Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Speed writing exercise

Okay, it looks like I let my obligation to write in this blog get away from me over the past several months. Since I last posted, med school has progressed significantly. I took (and crushed!) my board exams, began clinical rotations, met (and lost) my first patients. These should be worth talking about in posts in the near future. For the time being though, I am intellectually and creatively rotted from a winter break comprised of being physically and mentally inactive. So, here's a sample of writing I did as part of a speed writing exercise. It may give some insight into what the past few months have held. Sorry if it's somewhat incomprehensible; it was written for a medical audience.


Prompt: A clinical event I hope I never forget

This is a hard one for me to decide on. There are two experiences that I hope to never forget, and they each pertain to one of the two specialties that have seriously vied for my career. I will begin with the most chronologically recent.

In November of 2015, I was on my first of two months of inpatient IM, specifically on the cardiology service at Froedtert hospital. I had been there for three weeks already, and was getting pretty comfortable with the team, the workload, and perhaps inpatient medicine in general (something that I thought would never happen based on my mediocre experience on inpatient pediatrics). For my very last week, I decided to take on a new patient—an ICU patient. I had avoided following these patients before, as they understandably entail a great degree more detail, and I was ever afraid of bombing rounds by missing these details or just not being able to keep track of everything. This patient would turn out to the most significant patient—indeed, life saved—that I would encounter during my M3 year.

Mr. L was a 36yo M who bizarrely had a STEMI the week prior. He had been cath’d and stented at the WI heart hospital, though there was seemingly no reason for the heart attack—his cholesterol wasn’t great, but wasn’t at the level of a familial hypercholesterolemia. He was a non-smoker, was physically active, highly productive and was married with two kids. I mention those last two because they tend to be poor prognostic indicators.

While at home, Mr. L had suffered a potentially lethal arrhythmia. He “went down” in his kitchen, the event being witnessed by his wife who called 911 and began CPR. It had been approximately 6 minutes before EMS arrived and converted him to sinus rhythm. He had developed VFib.
When he came to our service, Mr. L had been placed under a hypothermia protocol. His neurologic status was unknown—the doctor performing his diagnostic cath on arrival thought he had been in decorticate posturing. The nurses thought he had clawed at his intubation equipment. Nothing would be known until 72 hours on hypothermia, and weaning of sedation. Things were looking grim. My attending told me that only 18-21% of in-hospital events requiring CPR survive to discharge. I already knew the numbers for out of hospital were many times worse. Mr. L’s wife never left his side. His mother and father were there. Things were set to be the first real tragedy I experienced up close, with one of my patients.

The day of the weaning began. He was brought back to normal temperature. His sedation was to be reduced by the critical care team. He was on my mind all morning, even after talking about him on rounds. I went by the room later that morning and saw perhaps 20 people in the room. Oh shit, I thought. But when I stepped inside, the atmosphere was not as somber as I expected. There were tears shed, but it became quickly apparent that they were tears of joy. I approached the bedside where Mr. L quickly looked up at me from his wife. He had regained full neurologic function.

The climax of the story ends there. His subsequent course was not simple—he had another episode of VFib hours later, but was immediately shocked back. He received an ICD. His twin brother also presented to our ED with complaints of chest pain, which we ruled as stress cardiomyopathy. But I’ve never seen, at least first-hand, a case where a highly functioning patient has come so close to death or permanent disability, and was given a second chance at a long life thanks to medical advancement and quick thinking.

My second experience is a little more grim, but a little less emotional all the same. Right before I started my IM rotations, I had begun a 2 week pathology elective rotation. Pathology has been the field I wanted to enter since I was in college. I love the idea of retaining my basic & cell biology. I wanted to work in a lab, like a proper scientist. My pathology lecturers were always the best organized, and the most knowledgeable about the pathophysiology of the diseases we learned about. I still admire and respect them.

The thing about pathology is that it’s very different than the sort of medicine that you are trained to practice during medical school. Gone are the needs for history-gathering, for physical exam skills, even arguably for a large degree of meticulous documentation. It is so different that the program directors have told me to “be prepared to be worthless” come first year of residency. So, I spent the first several days in what amounted to a shadowing role. Sit in on sign-out, on grossing, on frozen sections. Though a lot of it was over my head, I could tell from the atmosphere and the way things moved that this was the career for me. At least, that’s what I told myself. The single crystallizing moment that cemented my decision to pursue pathology was a couple of cases which were assigned to me by Drs. Brian Hunt and Matthew Stemm.

