, is simple: medicine focuses primarily on the individual, while public health focuses on entire populations at large.

Why is it important to look at the big picture here? Because viewing pain as a public health problem allows us to recognize that it is multifaceted and requires interdisciplinary action. It also happens to be “growing both in absolute numbers and in its inequitable distribution across the globe.” It is the leading cause of disability and is a major contributor to healthcare costs. According to the peer-reviewed journal, BMC Public Health, one out of every ten adults around the globe are diagnosed with some form of chronic pain every year. Pain affects more people in America than cancer, diabetes, and heart disease combined.

The American Pain Society explains:

“Based on data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the study estimates that within a previous three-month period, 25 million U.S. adults had daily chronic pain, and 23 million more reported severe pain. Those with serious pain need and use more health care services and suffer greater disability than persons with less severe pain.”

According to a publication in Oxford University’s British Journal of Anaesthesia, some degree of chronic pain affects around twenty percent of the entire European population. Clinical, biological, psychological, and socio-demographic components have each been concluded to be risk factors. Not only does chronic pain affect the patient, but there is an enormous economic impact on society as a whole. The same publication states that the cost is “currently estimated at more than €200 billion per annum in Europe and $150 billion per annum in the USA.”

As pointed out in a joint discussion forum by Harvard University and The Huffington Post, when you factor in both costs of treatment and lost productivity, that number checks out at around $635 billion. A lot of this money is wasted due to many patients having to see up to four or five different doctors before finding one who addresses their needs. This should come as no surprise, given the fact that students in veterinary school spend five times as many hours on studying pain management as do primary care physicians. A 2011 study published in the Journal of Pain concludes that “pain education for North American medical students is limited, variable, and often fragmentary. There is a need for innovative approaches and better integration of pain topics into medical school curricula.”

This phenomenon is not unique to adults, either. A publication in the Journal of Pain from September 2014 estimates that the total annual cost to the United States for treatment-seeking adolescents (ages 10-17) pans out to around $19.5 billion. Much like the case in Europe, one in five Canadians suffer from chronic pain. A number that is about the same for children as adults. Based on a systematic review of 38 different pain prevalence studies from several different countries, somewhere between 11-38% of children and young people will experience chronic pain and 5-8% percent of them are considered “severely disabled.”

The pediatric Journal, Nursing Children and Young People, points to some specific figures to show just how many young people are suffering with this:

“For example, in 2013, the population of people aged 19 years and younger living in Canada was 7.85 million (Statistics Canada 2014). Based on this statistic, between 863,500 and 2.9 million will experience chronic pain and about 392,000-628,000 of them will experience disability because of their pain.”

As Dr. Jennifer Stinson, Scientist and Nurse Practitioner at the Hospital for Sick Children, mentioned in a panel discussion on The Agenda with Steve Paikin back in January 2016: chronic pain can significantly impact these kids at school, as well as in their social life, and it will require extensive rehabilitation and care from multiple disciplines to help them get their lives back. Later in the program, Dr. Stinson also points out that, despite the fact that the doubled suicide rate among sufferers is mainly an adult statistic, there have been a number of cases of kids who are transitioning from childhood to adult care and “get lost in the system” who have taken their own lives. Much like the Harvard discussion forum, this program is very informative and worth watching if you care to learn more about the issue.

Speaking of this doubled risk of death by suicide, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “It is estimated that 45% of people who ultimately die from suicide were seen by their primary care provider within one month of their suicide.” Is it starting to seem like we have a serious problem on our hands? How are we, as a society, addressing these issues? BMC Public Health briefly summarizes what we should set our sights on:

“The prevalence, incidence, and vast social and health consequences of global pain requires that the public health community give due attention to this issue. Doing so will mean that health care providers and public health professionals will have a more comprehensive understanding of pain and the appropriate public health and social policy responses to this problem.”

It begins with a better understanding of this complex issue by both the medical and public health communities of professionals at large. It is necessary to explore how we should approach refining treatment methods. However, to do this will take an entirely separate article of its own. The purpose of this one is simply to examine the extent of both the economic and public health impacts at large.  

Read More


What Do the 2015 PISA Results Show About Science and Math Education Around the World?

