Monthly Archives: January 2016

  1. Americans cause cancer

    Leave a comment

    January 22, 2016 by Dr. Geyser

    That’s right. Flippant use of causality to get media attention. Deal with it.

    Causes. Meat causes cancer. Or, well, actually it is the carcinogens in meat that cause cancer. Or, well, it is actually the person who eats meat that causes cancer. Or, well, it is actually the salesman of meat that causes cancer. Or, well, it is actually the meat industry itself that causes cancer.

    If meat causes cancer, then Americans cause cancer, too. It is also quite possible that the WHO? report condemning meat may also cause cancer, wherever smoked or grilled foods are popular, e.g. America, China, Malaysia, everywhere except maybe Europe (?).

    Wisdom says that a balanced diet takes into account the ‘poisons’ and ‘toxins’ within one’s diet. Let the weakness of our rituals be the villain, rather than the smoking of our thousand island-drenched hot dogs. Mmmmmmmm.
    Wisdom also says that propaganda can still be scientific, that scientific research can be used as a scare tactic to get people to stop eating shitty things, and that here as elsewhere it is possible to arrive at something positive and healthy without having to affirm the a priori value of propaganda itself. Why do governments use propaganda anyway? Is it because our leaders are bored? Or perhaps it is because they really enjoy spending their entire adult life trying to manipulate and control their subjects? Or perhaps it is because they do not want their children’s children to have a heart attack in their 30s? Or perhaps it is because they are embarassed by American surplus plus plush sweaty pants?

    Americans actually have a long and successful history of causing cancer.
    Cigarettes, for instance, led to the villification of all tobacco products, even those whose primary value was social, e.g. cigars, cherry cavendish, hookahs. And so it is not surprising that meat has also become the subject of condemnation by our increasingly devout world health authorities. It should have been obvious years ago that hot dogs cause cancer, such that this summer’s belated attempt to certify what was already frankly common knowledge is silly, in a bureaucratic sense.

    FQ9IR7E9YU

    Doctor Geyser does not condone the consumption of over-processed meat, but merely finds the WHO? report from fall 2015 to be disrespectful of consumption patterns across the United States, and also the rest of the world. It is a loosely veiled (i.e. slutty) moral treatise that has nothing to do with science, and is basically useless with respect to the practice of health and wellness. For these reasons, and many others probably, Doctor Geyser finds the WHO? report universally reprehensible. At this point, the WHO? might as well condemn the practice of homosexuality, if they are really that concerned about the worldwide consumption of hot dogs.
    In America, the situation is actually far worse, because Americans grill the shit out of everything. The carcinogenic potential of grilled meat is high, such that the WHO? report may actually worsen the health of Americans, who will continue savoring their most cancerous meat preparations as they decrease their carnivorous habits overall. Rather than taking the time to verify the contributions of specific methods of preparation, the WHO? did the pseudoscientific thing, which is to report only what the data shows, irrespective of whether it can be understood or talked about in a reasonable fashion. Far better that they had said nothing at all, than to have prematurely villified a very common object of consumption, and red meat along with it.

    Yet even if some consumers no longer use the flames of combustion to cook their food, oxygen will still be an ongoing source of cancer for many years to come. Since the carcinogenic potential of oxygen is a consequence of the diatomic molecule itself (or at least the free radicals which many, very common and essential organic reactions with oxygen produce on a moment-to-moment basis in normal healthy bodies), the WHO? will have a much more difficult time justifying their monkish form of health and wellness in the future. Finding an alternative electron acceptor will no doubt be a great challenge for the health-minded idiots of the future. For now, we shall all simply have to start holding our breaths as often as possible, because obviously living forever is the foundation of health and wellness.

    “Hold your breath, O citizens of the world. The Great WHO? Pontificate has spoken.”
    As an aside, the carcinogenic report issued by the WHO? in fall 2015 is a proper example of a substance abuse syndrome (SAS), since it is the meat-in-itself that is the target of the WHO? report, rather than the specific carcinogens responsible for the increased risk of cancer, and the preparation methods which most contribute to their appearance. The study data used in the WHO? report was inconclusive about specific methods of preparation, indicating that the primary goal of this report was to investigate whether “processed” meat-in-itself has carcinogenic potential. Like many other villification schemes, the WHO? report is a moral treatise aimed at superstitiously condemning every “risky” behavior that they lack the institutional inertia to properly understand.

    Like most medical students in the United States, I am sure everyone at the WHO? “works really hard.” Feel free to call me as soon as patients begin realizing that this is not the same as being able to heal, or even support the health of, their patients. The pathos invested in every medical career is a sign – not a good one, either.
    What works

    Cheer up, then.

    Further reading

    “Time to Decouple Fear and Health,” by Bernadette Keefe, M.D.
    Dr. Geyser does not represent the interests of any health or medical organization. He is also not a medical doctor, and furthermore quit medical school after 2+ years because he thought earning honors in medical school should have been more difficult than it actually was. Also, because he couldn’t stay awake due to a medical condition, and because he finds psychiatrists to be reprehensible creatures on a nearly universal scale.

    Those seeking medical advice should call their doctor.

  2. On naming your future doctor

    Leave a comment

    January 19, 2016 by Dr. Geyser

    Greetings! from Dr. Frank Geyser, advanced subspecialist in interdisciplinarian studies, with a license. This post contains a list of suggested names for expecting parents who wish to get a head start on the medical admissions process for their child. It is never too early to start planning your life around medical school – just ask any medical student! The increasingly competitive nature of American medicine means that successful admission to medical school is dependent on good planning. Many many medical students come from medical families, where one or both parents, as well as most siblings, grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, have received advanced professional training at a certified U.S. allopathic undergraduate medical institution. Yet few parents realize that there are alternative methods for getting their children into medical school.