These cases were probably previewed and straightforward, no doubt, but nevertheless it was the first time that I had been left on my own to try my hand at rendering a diagnosis—a pathologic one, anyway. All I had at my disposal, in a world that was admittedly very foreign, were two slide trays, a pilfered microscope, my lone pathology textbook, and a login to Epic. I was frantic at first, eager to get the answer right to impress a pair of doctors I respected very highly. But I had no idea what was going on. What were those cells? What does this architecture mean? I had to calm down and go to the patient’s clinical history. The first case was a pancreatic mass on imaging. It had been sampled by ERCP and needle biopsy, then smeared (hence its delivery to the cytology service). There wasn’t any architecture at all. The options narrowed. Ductal adenocarcinoma? Acinar cell? Pseudocyst, abscess? I had never seen what these looked like. But the basics I had learned during my preclinical years came in. These cells had atypia. I found some mitoses, several per field. The cytoplasm looked bizarre, compared to the normal histology in my textbook. They didn’t stain for the markers that I would expect of acinar cell. I made the call—ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The second case went similarly. Thoracentesis, concerning for malignancy. The fragments of tissue that remained had distinctive shapes and associations with one another. The clinical history again directed me—history of bladder cancer. Now that you mention it, those clusters of cells do have the look of a transitional epithelium about them. Would mesothelium stain as basophilically as this? I made the call again--metastatic urothelial cancer.

I got to present my cases to Dr. Hunt at sign-out. I used far too many words to convey what a resident would do succinctly, and had probably poor insight into my diagnostic reasoning, but nevertheless, he agreed with my diagnosis. I had gotten my first pathologic diagnoses right! The doctor was less eager than I was to hand down such dismal reports. He was far more methodical. He had seen all of the other possibilities it could be and weighed them all heavily. He was not as easily swayed by the clinical history--a valuable trait, as a pathologist's reports need to be as close to objective and absolute as possible (pathologic diagnoses are usually considered gold-standard, and minimizing bias is therefore essential).

These have been the most salient experiences for me these past 6 months. Whoops, only 30 seconds left in this prompt. There's probably no need to end on a profound note here, but I do expect that these experiences will be ones that I will remember late into my career. Perhaps codifying them into memory by writing about them will help that become reality. That is, after all, how I attempt to learn everything.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

On Keeping Up

Hello,

Sorry for the long delay since my last post. A combination of being generally busy and forgetting about this blog resulted in the inactivity, but rest assured this is something I intend to continue writing in. However, it is that former concern which I'll be addressing right now. Sorry, no fun medical junk this time, but more of a personal reflection. It's getting late so I don't think I'll be proofreading this one. EDIT: Now that it's done, this is basically a lot of talking about myself and whining. You've been warned.

Since my last post, I've spent my summer doing research in a retinal imaging lab, generally having no idea what was going on but still putting out a mediocre poster presentation. More than anything else, it was a good exposure to what the world of ophthalmology is like, and I have to say that nearly everything about ophthalmology is a world apart from the rest of medicine--from the language to the tools to the procedures undertaken. It's still a career choice I'm contemplating, so more on that later I guess.

About a month and a half ago, M2 year began. Now, the first year of medical school is quite an experience. It's the first time you'll cut open a human cadaver in anatomy lab, the first time you'll interview a (standardized) patient, and a heck of a lot of adjusting and readjusting to lectures. You get a bit blasted by the med school experience, and most students find it pretty exhilarating.

M2 year is a bit different. Most of us are settled into our routines, have learned how to prioritize our time and attention, and are starting to lend some thought towards that dreaded thing that awaits us in May--the USMLE Step 1 exam. For those of you who don't know, Step 1 is a standardized test put out by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). It is an 8-hour exam designed to gauge everything you've learned in medical school up to that point, be it pathology, embryology, pharmacology or even ethics. All licensed practitioners must pass their licensing exams, and as with anything academic, average performance as well as the minimum passing grade are always rising.

