A Justification For My Work

February 5th, 2009 § 0

221

Some may wonder why I have written this book.

When living ones life one wants to have a legacy. I have no children, no fortune. But I hope to leave something to the world that may be useful. It troubles me the things that are going on in the world. The USA exerts its influence throughout the world based on violence.

Sometimes I’m not sure whether this is the way things naturally are human nature based on violence or whether this is a particular American invention. I think to answer this one needs to look at history. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that some cultures have lived in peace but have been supplanted by the more violent cultures.

To put things another way is human behavior especially United State’s weltanschauung typical of the human species at large or is it just part of United States culture?

An even more important question is is violent behavior part of our genetic endowment or is it part of social conditioning? This is an important question. The world has reached a threshold where we find ourselves facing each other with ever more violent weapons. Was this outcome necessary that is is this outcome a part of our human nature? Or is this part of our teachings?

We find ourselves at every turn having this ideology of force and violence used against us. As children we are called sissies or even “fags” if we show any compassion for our fellow human beings.

But history is notable for relatively peaceful attitudes outlooks and behaviors toward the world. A good example are the Buddhists or some US Indigenous nations.

Yet in the US such an attitude is looked at as being soft and in some cases when violence is used against such peaceful inhabitants this is looked upon as being justified a sort of Darwinism where the conquering people are doing the human species a service. Of course such things were not what Darwin intended at all

Now the world is surrounded by saber rattling nations vowing “justice”. Certainly if this is the makeup of the human species then this must be part of our genetic endowment. But if one considers the matter one finds that those nations that do not pursue war and do not produce weapons fall easy prey to those that have these sinister weapons. With the attitude of pillage and plunder these peaceful people are overthrown and destroyed.

Yet the question is is this peaceful nature the “natural” outcome of human behavior. In other words is this behavior some part of our genetic endowment, or is it the case now that the former “peaceful” members of the world are eliminated perhaps eliminating this gene?

If one takes the twisted Darwinistic perspective promoted by the violent peoples of the world then one finds that while violent behavior may have been justified at some point in our history that is from an egoistic perspective that this is not the case now, as many nations possess weapons which we can use to annihilate each other.

So if the human species is determined by our genes then we are about to jump off the cliff like lemmings to perish from our own weapons as in science fiction where humans are overthrown by robots their own invention which comes to destroy them.

First of all we must decide if there is some sort of “violence” gene. Secondly the question is is there a corresponding “peace” gene. Thirdly has the peace gene been eliminated from the genome by the violence prone peoples of the world? Finally if the foregoing is not true then is human behavior not determined by our genetic endowment but is rather a learned behavior, then there is hope for humankind. Otherwise it seems all is lost.

It’s hard to know if this aspect of human behavior is genetic or learned. Nevertheless examining racism it is clear that the genetic endowment between humans varies little. There is no characteristic except for example skin color or our hair characteristics that makes us different intrinsically as human beings. In other words these differences are inconsequential and to assert that these characteristics are a significant difference amounts to bias and in some cases racism.

If one needs more evidence for this then one only needs to trace blood types through human groups to discover that there is no “genetic” characteristic that differentiates humans essentially according to this. So it seems unlikely that we are predetermined to exhibit violent behavior to other humans, or that this supposed peaceful “gene” has been wiped out in the act of Social Darwinism.

Or if it is in fact the case that there is a gene that determines human behavior especially violent behavior toward other humans then there is a gene for peaceful peoples in our past and that even peoples that are peaceful that exist today. So it is the case or at least it may be hoped that it is the case that the human species have the ability to coexist with other peoples of the world without the necessity of destroying them if this peaceful gene can be preserved.

So perhaps then we should rejoice there is hope!

But perhaps there is not any hope at all. That even if this behavior is not part of our essence but rather part of the learned experience that people can be brought to realize their own self interest. Certainly the human species must be saved!

But when one realizes that we are simply the result of the primordial chain of life, that as we came into existence as a specie, too we certainly will perish or at least become something uniquely different from today. Perhaps our influence will be felt for millions of years as the birds have in which many feel they are descendents of the dinosaurs.

But is it important for the human species to continue to exist? What if we were to become extinct as other species eventually do? Does nature care? Does God care if we exist?

