RETORNO AO BRASIL

JÁ RETORNEI NO DIA 17 DE JANEIRO. MAS NÃO PUDE VIR POSTAR.
ESTA SEMANA FOI DE ORGANIZAÇÃO PARTICULAR..
E NESTA SEXTA-FEIRA, EM FUNÇÃO DAS CHUVAS TIVEMOS QUE LEVANTAR TODOS OS MOVEIS DA MINHA CASA. A AGUA CHEGOU PRÓXIMO A PORTA DA MINHA CASA. ESTOU A DOIS DIAS ORGANIZANDO TODA A MUDANÇA DENTRO DE CASA.
AS ÁGUAS TOMARAM CONTA DE JARAGUA DO SUL...
UMA LOUCURA. MUITAS PESSOAS PERDERAM DE NOVO PRATICAMENTE TUDO...

QUERO TAMBÉM DEIXAR OS MEUS SENTIMENTOS A TODOS OS AMIGOS DO RIO DE JANEIRO PELA TRAGÉDIA CAUSADAS PELAS CHUVAS...MUITO TRISTE.
SANTA CATARINA ESTA EM ALERTA EM ALGUNS PONTOS.
TODOS OS DIAS CHOVE MUITO FORTE...

QUERIDOS AMIGOS ASSIM QUE EU PUDER VOU AGRADECER E VISITAR A TODOS. POIS ESTOU COM MUITA SAUDADES DE TODOS. MAS AGORA TENHO QUE ORGANIZAR TUDO POR AQUI...
MIL BEIJOS A TODOS. MUITAS SAUDADES...
UM ABRAÇO FORTE E UM BEIJO EM CADA CORAÇÃO...
CARINHOSAMENTE.
SANDRA

When "Healthy Brains" Aren't

There's a lot of talk, much of it rather speculative, about "neuroethics" nowadays.

But there's one all too real ethical dilemma, a direct consequence of modern neuroscience, that gets very little attention. This is the problem of incidental findings on MRI scans.

An "incidental finding" is when you scan someone's brain for research purposes, and, unexpectedly, notice that something looks wrong with it. This is surprisingly common: estimates range from 2–8% of the general population. It will happen to you if you regularly use MRI or fMRI for research purposes, and when it does, it's a shock. Especially when the brain in question belongs to someone you know. Friends, family and colleagues are often the first to be recruited for MRI studies.

This is why it's vital to have a system in place for dealing with incidental findings. Any responsible MRI scanning centre will have one, and as a researcher you ought to be familiar with it. But what system is best?

Broadly speaking there are two extreme positions:

1. Research scans are not designed for diagnosis, and 99% of MRI researchers are not qualified to make a diagnosis. What looks "abnormal" to Joe Neuroscientist BSc or even Dr Bob Psychiatrist is rarely a sign of illness, and likewise they can easily miss real diseases. So, we should ignore incidental findings, pretend the scan never happened, because for all clinical purposes, it didn't.
2. You have to do whatever you can with an incidental finding. You have the scans, like it or not, and if you ignore them, you're putting lives at risk. No, they're not clinical scans, they can still detect many diseases. So all scans should be examined by a qualified neuroradiologist, and any abnormalities which are possibly pathological should be followed-up.

Neither of these extremes is very satisfactory. Ignoring incidental findings sounds nice and easy, until you actually have to do it, especially if it's your girlfriend's brain. On the other hand, to get every single scan properly checked by a neuroradiologist would be expensive and time-consuming. Also, it would effectively turn your study into a disease screening program - yet we know that screening programs can cause more harm than good, so this is not necessarily a good idea.

Most places adopt a middle-of-the-road approach. Scans aren't routinely checked by an expert, but if a researcher spots something weird, they can refer the scan to a qualified clinician to follow up. Almost always, there's no underlying disease. Even large, OMG-he-has-a-golf-ball-in-his-brain findings can be benign. But not always.

This is fine but it doesn't always work smoothly. The details are everything. Who's the go-to expert for your study, and what are their professional obligations? Are they checking your scan "in a personal capacity", or is this a formal clinical referral? What's their e-mail address? What format should you send the file in? If they're on holiday, who's the backup? At what point should you inform the volunteer about what's happening?

Like fire escapes, these things are incredibly boring, until the day when they're suddenly not.

A new paper from the University of California Irvine describes a computerized system that made it easy for researchers to refer scans to a neuroradiologist. A secure website was set up and publicized in University neuroscience community.

Suspect scans could be uploaded, in one of two common formats. They were then anonymized and automatically forwarded to the Department of Radiology for an expert opinion. Email notifications kept everyone up to date with the progress of each scan.

This seems like a very good idea, partially because of the technical advantages, but also because of the "placebo effect" - the fact that there's an electronic system in place sends the message: we're serious about this, please use this system.

Out about 5,000 research scans over 5 years, there were 27 referrals. Most were deemed benign... except one which turned out to be potentially very serious - suspected hydrocephalus, increased fluid pressure in the brain, which prompted an urgent referral to hospital for further tests.

There's no ideal solution to the problem of incidental findings, because by their very nature, research scans are kind of clinical and kind of not. But this system seems as good as any.

Cramer SC, Wu J, Hanson JA, Nouri S, Karnani D, Chuang TM, & Le V (2011). A system for addressing incidental findings in neuroimaging research. NeuroImage PMID: 21224007

When "Healthy Brains" Aren't

There's a lot of talk, much of it rather speculative, about "neuroethics" nowadays.

But there's one all too real ethical dilemma, a direct consequence of modern neuroscience, that gets very little attention. This is the problem of incidental findings on MRI scans.

An "incidental finding" is when you scan someone's brain for research purposes, and, unexpectedly, notice that something looks wrong with it. This is surprisingly common: estimates range from 2–8% of the general population. It will happen to you if you regularly use MRI or fMRI for research purposes, and when it does, it's a shock. Especially when the brain in question belongs to someone you know. Friends, family and colleagues are often the first to be recruited for MRI studies.

This is why it's vital to have a system in place for dealing with incidental findings. Any responsible MRI scanning centre will have one, and as a researcher you ought to be familiar with it. But what system is best?

Broadly speaking there are two extreme positions:

1. Research scans are not designed for diagnosis, and 99% of MRI researchers are not qualified to make a diagnosis. What looks "abnormal" to Joe Neuroscientist BSc or even Dr Bob Psychiatrist is rarely a sign of illness, and likewise they can easily miss real diseases. So, we should ignore incidental findings, pretend the scan never happened, because for all clinical purposes, it didn't.
2. You have to do whatever you can with an incidental finding. You have the scans, like it or not, and if you ignore them, you're putting lives at risk. No, they're not clinical scans, they can still detect many diseases. So all scans should be examined by a qualified neuroradiologist, and any abnormalities which are possibly pathological should be followed-up.

Neither of these extremes is very satisfactory. Ignoring incidental findings sounds nice and easy, until you actually have to do it, especially if it's your girlfriend's brain. On the other hand, to get every single scan properly checked by a neuroradiologist would be expensive and time-consuming. Also, it would effectively turn your study into a disease screening program - yet we know that screening programs can cause more harm than good, so this is not necessarily a good idea.

Most places adopt a middle-of-the-road approach. Scans aren't routinely checked by an expert, but if a researcher spots something weird, they can refer the scan to a qualified clinician to follow up. Almost always, there's no underlying disease. Even large, OMG-he-has-a-golf-ball-in-his-brain findings can be benign. But not always.

This is fine but it doesn't always work smoothly. The details are everything. Who's the go-to expert for your study, and what are their professional obligations? Are they checking your scan "in a personal capacity", or is this a formal clinical referral? What's their e-mail address? What format should you send the file in? If they're on holiday, who's the backup? At what point should you inform the volunteer about what's happening?

Like fire escapes, these things are incredibly boring, until the day when they're suddenly not.

A new paper from the University of California Irvine describes a computerized system that made it easy for researchers to refer scans to a neuroradiologist. A secure website was set up and publicized in University neuroscience community.

Suspect scans could be uploaded, in one of two common formats. They were then anonymized and automatically forwarded to the Department of Radiology for an expert opinion. Email notifications kept everyone up to date with the progress of each scan.

This seems like a very good idea, partially because of the technical advantages, but also because of the "placebo effect" - the fact that there's an electronic system in place sends the message: we're serious about this, please use this system.

Out about 5,000 research scans over 5 years, there were 27 referrals. Most were deemed benign... except one which turned out to be potentially very serious - suspected hydrocephalus, increased fluid pressure in the brain, which prompted an urgent referral to hospital for further tests.

There's no ideal solution to the problem of incidental findings, because by their very nature, research scans are kind of clinical and kind of not. But this system seems as good as any.

Cramer SC, Wu J, Hanson JA, Nouri S, Karnani D, Chuang TM, & Le V (2011). A system for addressing incidental findings in neuroimaging research. NeuroImage PMID: 21224007

Democrats vs. Dictators

What makes a government democratic?

The obvious answer is: people voted it into power. But that's completely wrong.

People voted Hitler into power. The Nazi party won by far the biggest single share of the vote in the 1932 elections, which were as "free and fair" as any in the world at that time. The next election was less free, but only thanks to a, technically constitutional, emergency Decree. Hitler's assumption of all executive and legislative powers was aided by dirty tricks, but it was pretty much above board.

The current provisional government of Tunisia has not won any elections. The overthrown dictatorship won many, though they weren't free because most opposition was banned. The current government, however, is seen as more democratic, because its role is to facilitate free and fair elections. It will then dissolve and give power to whoever wins them.

Maybe the provisional government of Tunisia isn't entirely democratic. But it's clearly more democratic than Hitler, even though Hitler won more elections.

So being elected into power has nothing to do with being a democrat or a dictator. Don't forget that. What is a democratic regime, then? I think it's this: a regime is democratic if it would peacefully hand over power were it to lose an election. If and only if you respect the people's choice to kick you out, you're a democrat. It's not about winning elections, it's about losing them.

Dictators aren't dictators because their people don't like them. It's because they're going to rule whether or not people like them. They rule: that's the basic political fact. If the people agree, great - and many are genuinely popular. If not, too bad.

What we've seen in the Ivory Coast recently, and in Zimbabwe over the past few years, is what happens when elected dictators lose elections: they don't accept it, and blood flows. If you want a soundbite: a dictator is someone who's willing to get blood on their hands, if it meant they keep a grip on power.

Democrats vs. Dictators

What makes a government democratic?

The obvious answer is: people voted it into power. But that's completely wrong.

People voted Hitler into power. The Nazi party won by far the biggest single share of the vote in the 1932 elections, which were as "free and fair" as any in the world at that time. The next election was less free, but only thanks to a, technically constitutional, emergency Decree. Hitler's assumption of all executive and legislative powers was aided by dirty tricks, but it was pretty much above board.

The current provisional government of Tunisia has not won any elections. The overthrown dictatorship won many, though they weren't free because most opposition was banned. The current government, however, is seen as more democratic, because its role is to facilitate free and fair elections. It will then dissolve and give power to whoever wins them.

Maybe the provisional government of Tunisia isn't entirely democratic. But it's clearly more democratic than Hitler, even though Hitler won more elections.

So being elected into power has nothing to do with being a democrat or a dictator. Don't forget that. What is a democratic regime, then? I think it's this: a regime is democratic if it would peacefully hand over power were it to lose an election. If and only if you respect the people's choice to kick you out, you're a democrat. It's not about winning elections, it's about losing them.

Dictators aren't dictators because their people don't like them. It's because they're going to rule whether or not people like them. They rule: that's the basic political fact. If the people agree, great - and many are genuinely popular. If not, too bad.

What we've seen in the Ivory Coast recently, and in Zimbabwe over the past few years, is what happens when elected dictators lose elections: they don't accept it, and blood flows. If you want a soundbite: a dictator is someone who's willing to get blood on their hands, if it meant they keep a grip on power.

JOM CHECK GRAPHIC CARD ANDA

CLICK TO START

Eu estou em luta de sempre ser feliz e fazer as pessoas ao meu redor felizes tambem!

Eu sempre fui muito feliz, mais as vezes eu me questionava aos acasos da vida ,
eu não tinha nada para me preocupar,mais mesmo assim eu reclamava sempre de umas coisinhas que não saía muito bem da forma que eu queria.E por isso muitas vezes perdi horas de ser feliz,de me diverti,de ser alegre.
E a vida sendo justa como ela é,resolveu me dar uma lição...lição essa que mudou a minha vida!
Em Agosto de 2010 dia 25 eu descobri que tinha um tumor na cabeça e que era preciso eu fazer um tratamento para depois passar pela cirurgia... viajei ate Lisboa onde ate hoje estou fazendo o tratamento e no meio dessa experiência na qual eu estou vivendo,descobri que não importa se você tenha problemas grandes ou pequenos o importante é erguer a cabeça,busca o otimismo e ser muito muito feliz!

Hoje por dizer a vocês que sou muito mais feliz do que eu era antes,e não importa o problema que eu esteja passando eu vou supera-lo e lutar sempre para realizar todos os meus sonhos e desejos!