But it's more than just a hump to get over on your road to medical practice. Your performance on the exam tends to be the single largest element that factors into your applications to residency. More than the MCAT is to medical school, and more than the SAT/ACT are to college. As you might expect, some programs are more selective than others, and having an excellent score may allow you into an enormous range of programs, while an abysmal score will severely limit you. This is true of entire specialties as well--the most prestigious (and best compensated) specialties such as Plastic surgery, Neurosurgery, Dermatology and Otolaryngology require superb performance on the exam. More forgiving are the more "typical" specialties, like internal medicine, neurology, OB/GYN, general surgery or anesthesiology. Psychiatry and Family medicine follow up at the back. In a very real sense, your performance on that exam will decide what you can do as a physician.

Okay, that's enough about the Step. Back to M2 year.

One of the other ways in that M2 year is very different than M1 at my school is that instead of taking multiple classes (physiology, biochemistry, anatomy) concurrently, we are on system-based units. We have only one class (currently, it's cardiology), and that one class takes up 4 hours a day of lecture. While this allows us to focus our efforts efficiently, it also means we have a lot more examinations--instead of once every 5-6 weeks, we seem to have them on the order of one every 2 weeks. I recently posted to G+ that I would be writing a new blog post because we just had our musculoskeletal & skin exam, only to have to postpone that because a cardio quiz was scheduled for only a week thereafter. And when the exam is on a Friday, you better believe I don't have time to be writing on weeknights :(

This can be a bit taxing. After a fourth or fifth consecutive day of: wake up, walk to class, 4 hours of lecture, walk back, eat lunch, 4 hours of reviewing those lectures, an hour or two for dinner & video games, and then 4 hours of test prep or flashcards; you start to feel the burn a bit. Sure, this is peanuts in comparison to what we'll be going through in May, but I've been finding myself questioning the worth of the hours I've been putting in. Is earning top grades really worth all of my time? Is it irresponsible for me to neglect my chores, social obligations, and personal hygiene to get in that extra hour of studying?

I learned the hard way a couple of weeks ago that all-out shotgun cramming is simply not the way to go. In preparing for that musculoskeletal/skin exam, I pulled 3 consecutive 12 hour study days and put in an extra 3-4 hours the night before, stretching my sleep back to 2:30am and waking at 6:30am to review some more. I'm not trying to brag here--you have to understand that adequate absorption of 20 hours worth of lecture requires another 80 hours worth of studying, and trying to do that in a weekend requires a massive investment of effort. But lo and behold, following a meaty breakfast and coffee the next morning, I had a migraine onset the moment the exam began. Nothing like trying to read test questions with your peripheral vision because you have a scotoma essentially blinding you. On the bright side, I didn't fail, and it seems that coffee is one of my migraine triggers (the previous one occurred the day after I had 2 coffees and 2 espressos to help me fixate during an imaging study). So, no more coffee for me. Wait, that's a bright side?

So that means that the only way to sustainably make it through this with good grades is to be responsible and budget my time during my typical schedules, ensuring that I constantly keep up with the material and always review what I have previously learned. Yet that takes some self-discipline of a different kind, one that I fear I haven't trained up well enough yet.

It's getting on past 11, which means it's time for me to preview tomorrow's work and do some practice questions. I'll pick this up again tomorrow, I hope.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

On Pain Scales

Going to keep it very brief today, as I'm about to be hit by a round of exams (immunology/microbiology, neurology, and pharmacology).

Pain is a nearly universal experience. Pain is probably the biggest detractor for quality of life and presents a huge loss economically with regards to loss of work hours and distraction. Pain is also the single biggest motivator to get patients to see their physicians; around half of all clinic visits are to address pain in some form. If you've ever been one of those patients, your doc has probably carried out a preliminary assessment using the "PQRST" guidelines. This includes a list of important qualities regarding a complaint that should be elicited: Position, Quality, Radiations, Severity, and Time. I want to talk briefly about that fourth point--severity, or intensity.

Everyone feels pain differently. By that, I don't just mean that some people are more used to it or are more whiny--I mean that people experience pain very subjectively. What is distressingly painful to one individual may be just irritating to another. There are many factors that probably contribute to this: nociceptor density and sensitivity, integrity of the pathway which conveys pain, whatever the heck actually goes on in the brain once the signals arrive, and psychological or experiential differences between patients (the "suck it up" factor). There are even societal implications for how a patient will express his or her pain--some ethnic groups or cultures will be more apt to "milk" their pain, while others may show a "stiff upper lip", so to speak.

Some people don't experience any pain at all. Seriously! This is called CIP, or "congenital insensitivity to pain", and its causes are a bit murky. This might sound like a blessing, but the reality is that acute pain--what you feel when you touch a hot stove or get stuck by a needle--is a very important self-protective mechanism. These individuals are often unaware of things like broken toes, burns, or cuts, which can become more serious without that input and associated reflexes. Although this can vary depending on how well preserved the other mechanical senses are, CIP patients have to self-check frequently to search for injuries. Chronic pain just sucks, and there's no need for it. Most pain therapy addresses chronic pain.



Back to your clinic visit. The doctor wants to know how bad it hurts, and asks you to grade it from 1-10. The exam room may have a so-called "pain chart" that looks something like above. Presented as is, this is not a helpful scale. Is that laceration a 6, or a 7? Your headache might be a 4 right now, but maybe it can throb up to an 8. How valuable of a diagnostic measure is this? I will say that these "face" charts are easy for children, though those 8 and 10 faces look more goofy than anything.

When you want to report your pain, try using this framework to grade the sensation. Stratify the 10 levels into groups of three, as follows:

Mild pain - Pain that you will come to ignore/get used to, or habituate to.
1 - Barely registers. You probably don't even think about this for more than a few seconds. (Mild itchiness)
2 - Noticeable. It's there, but most people wouldn't call it painful. (Mosquito bite)
3 - Annoying. You want it to go away, but it only bothers you when you have nothing else to occupy you. (Needle injection)

Moderate pain - Pain that you can't ignore, but may not interfere with your actions.
4 - Uncomfortable. Your mood is probably being affected. (Sunburn, DOMS)
5 - Distressing. "Ow, that hurt." (Stubbing your toe)
6 - Serious. Seeking medical attention is on your mind, in the way that watching your language isn't. (Cuts and burns)

Severe pain - Pain that is debilitating, and demands immediate attention.
7 - Intense. You can't focus on anything other than your pain, and you're probably helpless in bed. (Childbirth, migraine headaches)
8 - Excruciating. You're probably screaming. (Cluster headaches)
9 - "The worst pain in your life", so intense that some who experience it actively seek out suicide. (Surgery without anesthesia)

The specifics within each of these three strata are probably not that important. If you can classify your pain into one of those three categories, you can reliably assign it a scale from 1-3 within that. Oh, and I forgot...

10 - Pain that is so intense that your senses are blinded, reasoning lost, and consciousness about to fade. Most people will never experience this level of pain, and those who do are probably not able to express that their pain is indeed, a 10. I don't want to think of examples of this, but feeding both of your hands and arms, slowly, to an industrial mulcher, would probably count.

Now, this scale doesn't solve the subjectivity of painful experiences. However, it does provide a more objective way to relate pain to a patient's quality of life--if that hot water burn really seems like a 6 to you, then you may just need more aggressive pain therapy, the same amount another person might need for a bone fracture. Hopefully this system will become intuitive to people, and we will all be on the same page when you claim that your pain was a "4".

Disclaimer: There are many different pain scales out there, each with their own nuances and minutia. The 0-10 point scale is the most commonly employed; however, this stratification may not be widely used or accepted. I just like its organization.

Friday, February 28, 2014

On Sleep

This morning, I awoke sleepy and dim-witted. For the fifth consecutive day, I had underslept due to mismanagement of my time (it is tempting to claim that I am so busy with work that I was forced to forego sleep, but alas, no first-year is that deep in it). I had a discussion over the net with some of my contacts as I sat in a stupor on the floor of  my bathroom, coddling a caffeine-rich tea. One person insisted that 6 hours per night was completely adequate: That my fatigue was "just an illusion" and that anyone can adapt to that amount of sleep with full, normal function and presumably no detriment to health. I'd like to postpone my post on parasites (I have one lecture left to attend anyway) and discuss instead about a topic which should be more immediately relatable: Sleep.

Any four-year old can tell you what sleep is. What he or she can't tell you is why we do it--and in this respect, experts aren't much more aware. There are many theories competing to explain: It is needed for restoration and recovery and to replenish energy stores, it is an evolutionary measure to conserve energy, it is needed for memory consolidation and reinforcement of learning, it is required for brain development. These are all probably true, but each theory faces evidence to the contrary.

Most people are aware that there are different stages to sleep, and we define them primarily on hypnogram readings (electroencephalography during sleep). Stage 1 and stage 2 sleep feature "brain waves" of high frequency and low amplitude. Stages 3 and 4 are "deep" sleep, and are characterized by long, high amplitude readings. But REM sleep, the next progression of the sleep cycle, looks strikingly like awake brain activity. REM ("Rapid Eye Movement") is so named because of the transient phasic events that occur during it. In addition, glucose usage and blood flow in the brain are both elevated during REM sleep! So, we characterize it as a period of high activity and discharge--not exactly what we would expect of sleep in general, yet it is known that REM sleep is the one which we seem to need the most--less REM sleep (without change in stages 1-4) is correlated with higher feelings of fatigue and sleepiness, and the sleep-deprived are quicker to enter REM sleep when they do go to bed. This fact has even generated a curious practice--the "Uberman" sleep cycle--which seeks to maximize the amount of awake hours in one's day, basically by becoming so sleep deprived that you hit enter REM sleep right away, and then only take ~4 half-hour naps per day, since REM sleep only constitutes about a quarter of normal sleep time. I do not particularly recommend this fad, as we are not quite sure what the long-term effects of shorting your stages 1-4 sleep are.

What happens to the body when you sleep? A lot. I don't want to bore you with lists of effects, but a few key points are worth mentioning. As sleep sets in, the body adapts what I will describe as a state of decreased metabolism: body temperature drops slightly (1-2 degrees celsius), blood pressure and heart rate fall, muscles become atonic (with the important exception of the lung diaphragm) and GI motility decreases. Secretion of various hormones also fluctuates and spikes throughout the duration of the night, another argument against polyphasic sleep. Note, however, that most of these metabolic changes flip on their head during REM sleep, a condition of elevated activity above an awake, resting baseline.

You have probably heard of the phrase "circadian rhythm". Basically, all mammals (and presumably many other animals) maintain a sort of biological rhythm. It is maintained by a structure pretty close behind the eyes, the Suprachiasmatic nucleus. Interestingly, the rhythm is not perfect, and relies on environmental input from the eyes, particularly short-wavelength (blue) light. In the absence of any such light, the rhythm appears to drift towards a 26 hour cycle in humans, and this is different for other animals. This has an important implication--our circadian rhythms, which evolved during a time in which the only light was from the daily rise and fall of the sun, are presumably subject to disruption from our lives of artificial light at any and all times. Here are a couple of useful takeaways: red lights do not appear to disrupt the rhythm--the 24hr darkness animal facilities at my undergrad school used red lights so that researchers could navigate the room, without disturbing the animals' rhythms. Later in this electronic discussion thread, another member mentioned the software f.lux, which dims the blue levels on your computer display when the sun has set (based on your latitude). This may be worth a try, if your curiosity is piqued.

So, how does this circadian rhythm affect our sleep drives? We can generally describe our sleep drives under a "two-process model", in which process C (for "circadian") oscillates on a roughly 24hr cycle. You may find around 9pm that you are very, very sleepy, but when you get in bed two hours later, suddenly the drive isn't as strong. That is the waning of process C, which occurs at night and continues until mid-morning. This leaves process H ("homeostatic"), which can be described as sleep debt or sleep load. This is what increases the longer we go without sleep, and it's why I have been feeling progressively junkier as this week has progressed. It appears that adenosine (produced in normal catabolism) is central to this phenomenon, but there are boatloads of hormones and brain chemicals that affect your wakefulness.

So what happens as we become sleep deprived? Nothing unexpected--cognitive function declines, physical health and overall affect suffer, the immune response becomes slower and less competent, and other sensitive processes like weight gain/loss and depression are implicated as well. The scariest thing that the typical person will be exposed to is a tendency to dose off--very problematic when operating a motor vehicle. I had a college friend get into 1-2 collisions because he fell asleep at the wheel, and I myself have been guilty of driving sleepy at least once. Being terrified of dying in a high speed crash helps a bit, but it's better to be well-rested before making any such trips. Oh, and go long enough without sleep (~10 days) and you'll die, though I can't currently find a source that explains exactly how.

So how much sleep is healthy? Well, there is no good single answer for everyone. 8 hours is a typical recommendation, and my clinical preceptor (a pulmonary/CCM/sleep doctor who regularly sees patients suffering from OSA, or obstructive sleep apnea) concurs with that amount. Does this mean you've been sleep deprived for the past 10 years? Well, not necessarily. The amount that we need seems to differ from person to person. According to the doctor, about 5% of people only need about 6 hours per night to function, and another 5% need around 10--it's a bell-curve. So, my friend's comments that 6 hours is enough may be true for him, but it is certainly not true for everyone. Still, you don't want to be on the ends of that bell-curve--morbidity is generally higher for both groups of outliers. Sucks to be the 10+hr people. To answer the question: You know how much sleep you need--your body tells you, so listen to it. Furthermore, the amount of sleep you need changes with age, with infants needing as much as 16-18 hours per day. The changes are greatest during childhood, and are pretty subtle in adulthood. Now, while it is true that an 80yr old needs less sleep than a 20yr old to function, studies have found that the elderly have much higher incidence of sleep disturbance--they get less sleep, but they still need more than they're getting. So give Grandpa a break when he says he's tired.

So, are you sleep deprived? Clinicians in sleep medicine use the Epworth scale to gauge tiredness and as a screening for potential sleep disorders. I will probably write in depth later about obstructive sleep apnea, as I learn some more about it. For now, follow this link to see the survey: Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Report how likely you would fall asleep (on a scale from 0-3) in each of the given situations, then tally your score. A normal score would probably be around 2-7. Above a 10, and your sleep patterns are probably harming your overall health. I scored about an 8.

The sources of information from which this topic was based include a lecture given by Hubert Forster, PhD on December 9th, 2013 at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, WI, as well as verbal discussion with a clinician preceptor.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

An Introduction and Overview

Hello and welcome!

This is my first entry of my first ever blog, so pardon my poor composition. My name is Timothy Carll. I am (currently) a 22 year old native of southern Wisconsin, and I am a first-year medical student at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. For more information about me, feel free to look at my Google+ page.

This blog is meant to serve a few different purposes. For a long time now I have been seeking avenues to express some of my thoughts or discoveries (I hesitate to say "experiences", since I have none) on a variety of subjects, most notably my medical education, which has taken a commanding position in my life and daily schedule. Facebook is far too informal and brief to facilitate much deep discussion, and I don't want to use the forums that I browse everyday, since I don't want to flood my friends with stuff they may not know much or care about. So, the first purpose of this blog is to allow me to vent my thoughts constructively, hopefully in a manner which a casual reader could find interesting. This is the second purpose: by writing this blog, I hope to improve my skills as an expository writer, a skill which I expect to have benefit in my career and in life in general. Hopefully with time I will develop a method of writing which is intrinsically interesting to read. Perhaps you will be the judge of that. I know my girlfriend, Deborah, will be, as she has just read the half paragraph above and deemed it boring. Yikes. The third purpose, and this one is a bit of a stretch, is to provide a sort of timeline or yardstick by which I can track my progression through medical school. It will definitely be interesting to read all of this when I graduate, so I hope that current or aspiring medical students will find this engaging. Still, I don't intend to make medicine the sole purpose of this blog. On that note...

Why did I name the blog "On Aliment or Nutriment"? Well, it represents the intersection of several of my areas of interest. It is the name of a work from the Hippocratic Corpus, an ancient group of manuscripts said to be written by Hippocrates, the grandfather of medicine. We now know that many of these works were not written by Hippocrates, but were rather ascribed to him by whoever to lend them more credibility. Still, you can see two major subjects which I will be discussing: medicine itself, as well as the history thereof. Stay tuned for interesting snippets from my lectures, and some commentary about some history, which is surprisingly more interesting than it sounds. Why a work regarding digestion, though? There are another couple of subjects I find interesting: Food, which I like as much as anyone else to cook and eat, but in addition the epidemic of obesity which is increasingly plaguing the world. I hope to talk at great length about obesity and its effects on the individual and population, as well as to discuss the science behind nutrition, diet and exercise. I also expect to talk about things like electronics, computers, and video gaming, as well as whatever other minutia I encounter in my day-to-day life. I hesitate to even define the scope of my writing now, because I know I will just write about whatever interests me.

I do not expect that this blog will become popular. I do this mostly for me, but if people find this interesting, great. I will do my best to make the content fascinating (or at least gross, I am in medicine after all). For now though, I have overshot the time I have given myself to write. There is a full day of classes tomorrow, and I need sleep. Stay tuned though, one of the first subjects I want to talk about will be a fun one: parasites.