If you take the religious perspective we are the creation of God in God’s image. Our existence is valuable as an extension of God’s creation and in a sense all are chosen by God. As with Aristotle where the planets made circles around the earth or Ptolemy where the planets too revolved around the earth or Copernicus where the solar system was heliocentric but our solar system still was at the center of all. And with Einstein we find that at every point in space that point is the center in reference to itself as all things are.

This vanity of the human species as being in some sense divine in nature is quickly being wiped out by science as it becomes clear that we are just another species in the primordial chain of being that began with the Big Bang and subsequently is acting out of dynamism of the hydrogen atom.

So does the universe or “God” care about us as a species? Are we favored in any way by the expanse of all in which we live? Or are we simply the unfolding of an infinite chain of being which continues on and on.

Not only is the question about whether or not we are simply a part of the cosmic order that cares nothing about us, but rather should we care whether the universe cares about us or even should we care about ourselves?

If we blow ourselves up does the earth care? If we irradiate the planet does the planet care? It seems not. Should we care? Are we important enough to preserve for anything at all? If not it doesn’t matter what kind of wholesale slaughter takes place what sort of genocide occurs? It seems that this ultimately is the decision of the primordial chain of being. Like a bouncing ball if one kicks it it moves in a certain direction determined by the physical properties of kinesis.

So as we are barreling down the path of life if we are determined by our “violent” genes the question is not only can we change it but is it worth changing?

The question becomes important that are we really free? If we are not free this question is important in many respects. If we are not free then we cannot change the path that humans are transversing and also if we are determined like an insane man cannot be found culpable of a crime we cannot talk about the ethical proscriptions about whether we are “worth” saving.

So if we have this violent gene or not, it matters not if we are not free. So should we find freedom? Or must we find it? It seems we must grasp at freedom out of the same egoistic desire which dooms us down this primordial chain of being. We should ask not why we should have freedom but rather does freedom exist? Otherwise what’s the point?

We should not decide this question out of a desire to justify our own existence, to do so would skew the question that is if we are matter following certain universal laws or that we are in fact free thinking beings.

But this brings us back to our original question. Are we determined and do we have a violent gene or not? Are we destined to bring about our own extinction or can the world be saved and also are we worth saving?

If we can in fact save ourselves we must be free to do so. And if we are free to do so then it seems we do have moral worth. So if we can save ourselves then we have moral worth.

It is my belief that the human specie is worth saving. It is also my belief that it is possible to save it. And if we are free then we are in fact able to act morally. If we are able to act morally then we can end violence against our brothers and sisters. In fact we must do that. Otherwise we cannot save ourselves and even more importantly we are not worth saving and therefore are not moral beings.

If we are free thinking this then makes us human endowed with this gift of creation by God or the infinite. If we are able to save ourselves it seems then we are worth saving otherwise it matters not our extinction and it seems nothing has been lost.

Following then in my work includes a justification for the positing of human freedom and an importance for our being in the world. A justification for our existence is in the infinite universe in this wide expanse where we would be easily lost in its enormity.

In order to change we must believe in something otherwise the outcome matters not. Whether this is science, or God, or the Infinite this belief enables us to fulfill what seems to be our destiny. That destiny is to survive and flourish, to reproduce and change to adapt as the world changes, to prevail throughout the mountains and fissures of the world as they present themselves.

To believe presupposes freedom and to be free justifies our existence and our importance. To be free enables us to join hands and face the future together not moving toward extinction or to be swept off the world by a divine hand but rather to find our place in the cosmos among the suns and planets and the other solar systems and stars and perhaps other species of distant worlds crying out for meaning. To be free implies our ability to survive. This ability to survive proves our moral integrity. This is human dignity.

Lets then stand firmly on the earth and affirm our existence for to do not is for naught.

Where Mexico and the United States meet the Pacific Ocean

December 14th, 2008 § 0

From the Imperial Beach Pier

From the Imperial Beach Pier

3-D Book Cover

December 12th, 2008 § 0

Passing

December 3rd, 2008 § 0

My father passed away December 1.   May he rest in peace

Lotus Blossom

November 23rd, 2008 § 0

A Lotus Blossom

A Lotus Blossom

Yoga Party: Philosophical writings – to be released soon to Google Book Search

November 23rd, 2008 § 0

Following is the introduction to the Yoga Party: Philosophical Writings which will be available soon to read at no charge on Google books:

Yoga Party Introduction

This is the first book of three.  Firstly this book is Philosophical Writings, next is Poetry and last is Political Writings.  The unifying theme to this series is the Yoga Party, ultimately a political party which emphasizes a state of mind.