    The purpose of this post is to provide parents who expect their children to attend medical school with a means of obtaining their dreams without sacrificing that all-too-important lifestyle that medical students base their career decisions upon. Everyone knows that doctors have awesome names: Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, Dr. So-and-so, Dr. Geyser. By focusing on the name of their future doctor, parents can increase the chance that their child gets into medical school substantially (results may vary). If you know your child is going to medical school anyway, why not start the planning process for them? And why not start RIGHT NOW, while they are still in the womb?

    “Obviously, we know what we are talking about” – that is what a good name communicates to the patient. Every time the patient says the name of their doctor, our perceived level of competence increases.
    Some names for your future doctor

    Dr. Gunner, MS1
    Dr. Arnold, Sports medicine
    Dr. Doctor, MD, PhD
    Dr. Quitter, PhD, Biochemistry and Molecular Cell Biology
    Dr. Brain, Neurosurgeon
    Dr. Brian, Internist
    Dr. Lips, Ob/Gyn
    Dr. Vitals, EMed
    Dr. Jerry, Geriatric anesthesiologist (gasser)
    Dr. Geyser, Specialist
    Dr. Breecher, Ob/Gyn
    Dr. Richard Cox, Urologist
    Dr. Helpful, Undecided
    Dr. White, Dermatologist
    Dr. Black, Oncologist
    Dr. Grey, Radiologist
    Dr. Smile (pron. SMILE-EE), Future dentist
    Dr. Smart, Pathologist
    Dr. Kidd, Pediatrician
    Dr. Childs, Pediatrician
    Dr. Herp, Primary care
    Dr. Nous, Psychiatrist
    Dr. Moo Kao, Veterinarian
    Dr. Yao, Pain specialist
    Dr. Otto, ENT
    Dr. P., Urologist
    Dr. Ox, Pulmonologist
    Dr. Porter, Abdominal surgeon
    Dr. Kathy, Interventional cardiologist
    Dr. Cutty, General surgeon
    Dr. Stew Mackey, Gastric surgeon
    Dr. Alvira, Infectious disease specialist
    Dr. Pole, Urologist
    Dr. Pool, Hematology
    Dr. Piles, Gastroenterologist
    Dr. Popper, Psychiatrist
    Dr. Gene Siemens, Reproductive specialist
    Dr. Q. R. S., Cardiologist

    Have other ideas for good doctor names? Are they better than Doctor Geyser’s? Find out below in the Comments section. And have a nice day.

  3. Grief in brief

    Leave a comment

    January 18, 2016 by Dr. Geyser

    In Heaven, there are neither papers nor printers nor word processors nor dictionaries nor thesasauruses nor editors nor editorials nor peer previewers nor book reviews nor blogs nor blog posts nor writers nor authors nor givers nor takers nor journalists nor science writers nor typewriters nor printing presses nor Martin Luthers nor first drafts nor second drafts nor final drafts nor rejection letters nor etymologies nor grammatical tenses nor “knowledge” nor vocabulary nor spelling bees nor elementary teachers nor tier 3 scholars nor placards nor bachelors nor masters nor philosophical doctors nor TAs nor Tb nor B.S. nor advertisements nor ad men nor interior decorators nor aluminum siding nor in-laws nor laws nor lawyers nor anyone else who is too afraid to admit that Heaven is a consequence of having already made it through Hell. For wouldn’t that mean we ought to be grateful for – all of this? and all of them? So long as “for” remains “for” and not “to,” I reserve the right to cast my gratitude beyond the meagre “rights of Man,” towards a future where the tyrant known as Man can no longer claim to have any special rights over “Nature.” I am grateful for tomorrow, but even the past is more promising a future than anything I have witnessed today.

  4. Why have knowledge at all?

    Leave a comment

    January 18, 2016 by Dr. Geyser

    To translate man back into nature; to become master over the many vain and overly enthusiastic interpretations and connotations that have so far been scrawled and painted over that eternal basic text of homo natura; to see to it that man henceforth stands before man as even today, hardened in the discipline of science, he stands before the rest of nature, with intrepid Oedipus eyes and sealed Odysseus ears, deaf to the siren songs of old metaphysical bird catchers who have been piping at him all too long, “you are more, you are higher, you are of a different origin!”—that may be a strange and insane task, but it is a task—who would deny that? Why did we choose this insane task? Or, putting it differently: “why have knowledge at all?”

    Everybody will ask us that. And we, pressed this way, we who have put the same question to ourselves a hundred times, we have found and find no better answer—

  5. 32 Unhealthy Headlines, Annotated by Dr. Geyser

    Leave a comment

    January 11, 2016 by Dr. Geyser

    Greetings! Iam Dr. Geyser! and I know nothing until proven otherwise. Let me be Frank with you about a few …
    Continue reading

  6. A powerful circulation

    Leave a comment

    January 9, 2016 by Dr. Geyser

    What do the low-born know about power that those who are constrained to live at the top of the social hierarchy do not? Having traversed the entire length of the social pyramid, the low-born possess within themselves a knowledge unparalleled by those who are born at the top. It is new, it is complete, and it is not limited to the factual knowledge desperately acquired by the powerful few.