The 2015 results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) exams, an international survey taken every three years to evaluate education systems around the world by testing the knowledge and practical skills of 15-year olds, have arrived. Just over half a million students, representing 28 million total 15-year old students in 72 different countries and economies, took this two-hour exam. The focus in 2015 was specifically science education, but also included mathematics, reading, collaborative problem solving, and financial literacy. The latest results were released on December 6th, 2016. Some countries made significant improvements since the last time (2006) the PISA focused on science. However, that is not the case with most participating countries.

What does the data say about the quality of education across the globe? According to the summary page, they assessed students performance in science, as well as their attitudes towards the subject. Why?

“An understanding of science, and of science‑based technology, is necessary not only for those whose careers depend on it directly, but also for any citizen who wishes to make informed decisions related to the many controversial issues under debate today.”

These issues include, but are not limited to, touchy topics such as diet, waste management, and genetically modified crops.

Just 8% of students in countries who participate in this Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) program are considered “top performers” in science. A shining exception, Singapore, turned out to be number one in science education; with 24% of their students considered “top performers”. The “key factor” was a high standard of teaching. The country recruits it’s teachers from the top 5% of graduates, seeing it as a prestigious position. The overall highest performing OECD member nations are Japan, Estonia, Finland, and Canada.

What does it take to be on the top? For science, it means they’re “sufficiently skilled in and knowledgeable about science to creatively and autonomously apply their knowledge and skills to a wide variety of situations, including unfamiliar ones.” In mathematics, it means they’re at least performing at levels 5 or 6. Level 5 is a score between 607 and 669, and means that students have to “work with models for complex situations”, as well as identifying constraints and specifying assumptions. Level 6 is a score above 669, where the students display a strong ability to “conceptualize, generalize, and utilize information” on the basis of their investigations and modeling of complex problems. The students have to apply insight and display mastery of formal mathematical operations and relations in order to develop innovative approaches and strategies in unique situations.

For the majority of countries who participated, the performance of science education remains unchanged since 2006, despite all the advances in science and technology during this period. Performance improved between 2006 and 2015 in Qatar, Macao (China), Colombia, Israel, Portugal, and Romania. The number of students Macao, Portugal, and Qatar who performed at above Level 5 increased, and the amount of students performing at level 2, below the “baseline of proficiency,” decreased. Students at this level are expected to understand basic science content, procedures to identify an appropriate explanation, interpret data, and identify the question being addressed in a single experiment. They are expected to be at this level before leaving high school.

More than one in four students in Hong Kong (China), Singapore, Chinese Taipei, and Beijing‑Shanghai‑Jiangsu‑Guangdong are considered top‑performing students in mathematics. Meaning that they can handle tasks that require the ability to formulate complex situations mathematically, using symbolic representations. Andreas Schleicher, Director for the OECD Directorate of Education and Skills, addresses in a video that these Chinese provinces specifically have achieved their success by putting heavy emphasis on good teaching, as well as “high and universal expectations for every student.”

Despite the fact that between 2006 and 2015, no country nor economy improved their performance in science or equity in education simultaneously, the relationship between socioeconomic status and student performance weakened in nine countries where mean science scores remained stable. The United States showed some improvement in equity. However, not quality. The average scores of the PISA for U.S. students is 496 out of 1,000. Massachusetts (529), North Carolina (502), and Puerto Rico (403) participated separate from the rest of the country.

In mathematics, the U.S. sits at an average of 470—with Massachusettes (500), North Carolina (471), and Puerto Rico (378) testing separately on this subject as well. The former two have shown improvement and are sitting above the national average. However, the Puerto Rico is nearly 100 points below the national average.

The 2015 PISA results show that, despite advances in science and technology, the education for those fields hasn’t necessarily kept up in most participating countries. There are a handful of countries who have shown significant improvement in their education. They seem to show the same consistent themes of high expectations for teachers and students alike. However, around the world, there is still much improvement to be made in education to keep up with the rate of scientific and technological advances.

Read More


What Does Donald Trump’s Education Policy Look Like?

United States president-elect, Donald J. Trump, originally announced his 100-day plan at a rally in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania towards the end of October, as the election was coming to a close. In it, he put forth proposals for legislation that has to do with education, childcare, healthcare, federal regulations, federal employees, economic policy, immigration, and a handful of other things. I’m going to shine light specifically on how these policies will affect students enrolled in K-12 and institutes of higher education.