In writing this book many basic philosophical principles are included.  Those without a background in philosophy might want to brush up on basic philosophical thought, although I don’t feel it is impossible for someone to digest most of what is here with minimal preparation.  The Donald Palmer books are entertaining and accessible.  Most important I think is to keep an open mind when looking at the analysis.  For those that wish to dive right in without any preparation I will identify some basic philosophical principles.

First of all philosophy is as old as humans have lived on this earth.  Contrary to many professors of philosophy in the west, different philosophical positions exist worldwide which all contribute interesting perspectives to world thought.  The study of western academic philosophy traditionally has largely ignored non-western philosophical traditions.  Part of this definitely relies on a sort of feeling of superiority of this thought.  This is changing somewhat now and non-western positions in some ways have penetrated western philosophy, although most of this penetration is based on philosophers borrowing from the non-western thought and adopting them as their own.

This book will not attempt to do this.  I attempt in this book to approach the dominant world philosophical positions as being equal in value.  But that is not to say that each traditions contribution to thought is the same.  Ultimately though there are many more similarities between different philosophical positions than is often thought.  All people have the same impulse to understand the reasons for the way things are and in doing so provide them some degree of comfort in understanding these things. 

The stepping off point depends on the teachings of Sri Aurobindo.  This 20th century master applied his interpretation of Hinduism to western thought.  I attempt to present an interpretation that largely accords with Aurobindo yet ultimately rejects many of his tenets.  For example his presentation of disembodied spirits runs counter to my rationalistic perspective. 

Looking at Eastern and Western thought one finds many basic differences.  In India for example where Aurobindo was born the prevailing attitude is that that which is most real is spirit while in the west we find attitudes about matter predominates.  Aurobindo tries to find linkage between spirit and matter which I expand upon.  I believe that Aurobindo’s thought can be used as a critique of western thought as well as indentifying dogmas inherent in eastern thought. 

The predominant problem in the west lies in the confusion between metaphysics and epistemology.  Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality while epistemology is involved in finding theories of knowledge. What we know and what there is can be very different things.  What we know (e.g., epistemology) is useful but what is (e.g., metaphysics) is not necessarily known.  In western society there is some confusion between these two aspects of western thought.  Scientists often identify that which is known with that which is real.  The gist seems to be that that which is real is only that which can be known.  Only things that can be known can be considered when talking about the world, and if we don’t know something or can’t describe it then this is considered nonsense.  Unfortunately this results in a very myopic view of the world.

If being myopic were the only sin of modern western thought then this would be something that we could all live with.  But this perspective has some profound ramifications which are discussed at length within.   Ultimately the way we see ourselves determines the way we see the world.  A cultures bias is largely determined by their creation myths.

Humans need certainty in their lives in order to live an existence which minimizes anxiety.  In order to feel comfortable we must assert our importance, our essence, our existence as being vital in the universe.  But one curse of being free is the ability to investigate phenomenon with an open mind and to examine things which seem impossible or fantastic.  For if we are free at all as a gift or curse from God we must exercise this quality be it for better or worse.

But hopefully broadening one’s outlook and keeping an open mind will enable one to examine things that before one thought not possible.  It’s hard to see the forest from the trees but if we look hard enough and far enough we can find a place for ourselves there.  So journey on and don’t tarry for the world is there for all to see and rends itself apparent in all our senses and minds.  Journey on and see what there is to see.  For to do otherwise is to waste our most prized asset, that of being fully human and fully conscious.  Socrates said “The unexamined life is not worth living.”  Don’t go through your life as you are lost in a cloud but consider the great ideas of your time and also the new ideas that are just now being born. 

 

Beyond Imagine

September 24th, 2008 § 0

Working Class Hero

The Broad Street Pump and the Holy Grail

August 5th, 2008 § 0

Causation is impossible to prove in empirical studies. Yet Scientists emphasize causality in scientific studies. Only through necessary proofs can things be known to exist in a cause and effect relationship. This claim to knowledge is also evident in epidemiology where necessary causes are looked for. This bias has resulted in difficultly in finding good reasons to say that a factor and a disease are related. This confusion is shown by the use of the black box analogy to provide support for causation. The idea of the black box is most often used when physical determinants for disease cannot be necessarily ascertained. We are used to thinking of physical bodies as acting according to the laws of physics and therefore being determinant in nature. But when we look at other factors it becomes clear that the casual factors of disease can not be known to exist necessarily and therefore have a necessary effect.

When looking at disease factors one must look at not only the physical factors but also in some cases the chemical, biological, ecological, environmental, and sociological factors. When talking about factors that lead to disease multiple factors may be involved and more often than not these factors are not all physical.

But according to science in order for science to be useful it must establish a cause effect relationship. Hume define a necessary and sufficient condition as being that in which if the cause does not exist then the effect will not exist either (Olsen, 2003). This criterion is rarely if ever demonstrated.

The philosopher Hume pointed out that what we know is based on experience and therefore we cannot know the necessary antecedents that result in consequential determinants or even if this determinant nature exists (Karhausen, 2000).

What is called counterfactuals increases this confusion. While we can know that in a hypothetical argument if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false that the claim is false. Yet material claims are different from counterfactual claims. If I am in Mexico then I am in North America. This is true when I am indeed in fact in Mexico. But this conditional claim is also true if I happen to be in Africa and this fact has no bearing on the truth value of the claim that if I am in Mexico I am also in North America. Yet also the material claim is still true. If the claim that one is in Mexico is false (e.g., me being in Africa) and the consequent that therefore I am in North America is still a true claim! This is the nature of hypothetical statements which are borne out in beginning logic truth tables. So we cannot make a claim that if there is or is not a causal factor that the disease will not invariably occur.

Proving some factor is causal has been the “holy grail” in science. We can’t know by observation whether a factor has a causal effect on something else. All we know is through observation which in itself is limited by the possible number of observations a certain probability that something might occur. Because this falls short of the necessary and sufficient conditions desired in hard science an attempt is made to adopt what may seems to be somewhat arbitrary criteria to firm up this supposed causal relationship. These criteria are production, necessary causes, sufficient– component causes, probabilistic causes, and counterfactuals.

Production is simply referred to a cause that “produces” an effect contrary to something that does not and is therefore not causal, but the nature of production and even how it is different from causation is unclear and is therefore an elusive concept.

Necessary causes are incorporated in the concept of sufficient causes. One reason the necessary and sufficient criterion is seen as flawed is because most diseases are not the result of a specific (e.g., sufficient) cause. This may vary not only because of the irregularity of causal factors, but also temporal consideration as well as non-biological factors.

Sufficient-Component causes attempts to address the fact that most disease does not have a singularly specific “genetic” factor. While this may provide framework for a variety of necessary causes the problem still exists asking which factor is most prominent, (e.g., including dose response factors), and do the individual factors rely on other independent factors? “A model of causation that describes causes in terms of sufficient causes and their component causes illuminates important principles such as multicausality, the dependence of the strength of component causes on the prevalence of complementary component causes, and interaction between component causes” (Rothman, 2001). There is no doubt that there are a lot of variables to keep in mind and because of this the value of this idea may be drawn into question.

Probability factors may seem to fit in best with a statistical model but while necessary and sufficient conditions may be referred to in a probabilistic fashion, probabilistic measures cannot be talked about in a necessary manner. A probabilistic way of talking about physical phenomena is especially problematic for scientific disciplines. Like relativity theory and quantum mechanics, nary the twain shall meet. One main shortcoming is that if the criterion is probability then one cannot truly predict if a causal factor will result in an outcome thus contradicting the spirit of medical research.

Finally there are counterfactuals. Counterfactuals make a distinction between causation and mere correlation which is essential in any study but does not by itself result in a definition of causation. While the counterfactual is not inconsistent with necessary causes it does not provide a rationale for arriving at a necessary cause (Parascandola, 2001). Whether something is true (ontology) or whether something can be known to be true (epistemology) are both dependent on the counterfactual argument in the particular conditional statement to arrive at useful information and this distinction is often a source of confusion. The ceteris paribus condition is essential. While one may not know if “the contaminated Broad Street well is a cause of the cholera epidemic; when it is the case that if the Broad Street pump was shut down, the cholera incidence would decrease”. Yet problems can result with this too. For if malaria is thought to be the result of swamp gas and we drain the swamp and therefore eliminate malaria, it turns out the conclusion was false. In order to use the counterfactual validly one must be sure that the consequent is true when the antecedent is true otherwise no useful knowledge may be obtained.