Under the School Choice and Education Opportunity Act, Mr. Trump has proposed a plan for universal school choice which would “redirect education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice.” His plan would end common core education and bring the supervision to the local community level, expands vocational and technical education, and a plan to make two and four-year college degrees more affordable.

This is rather vague, so it is necessary to further investigate to understand what this really means for us and what the process entails. His campaign website provides more details as to what his plan and vision is. He highlights that the US spends more per pupil than most major countries, yet perform “near the bottom of the pack for major large advanced countries.” This is objectively true. As the Pew Research Center explains, only 16% of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and 29% of the general public would rank U.S. STEM education for K-12 to be above average or at the top of the list. The most recent Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) data shows that we’re ranked 35th in mathematics and 27th in science out of sixty-four total countries evaluated.

This data also shows that apparently students in the U.S. “have particular weaknesses in performing mathematics tasks with higher cognitive demands, such as taking real-world situations, translating them into mathematical terms, and interpreting mathematical aspects into real-world problems.” Despite the fact that the US spends more per student than most other countries, this doesn’t translate into better performance. Let’s take, for example, the Slovak Republic. When you break it down, they spend about $53,000 (USD) per student, as opposed to the US who spends more than $115,000 per student. However, they perform at the same level. It is also worthy to note that Korea, the highest performing OECD country in mathematics, spends much less than the average per-student expenditure. So the problem certainly doesn’t lie within the funding itself.

The method of organization is also an important factor found by this research. On average, schools with more teacher autonomy over their own curriculum and assessments tend to perform better than schools with less autonomy when they are part of a school system with more arrangements regarding accountability and greater teacher-principal collaboration with school management. This is in-line with some of the basic concepts also advocated by proponents school choice with regards to the decentralization of power and allocating it to the local level.

Trump has made cutting federal regulations a huge part of his platform. However, he has pledged to dedicate $20 billion in federal funds to school choice policies that would “give states the option to allow these funds to follow the student to the public or private school they attend” and use federal carrots to enable states to further expand choice policies. Jason Bedrick, policy analyst for the CATO Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, says that if he’s planning to promote a national voucher program to expand educational opportunity is “admirable, but using the federal government to do so is misguided” because it would very likely lead to an increase in federal regulation of private schools over time, especially if a new administration takes over that is less friendly to the concept as a whole. That has certainly been the case in some states that have undermined the effectiveness of school choice policies by excessively regulating them. He elaborates by stating:

“When a state adopts regulations that undermine its school choice program, it’s lamentable but at least the ill effects are localized. However, if the federal government regulates a national school choice program, there is no escape.”

Higher Education

Trump’s plans for higher education aren’t quite as descriptive as those for K-12. He has said he wants to “work with Congress on reforms to ensure universities are making a good faith effort to reduce the cost of college and student debt in exchange for federal tax breaks and tax dollars.” He also wants to ensure that the opportunity to attend a two or four-year school, as well as a vocational or technical school to attain specific skills, is “easier to access, pay for, and finish.” However, that is the extent of details as to how that will happen.

He has suggested that instead of students dealing with the “albatross” of student debt, they could pay 12.5 percent of their income each year for fifteen years, and after that, their loans could be forgiven. There is already a program in place that requires a payment of 10 percent over twenty years. Jason D. Delisle, of the American Enterprise Institute, has said that Mr. Trump’s plan would give a huge break to students with a higher amount of student debt (like those with more advanced degrees), but would ultimately end up costing the government more.


Like many other things, Donald Trump’s education policies have been no stranger to controversy. The Trump transition team announced on Wednesday, November 23rd that his pick to head the Department of Education was to be Betsy DeVos. It was difficult to find an article that wasn’t somehow critical of this decision.

DeVos is the chair for American Federation for Children, a group that promotes charter school education. She also served on the board for an organization called Foundation for Excellence in Education, which is a group led by former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, and promotes both school choice and common core standards of education. Conservatives were quick to critique the decision because of her involvement in an organization who supports common core. However, she issued a very bold statement on her website saying that “I am not a supporter–period.”

“Have organizations that I have been a part of supported Common Core?”, she continued. “Of Course. But that’s not my position.” She says that she believes every child regardless of their zip code or their parent’s jobs deserves access to a quality education. The National Education Association, the largest labor union in the US, gave fierce condemnation of Trump’s pick. Asserting that she has “done more to undermine public education than support students” and accused her of pushing “a corporate agenda”.


Like most things about Donald Trump, his education policy plans have been subject to controversy and debate. The reactions to these education proposals have been a mixed bag. Some are embracing the policies, while others are harshly critical, and there are those that fall between both umbrellas. Either way, the debate surrounding these issues are seemingly far from over with.

Read More


Chronic Illness Report: No-Shave-November or Movember?

It is that time of the year where millions of people around the globe put down the razor for the month of No-shave-November to promote men’s health causes. Many people may realize it as just another trend, but the truth is a bit more complicated. Similar to the Movember movement, they both have their roots in raising awareness for men’s health issues such as prostate cancer and  mental health issues.

Founded in 2003, the Movember Foundation went from just thirty “Mo Bros” to more than five million men and women who participate in this annually. Their goal is to address some of the biggest health issues faced by men. Including, but not limited to,  prostate cancer, testicular cancer, mental health, and suicide prevention. They take pride in the fact that they’re completely independent of any form of government funding, so they can “challenge the status quo and invest quicker in what works”. In just thirteen years, they have contributed more than $710 million to around 1,200 men’s health projects in dozens of countries around the globe. Their goal is to decrease the number of men dying prematurely by up to twenty-five percent by the year 2030.

They are encouraging men to grow out their mustache, as well as providing other means on involvement. Considering the majority of women (as well as some men) couldn’t grow a mustache if they wanted to, you could also get involved with the Move for Movember campaign by challenging yourself to exercise more often, if you already don’t. There are also various ways to donate to the cause. For more information about how you can get involved, visit their website.

The No-Shave-November campaign was founded by the Hill family out of Chicago as a way to honor Matthew Hill, who died in 2007 from colon cancer.  The same basic concept of raising cancer awareness is the same, but the approach is slightly different. The theme is to embrace your facial and/or body hair due to the fact that many cancer patients involuntarily lose theirs as a result of treatment. They encourage that you donate the money this month that you would normally spend on razors and grooming to “educate about cancer prevention, save lives, and aid those fighting the battle”.

Those who wish not to participate by physically not shaving are still encouraged to donate to and spread the word about the cause. According to their website, they partner with organizations such as The American Cancer Society, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Prevent Cancer Foundation, and Fight Colorectal Cancer, and have raised more than $1 million by nearly 30,000 people this year alone.

Both the Movember and No-Shave-November charities are nonprofit organizations. Each of them have raised millions of dollars to put towards funding for research into men’s health issues. It should go without saying that there is far more to this than just a trend. Even if you’re not participating in rocking the hair, and if you cannot afford to donate to the cause, spreading the word about the true meaning behind this movement can make a difference in people’s lives. 

Read More


Op-Ed: GMO Lives Matter II: Who is Behind the Propaganda and Misinformation?

The internet is a vast ocean of information. Some sources being valid, credible, and reliable. Not so much, others. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)  is currently one of the most controversial topics out there. However, much of the heated debate and paranoia could be avoided if people could better determine the difference between reliable and unreliable sources of information. Certain anti-GMO content published on the web from outlets such as the Huffington Post, Alex Jones, and Natural News are either completely misguided or flat out lying to you.

I’ll begin with the Huffington Post. As a more mainstream source, more people are unfortunately inclined to take them seriously. WhyHunger Co-founder and ambassador, Bill Ayres, made the following statement in a piece published in September of 2016:

“Members [of the Food Sovereignty Program] believe that increased dependence on technology, as heralded in the World Food Prize honorees, in the form of pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and GMO seeds is not the answer to hunger and food production.”

On what evidence are you basing your “beliefs”? As I mentioned in the previous GMO Lives Matter piece, this technology has saved an estimated one billion (with a ‘b’) or more lives thus far. Largely due to the scientific and technological achievements of Dr. Norman Borlaug–the brains behind certain varieties of wheat and rice–who happens to be the founder of the World Food Prize. Let us not forget that this technology also has allowed for impoverished importers of grains like Mexico and Pakistan to double their wheat production and become major exporters of the crop within a handful of years. As mentioned in this lecture given in June of 2013 by Cornell University Professor of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Margaret Smith, approximately six (out of seven) billion people today have access to adequate carbohydrates, up from two (out of 3.3) billion just fifty years ago. So if you “believe” this isn’t the answer to hunger and food production, despite the evidence already having shown that it is, you should probably consider looking at it a bit more objectively.

Alex Jones, well-known conspiracy theorist and host of The Alex Jones Show, is vehemently against genetic engineering. He was quoted saying “We’re all being shoved GMO that kills the rodents that eat it.” He makes reference to the 3rd generation of some rats being fed Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) corn which he claims renders them infertile and “looking like something out of a Frankenstein movie”. He also stated the following: 

“Rats have a multi-year life cycle, but they don’t live that long. Humans, of course, have about a 75 year cycle. We’re already one cycle into this and you can already see the cancer, the death, the mutations, the problems, all of it. Can you imagine phase two? It’s already started. Every TV show I watch is ads to raise money for kids that have cancer. They’re all over the place.”

So much to dissect and refute here. According to a publication in the journal, Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture:

“It could be conjectured that GMFs/GMOs could be potential hazard on reproduction, linking to the development of infertility through influencing the endocrine metabolism, endometriosis. However, little evidence shows the impaction on embryo or reproductive related tumor due to the limited literatures, and needs further research.”

Basically, there isn’t enough evidence to substantiate a link between GMOs and infertility. In the realm of science, correlation does not always imply causation. The Séralini rat study is a solid example of bunk science supposedly displaying a link between GMOs and tumors in rats. However, it was retracted by the publishers in 2013 for “inadequate data to support its conclusions.” The small number of rats, as well as the fact that there is a well-known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat, means that “no definitive conclusion can be reached.” You can’t exclude such important variables like that and expect the entire scientific community not to notice.

What about the concerns of childhood cancer? According to the National Cancer Institute, “the causes of most childhood cancers are not known”. Much of it is caused by inheritable genetic mutations. Children with Down syndrome are also 10-20 times more likely to develop leukemia than those without. There is a list of other variables that come into play, but GMOs aren’t even one of those. Alex never mentioned the specific studies was referencing to. But considering that the debunked study already specified has been so since years before he made this segment in Januaray of 2016, it would help his case here had he been a bit more specific. As Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” However, Alex fails to provide that in yet another brilliant segment of his. That doesn’t keep him from reaching 6.2 million people monthly on his website, He also has approximately 1.6 million subscribers on his YouTube channel. So a lot of people take this guy seriously. 

Natural News, a well-known pseudoscientific outlet, is another outlet which pumps out a considerable amount of anti-GMO propaganda. A piece from June of 2016 made the following claim:

“So the problem with some modern diseases, like metabolic syndrome, is they probably have multiple causes. Eating too much sugar and pesticides (from GMO corn syrup) in this case could be two causes adding to metabolic syndrome.”

I’m not sure where this author is getting their information from, but according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, there are many possible causes of Metabolic syndrome, and none of them are related to GMOs. They include overweight and obesity, an inactive lifestyle, insulin resistance, excess fats in the liver, polycystic ovarian syndrome, gallstones, and breathing problems during sleep such as sleep apnea. Not only is there solid evidence to show GMOs are safe for consumption. Here is a list of more than 1,700 studies which conclude precisely that. 

I hope reading through his piece has shown that many outlets that speak out against GMOs either do not have an adequate enough understanding of the topic or are purposely misrepresenting it. There are more reputable voices out there than the Huffington Post, Alex Jones, and Natural News. Be skeptical. In the next piece of this series, we’ll explore how this propaganda and misinformation has shown itself to be rather dangerous.

Read More


Op-Ed: The DEA Doesn’t Even Science, Bro

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) managed to piss off a whole lot of people with their recent decision to deny two petitions to reschedule marijuana from a schedule I drug, which currently sits alongside the likes of drugs such as heroin. They claim that it isn’t a safe nor effective medicine. It is truly sad that, in damn near 2017, I even have to say that this is a decision that is not based in reality. Unfortunately, this decision will just keep us in the dark ages of federal marijuana prohibition just that much longer. Allow me to elaborate.

So let’s examine what exactly the DEA has to say on this matter, as well as the facts side by side. On the administration’s website, they claim the following:

“Based on the legal standards in the CSA [Controlled Substance Act], marijuana remains a schedule I controlled substance because it does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse.”

DEA chief, Chuck Rosenberg, also elaborated on this decision in a letter to the Governors of Rhode Island and Washington:

“This decision isn’t based on danger. This decision is based on whether marijuana, as determined by the FDA, is a safe and effective medicine, and it’s not.”

So let’s hit the brakes for a second to examine the claims being made here by the highest authorities on these matters. First, we must take into account what a schedule I drug actually is, and then we can try to understand why they consider cannabis to be deserving of that categorization.

According to the DEA’s website:

“Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence.”

The drug categorizations range from what they consider most dangerous to the least. Schedule I being the most dangerous, schedule V being the least. I must point out how ironic it is that the drugs in the “most dangerous” category were put there on the premise of danger and risk, but then they turn around and say that the decision to reclassify marijuana wasn’t based on danger, but efficacy as a medicine. Before we even get the chance to dive in a little deeper and fact-check them, some pretty massive holes and contradictions are already beginning to appear on the surface. And these are the people in charge of making these decisions for us?

It is almost common knowledge at this point that marijuana indeed has medicinal value to one extent or another. Which plays a role in the fact that the majority of the American public is in favor of legalization, and more than half of the country has legal medical marijuana of some form or another. How can this be if there is supposedly no medical value?, a website that explore both pros and cons of many different controversial issues, lists 60 peer reviewed studies conducted in between 1990-2014 that mostly suggest positive results for treatment of many ailments that include but are not limited to glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, nausea, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, cancer, and Tourette’s syndrome. In fact, 41 (68.3%) of them show positive results, 5 (8.3%) show negative results, and 14 (23.3%) show neither. Notice that even if you combine the studies that demonstrate both ‘negative’ and ‘neither’ results, the score is still ultimately 41 to 19. Talk about an upset.

Of those 60 mentioned, one study published in August of 2014 by The Official Journal of the American Academy of Neurology demonstrates therapeutic value for patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Cannabis contains immunomodulatory properties and effects on excitotoxicity that suggest a possible disease-modifying role among ALS patients.  Of 102 people who completed the survey, 21% reported either current or prior use of marijuana to help manage symptoms. Out of those individuals, 75% reported that cannabis helped stimulate their appetite, 65% reported it to aid with sleep, 80% claimed that it helped their anxiety, 70% claimed it helped with depression, and 60% said that it helped with muscle relaxation. Only 33% of the participants lived in an area where medical cannabis is legal. Of the 66% who didn’t have legal access, 81% expressed interest in trying it if it were to be legalized.

So we can establish that the DEA is simply wrong about their claims about the efficacy of marijuana as a safe medicine. What about their assertion that cannabis has a high potential for abuse?

According to the National Institutes of Health [NIH], 30% of cannabis users have some degree of dependence. Withdrawals from the drug are usually characterized by the following:

“Frequent marijuana users often report irritability, mood and sleep difficulties, decreased appetite, cravings, restlessness, and/or various forms of physical discomfort that peak within the first week after quitting and last up to 2 weeks.”

Someone who is dependent on marijuana (such as myself for medical reasons) might have some discomfort, mood, and sleep issues when they go without for a week or two. Is this really the DEA’s idea of “severe” and “dangerous”?

Given all of this information, it is easy to see why so many people are completely dissatisfied with the DEA’s recent decision to keep marijuana classified as a schedule I drug. When we look at the supposed “severe risks” of developing a dependence, we can see that this drug is not deserving of the classification it has received. Nor are the patients who could benefit from, but often lack access to, legal marijuana deserving of that by any means. When 3/10 people have a risk of developing varying degrees of dependency, that means 7/10 do not. Therefore, having to suffer the consequences for an issue affecting only a few. How is that logical, and more importantly, how is that considered just? They’re quite literally ignoring the will of the majority of the country to make cannabis more accessible at a federal level, as well as dismissing a pretty substantial amount of scientific data.


Read More


Op-Ed: GMO Lives Matter I: What is the Green Revolution?

These days we’re used to seeing the word “green” used as an adjective to describe everything from various technologies to entire philosophies and movements, including those of political nature. There are green parties in nearly 90 countries in the world, including the Green Party of the United States. The green parties are typically associated with liberalism, but there are also green conservatives, libertarians, anarchist, etc. What unites them is that they all collectively embrace environmental concerns. The core of each of these are relatively well-known in western society and have their roots in environmentalism. While that is great and all, you will hardly find people these days who are familiar with the much different “green revolution” that began in the 1940’s; a scientific revolution that has quite literally saved an estimated more than one billion lives thus far, and actually provides solutions to environmental issues.

Despite the fact that genetic engineering has proven to be a reliable method of solving the problems that environmentalists haven’t let us forget about, many individuals within this same crowd of people often times are part of the movements that rail against this very technology. This is what I like to call “the height of irony”, and a dangerous entity with its roots based solely in ignorance.

The Mexican government and the Rockefeller Foundation united around a common goal of increasing grain yields for a rapidly growing population with a diminishing food supply and established a plant-breeding station. They brought to the table a weapon of mass destruction: Dr. Norman Borlaug (1914-2009), an American biologist and plant breeder from the University of Minnesota, who had recently developed a high-yield, disease-resistant wheat plant. In 1944, Mexico relied on importing about half of their wheat. Twelve years later in 1956, the country was officially self-sustained with their wheat production and was exporting ½ million tons of it by 1964. This was a production increase of an astounding more than 600%, as pointed out in the documentary film entitled Freedom From Famine: The Norman Borlaug Story produced by a collaborative effort between the Mathile Institute for the Advancement of Human Nutrition and Courter Films & Associates.

In time, this new agricultural technology would show its face Pakistan and India. Dr. Borlaug’s work nearly doubled each of the two nation’s wheat production between 1965 and 1970, saving millions of people from starvation.  In just twenty years, annual wheat production in India had been increased almost fourfold from what it was before; going from producing twelve million tons in 1966 to forty-seven million tons in 1986. This only takes into account one of many genetically modified (GMO) crops. What about all the others?

I’m glad I asked. With the help of Dr. Borlaug, Mexico founded a research institute called The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). It was in that setting that Borlaug worked together with the Ford Foundation to develop a new variety of rice called ‘IR8’. This technology essentially saved the country of India, which was on the brink of a mass famine in the 1960’s. Today, however, the Indian food situation is very different as the country is now one of the world’s leading producers of rice. The use of IR8 rice subsequently spread all throughout the continent of Asia following India’s adoption of the crop. Nowadays, rice is considered by many to be the single most important crop on the globe as it accounts for 80% of the total calories consumed by 2.7 billion Asians; which happens to be nearly half of the world’s rapidly growing population. Though the yield of these crops been massively increased, we have managed to do this without having to increase the amount of land used for agriculture. The amount of arable farmland available is expected to decrease in the coming years. Without GMO crops, we would have to further encroach on most of the remaining natural habitats in the world such as forests to be able to keep up with the growing global demand for food.

world-population-since-10000-bce-ourworldindata-series (1)

Speaking of rapid population growth: boy, do we have issues. Recent estimates have suggested that approximately 6.5% of all people ever born are alive this very moment. Considering the fact that we’ve been here about 200,000 years, that’s a gigantic rate of growth to experience in real time. There are currently about 7 billion of us on the face of the planet. Just as the Freedom From Famine documentary points out, in 1975 there were only 3.9 billion people on earth. Our population has nearly doubled from what it ever has been in just more than forty years out of approximately two hundred thousand! In the year 1800, there were less than one billion. All though the overall rate of growth is slowing down, that doesn’t discount the fact that our population is estimated to be at a whopping 8.9 billion people by 2025.

Dr. Norman Borlaug’s work as a scientist has arguably been among the most important in human history. Which is probably why he’s the only individual to ever receive the Nobel Peace Prize (1970), U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom (1977), and the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal (2006) during his lifetime. He also was awarded the United Nations FAO Agricola Medal (2010), but not until the year after his death. All though the success of the green revolution has been profound, there are still a lot of people in the world who are starving. Those of you concerned with the scary GMO foods need to take this sort of information very carefully into account before going and rehashing the propaganda put forth by pseudoscientific outlets such as Natural News. We’ll continue to explore the misinformation you can find all over the web more in-depth in part II of this series.

Read More


Op-Ed: Signs of Psychological Abuse in a Relationship and Prevention Strategies

Domestic abuse. It’s arguably one of the touchiest topics out there. On one far end of the conversation, we have the Social Justice Warrior (SJW) crowd who is known to hold victim culture high on a pedestal and shove it down everyone’s throats. On the other side of the spectrum, you have those who argue that the SJW crowd has taken it too far with the oppressed victim narrative, and essentially bury their heads in the sand about the issue. Who is more accurate, though?


It turns out that there is a ton of gray area, and the truth is lost somewhere in the middle. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) as a “serious, preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans.” IPV is broken down into four main types: physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression. Merriam-Webster goes as far as to define aggression as “hostile, injurious, or destructive behaviour or outlook.”

Psychological aggression is the use of communication with intent to harm. This includes humiliation, name-calling, coercive control, threats of violence, manipulation/mind games, and exploitation of vulnerabilities such as disabilities. A young author from Texas State University, Bridget Reneau, recently published a piece essentially saying the same thing in simpler terms:

“Possible signs of an emotionally abusive situation are degrading comments, shameful statements, a partner unable to own up to their own shortcomings, isolation from friends and family, and enmeshment in the relationship.”



So we can objectively establish that this is a legitimate issue. But what is at stake, and what can be done about it? The first step, of course, is to understand what the reality of the situation is. Variables on both sides of the equation are important to acknowledge.

The CDC shines some light on this:

“A combination of individual, relational, community, and societal factors contribute to the risk of becoming an IPV perpetrator or victim. Understanding these multilevel factors can help identify various opportunities for prevention.”

The individual risk factors include but are not limited to depression, unemployment, low self-esteem, financial stress, heavy alcohol and drug use, the desire of control in a relationship, a personal or family history of IPV, and many others. This doesn’t even cover the multiple relational, communal, and societal factors that come into play.

The American Psychological Association (APA) points out that there is double the average rates of suicide attempts among victims of IPV. Suicide, according to data released by the CDC in 2014, is the second leading cause of death in the United States among the age groups between ten and thirty-four, and the third leading cause of death for people in between the ages of thirty-five and fifty-four. Wow, right? What the hell?! We should probably attempt to intervene. 



The solutions are just as complex as the problem. Ideally, we need to address preventative measures and solutions applicable to each of the levels of influence.  According to the CDC, these methods include promoting resiliency for the individual, raising awareness via education, and encouragement of social change. 

A secondary analysis of a study published in February 2016 in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health evaluated community prevention efforts in 8 different communities (4 intervention, 4 control) in Kampala, Uganda. It turns out there were statistically significant effects for each strain of IPV observed within the communities that implemented the intervention efforts. The Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores University is in partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO) to bring you a really cool database consisting of the abstracts of a ton of similar studies, original research, and systematic literature reviews.

The takeaway from this is that IPV is undeniably a serious, worldwide public health and human rights issue. The studies have shown that intervention at the community level is effective, but not a cure-all. Establishing resiliency, and efforts at the relationship and societal levels are all necessary if we care to ever see any progress made. Let’s not let the tactics of the incredibly regressive SJW crowd get in the way of that.

Read More

maxresdefault (3)

Promoting AronRa’s 2016 Patreon Promo

In one of AronRa’s most recently uploaded videos, he goes into detail about his past and current situation with his Youtube channel and personal life relating to it. He details how, as a result of his patrons, he has been able to step away from “working at a corporate cube farm denying little old ladies their insurance coverage” and able to focus on producing content, as well as his recently elected presidential unpaid position of the Athiest Alliance of America.

He is widely known as an advocate for atheism and accurate science education. Often times the topics of science and atheism are cohesive for a lengthy and ever-expanding list of reasons. Among his Patreon projects, he has his Ra-men podcast, series such as Refuting the Irrefutable Proof of God (one of my personal favorites), and many others.

According to the feedback he gets, his science education videos are “the most appreciated” of what he does. Claiming that he gets emails from high school teachers and college professors telling him they use his content in their classrooms. I believe it, as I introduced my former Bio 111 instructor to his videos (this one, to be precise) and she has now incorporated it into her lessons.

AronRa is, hands down, one of my favorite people on the internet. Though I cannot currently afford to be a patron of his because I’m a broke-ass college student, I can use my platform to share his content with my audience. So, no, there is no special interests involved on my end. I’m just genuinely a fan, and believe that his voice is important; especially given that he’s located on one of the primary battlegrounds for the evangelical war on science, my home state of Texas. If you’re interested in keeping up with what he does, go check out his website and/or subscribe to his YouTube channel.

Read More