Establishing causation for chronic diseases is difficult. Many chronic diseases have many factors and the relationship between these factors cannot always be known. A sufficient-component approach may be useful in much chronic disease especially if the risk factors can be easily identified. Nevertheless a probabilistic approach may be more efficacious because the weight of the individual risk factors may not be known.

More effective for infectious disease may be looking at necessary and sufficient conditions (i.e., the infective agent producing tuberculosis). Production as well could be very useful if it can be shown that for example when someone has AIDS they invariably have the HIV virus although even this does not show proof of direct causation. As also has been shown, the counterfactual can be used most efficiently shown from the example of shutting off the Broad Street pump by denying the true consequent and therefore righting the Broad Street wrong.

References:

Karhausen, L.R. (2000). The Elusive Grail of Epidemiology. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 3:59-67. Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb

Olsen, J. (2003). What Characterizes a Useful Concept of Causation in Epidemiology? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57(2). Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb

Parascandola, M., Weed D.L. (2001). Causation in Epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55(12). Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb

Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S. (2001). Causation and Causal Inference in Epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1). Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb


Racism and Kidney Disease

July 28th, 2008 § 0

Kidney disease is a common malady across populations.  There are many causes of this disease and there seems to be a socio-economic component.  In the US kidney disease tends to have a less favorable outcome among those of a lower income.  This population tends to be made up of racial and ethnic minorities who are disproportionately represented in this US population with kidney disease.

A common problem when trying to address the issue of the prevalence of disease among economically disenfranchised elements of the US population, that is if the problem is determined by socio-economic status or is it the result of racism as well as racism that has been institutionalized.  This problem is especially difficult to decide when one considers the history of racism and its impact on present day institutionalized racism.

Finding a link between racism and kidney disease is necessary to address the problem.  While socio-economic status may seem to be the prime mover behind the disparity between better outcomes for those that are economically better off than those at the bottom of the economic scale, the determinacy of racism must be ascertained in order to address the problem of kidney disease successfully.

Ordinarily one might wonder if higher rates of kidney disease are the result of racism or the result of socio-economic factors caused by racism which results in less favorable outcomes.  In order to address the problem of kidney disease in racial and ethnic minorities this issue must be resolved.  Is the solution to address socio-economic conditions, institutionalized racism or face to face discrimination?

If it were socioeconomic factors that determine kidney disease then these determinants would have to be addressed.  To address this problem more money would need to be put into health care and a program of preventive care would need to be instituted.  Access to health care would need to be improved by those lower on the economic ladder so that health outcomes could be improved.  Oftentimes though if programs are in place that provide access to services and these services do not improve health outcomes then there is the impulse to blame the victim.

But perhaps further evidence of racism among those of lower socio-economic status and a lower education level is shown by the fact that even with equitable insurance coverage and access as well as similar health insurance within the same system of care in the same managed care plan, the result is still for poorer outcomes among minorities (Bierman, 2002).  Yet there are other factors that can lead to a less successful outcome in those of minorities.  Those of lower socio-economic class find themselves more subject to arrest (Brooks, 2008).  Also this group is more likely to be victims of crime, more likely to have housing problems, and to be families with single mothers more likely to have child care issues.  All these factors can result in less adherence to a treatment regimen and must be controlled in any study.

More likely though is the other alternative.  Most probably racism is the cause because minorities are the victims of a history of racism and face institutionalized racism as well as personal racism.  Racism being largely unconscious and entitlement that is assumed by those higher on the economic ladder, especially whites, can make the health care provider blind to the causes of the poorer health outcomes of racial and ethnic minorities when basing their opinion strictly on socio-economic factors especially in the case of kidney disease.

It is clear that those of lower social and economic stature have a higher rate of kidney disease and are at a greater risk of death.  Illegal drug use in the inner city causes higher rates of hypertension, acute and chronic kidney disease.  Socio-economic factors are determinants of a higher rate of asthma, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, tuberculosis and chronic kidney disease.  Cocaine use is thought to be a cause of the progression of kidney disease.

There is a greater likelihood of increased mortality and lower placement on kidney transplant waiting lists.  Strictly socio-economic factors are often looked at when health insurance limits the ability of patients to pay for drugs used for the maintenance of immunosuppression in transplant patients which is limited to three years.  (Nzerue, 2002)

The claim is made that racial bias is difficult to determine in surveys of physicians and other health care providers by looking at physician behavior or medical records although subtle biases are suspected which may influence physician’s therapeutic decisions.  There are documented difficulties in communication between those of a lower socio-economic class and physicians who harbor negative personal perceptions of the less affluent and lower educated (Nzerue, 2002).

There are documented instances of a disproportionate less favorable outcomes among those of lower socio-economic classes among African Americans and Mexican American communities of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (Tareen, 2005).  But it is difficult to determine the exact factors that result in this outcome.

“Education directed toward patients and physicians is important for overcoming the many cultural differences in health beliefs and behaviors that contribute to both the risk and progression of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)… Adherence to referral and treatment for CKD may be improved when patients feel they receive health recommendations in a respectful and culturally considerate manner.  Increasing the number of minority physicians practicing within their own communities may further help to reduce some cultural barriers” (Norris, 2005).

One study makes a strong claim of racial and ethnic disparity in low socio-economic groups.  Referral and initiation of dialysis, adequacy of dialysis and anemia management-with non-white patients are usually at a disadvantage.  For example Whites and Asian Americans are more likely to be placed on peritoneal dialysis compared with African American and Native Americans.  “Factors in treatment for kidney disease are not completely explained through socio-economic determinants.  Factors such as cultural bias, … physician bias and communication barriers all contribute to lower peritoneal dialysis among certain minority groups” (Gadegbeku, 2002).

Another issue that comes out in this study is that there is what is termed “Transplantation Reluctance.”  It seems clear that while there are socio-economic factors that lead to a higher incidence of kidney disease and less favorable outcomes, it seems clear that racially specific differences can be eliminated [and identified] when a multi-faceted approach is adopted (Gadegbeku, 2002).

Much remains to be done to eliminate socio-economic, racial and ethnic biases that permeate the health care establishment.  By separating the socio-economic factors from the racial factors one can institute strategies which address these shortcomings that are the direct result of racism.

Only through determining the racial and ethical component in this equation can disparities that deprive African Americans, Latino American and Native Americans access to affordable, effective and fair health care provision.  Only in order for society to be just and enabling minorities to be effectively brought into the health care establishment will discrepancies between minorities and whites be addressed.

References:

Bierman, A.S., Lurie, N., Collins, K.S., & Eisenberg, J.M. (2002). Addressing racial and ethnic barriers to effective health care: The need for better data. Health Affairs, 21(3), 91.

Brooks, D., Charleston, J.,  Dowie, D.,  Gabriel, A. I., Hall, Y. B.,  Hiremath, L., Lightfoot, T., Sika, M., Smith, W. C.,  Wang, X. (2008). Predictors of Participant Adherence and Retention in the African American Study Of Kidney Disease and Hypertension. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 35(2), 133-42.  Retrieved July 16, 2008, from ProQuest Medical Library database. (Document ID: 1470818171).  http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1470818171&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=29440&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Gadegbeku, C.,  Freeman, M.,  Agodoa, L. (2002). Racial disparities in renal replacement therapy. Journal of the National Medical Association: Racial Disparities in Kidney Disease, 94(8), 45S-54S.  Retrieved July 16, 2008, from ProQuest Medical Library database. (Document ID: 160201271).  http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=160201271&sid=2&Fmt=4&clientId=29440&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Norris, K. C., et al., (2005). Unraveling the racial disparities associated with kidney disease1. Kidney International, 68(3), 914-24.  Retrieved July 16, 2008, from ProQuest Medical Library database. (Document ID: 1014509361).  http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1014509361&sid=2&Fmt=6&clientId=29440&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Nzerue, C.M., Demissachew, H., & Tucker, J.K. (2002). Race and kidney disease: Role of social and environmental factors. Journal of the National Medical Association, 94(8), S28-S39.

Tareen, N., Zadshir, A., Martins, D., Pan, D., Nicholas, S., & Norris, K. (2005). Chronic kidney disease in African American and Mexican American populations. Kidney International, 68(S97), S137-S140.

Sequoias June 28, 1905 Location: Sequoia National Park Photographer: Alexandra Picavet

June 1st, 2008 § 0

Yosemite Redwood

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »

© 2008-2010 Frame Publishing All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright