William Martin.

Hello everyone! I just wanted to extend my condolences in light of this pandemic that is affecting everyone. I have also just been informed that I am going to be helping in research to combat this disease so we can figure this out and put an end to it. With that being said, I have to cancel my social medias and this blog so I am completely focused and not able to be bombarded with questions and also not risking putting out any non-disclosable information to you all. So with that being said….I’d like to extend a very sad goodbye. I have loved writing for you all and hearing what you have to say.

-W.M.

Hey everyone, sorry (once again!) for the long wait on another post, but as I’ve said before, I barely have time to breathe with the struggles of a third year. New protocols to learn coming in every day and having to balance that with my social life so I can keep my sanity intact… It’s a mess.

But I have a little bit of time right now to do some stress release which I usually get from writing in here or some other creative type of strategy so I chose to do so. I just love my readers so much and would never want to leave them waiting for so long.

So now it is time for one of my long awaited entries in my notorious, highly-opinionated mess of a blog!

I actually want to talk about something I discovered the other day when reading through some pretty surface level medical news about a tactic for reducing health problems related to diet that was implemented in Chicago that was created to generate revenue for a county health care fund. This idea is what I think to be a very good and ideal strategy for helping the obesity and unregulated food consumption of Americans (although it could be beneficial anywhere).

To summarize this tactic: legislation was passed to add a tax to the sales price of beverages–more specifically–to discourage the purchasing of these beverages which are pretty unhealthy due to their high sugar content meanwhile generating revenue for public health initiatives.

In the article there is a mention of a prestige nutritionist, Samantha Heller saying “research has found a strong association between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and type two diabetes, obesity, heart disease, kidney disease, tooth decay and gout” which are all very concerning for the health of the general population.

The initiative found success because it reduced public soda consumption by 21% in volume. This probably made a decent impact on the health of the people who reduced their soda purchasing however that wasn’t mentioned.

Personally, I think more places than just Boulder, Colo.; Philadelphia; Seattle; and four California cities: Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco should adopt this policy. Places like the States, Canada, and even the rest of the world would benefit immensely because while yes limiting some of the freedoms of people’s access to a beverage they might like, making it apparent that these beverages aren’t the best choice and should be consumed at rate of moderation a great deal larger than what is the current norm for other places.

So yes, I think this ‘Soda Tax’ to boost health care funds was a brilliant tactic to generate revenue while also doing some good along the way. I just wish it was utilized far more frequently because it is such a win-win and can do a lot of good for a great amount of people (especially the harder headed people who drink soda with every meal).

That is the most of my opinion on this subject and I don’t think there is anything else that I wish to add.

Stick around though because I plan on releasing a few more posts before I go back to missing in action from my blog for a while.

Hi all! It has been a while since I have been able to get out some of my thoughts. It has been such a long time because I’ve had an unprecedented amount of work to do in the hospital, but alas, I have a little block of time off so I’m going to indulge in venting about a topic I feel does not get talked about enough in the daily life of anyone in the beautiful country of Canada.

For the last four years a couple has been fighting a case in which they found themselves when cops raided their business and charged them with offenses of advertising sexual services, making money from the sex trade, and procuring for the sex trade. Today, four years later, they were found innocent based on the judge’s finding of the prostitution laws set in place to be unconstitutional.

I care about protecting sex workers and allowing them to make a living in the way they need to or want to. If a person wants to use their body to make money, who am I, or a group of lawmakers, to stop them. The root of the problem is set in the stigma created by society to antagonize people for doing something that in itself is not bad. My personal stance is that if someone is able to show off their body or engage in sexual interactions for money, what is the harm in it? However many have added their personal beliefs and core values that extend from religion and other passed down ethical codes to the discussion around it, vilifying the people who engage in it because a book or some old man that is seen as pure has basically said to do.

It’s likely that someone would like to make the argument that sex work might lead to sex trafficking or an unsafe/exploitive environment for the worker. I agree that there are scenarios in which people who engage in sex work might find themselves getting hurt or exploited, but that is because the people have to do it without protective legislation or they are being controlled against their will. Unsafe sex work and prostitution are not things I agree with, but if someone wants to run a business where they professionally help a client meet an escort who does a sexual act as a job or service for payment in a safe, protected manner, nothing should stand in their way. In my opinion sex work industry workers should be entitled to do with their bodies what they please as long as it is done under safe practice.

As for the couple that was charged with crimes for their escort business, it seems at surface level as though they did conduct their business in a safe manner. If they truly had an actual business that was not sketchy and organized, then I don’t see why the ruling of the judge is wrong. There’s not much on the actual proceedings of their business, but in the end they weren’t guilty so if our justice system works, then it is nice to see some people trying to run a business be freed of the burden of prosecution and criminal charges that would have followed them for the rest of their lives.

I used this example to bring to light how I felt about the subject because I feel as though not many people are fine with talking about the subject from a supporting or defensive standpoint and I try to be an ally for all that are deserving. Now I have to get back to my studies.

Until next time!

I recently discovered a post by Scott Walsh (a fellow blogger) that I found very interesting, but not very insightful in the fact that it doesn’t exactly point out the fatal flaw that resonates throughout the subject. In the post, Scott gave a summative review of a new solar tech that is emerging in the natural power industry. The organic photovoltaic arcs are a new alternative to the normal solar panel. They are thin, cloth-like, essentially malleable, and environmentally friendly new type of solar panel sounds like it can be a game changing new tech, but there are a few setbacks. The cost along with the production rate of the the panels are some of the big factors laying in the path of the new technology’s success in becoming a popular and widely used new alternative for alternative energy sourcing.

In theory, the idea could be great as an effort for combating different environmental disasters like climate change and chemical pollution of specific environments. However, with the way society and the capitalist societies the majority of the world has become subject to, it seems as though it will be nearly impossible to get this type of project off the ground.

Personally speaking, I love solutions that break the chain of cheap, easy, and harmful production. Using innovative clean solutions instead of just settling for some careless quick-made product that causes environmental damage can change the path that humans have created for ourselves over the years. If more companies and their associates were looking to take the route of preserving the Earth and minimizing their emissions where possible, this product might have a chance. Though that doesn’t seem to be the case in most situations which makes this idea more of a dream than a plausible reality.

The problem is not that the technology is flawed. The problem is definitely in the capitalist mindset of obtaining a higher yield of wealth in any way possible–even if it causes harm to others or the Earth in the process. This is unfortunately the limiting factor that stops large companies from using a code of ethics leaving them blind to the dark and grim possibilities that will come for the human race. If somehow this tendency could be broken, many projects of similar nature could easily help us humans as a collective have a better outlook for how long we are able to stick around this planet.

So yes, I agree that the OPV arcs are amazing and should be utilized a great amount more in the near future, but I don’t see it having a future unless there is a call to action strong enough to get lazy capitalists to make a change and begin helping in the efforts to aid in the fight against climate change and pollution. Without that push OPV arcs and other innovative, environmentally friendly technological advancements that are potentially a little more costly in the present (even when they have a better long term yield) will never be considered because of the capital greed that is embedded in the values of big tech companies worldwide.

Hello again readers; I’m sorry that it has been a while since my last post-you have to understand, my life is practicing medicine and napping when I can. Not much in between. As for this post, I have found myself with a short block while riding back home on the afternoon train because my car pool had an appointment after work today.

Anyhow, I was brushing up on the current events section in my local news section and I saw there’s some type of scandal going down at Ryerson (for those of you who don’t know, Ryerson is a University located in Toronto). My understanding of the whole situation is that the student government of the school kind of blew the trust of the school by mishandling some money resulting in the school basically breaking ties with the student government.

Essentially the student government broke the trust of the school by allowing a credit card for the association to blow up a bill of 250k which came from funds payed by students.

So this led to the school calling it quits with the organization and taking back control of it for the time being. They did however offer the possibility making an agreement to work together with another newly created student government if the student just so wished to create a new one.

I believe there is a great amount wrong with the ethics of kids and young adults these days. They believe it is okay to steal because they see it glorified online like it is normal and such. There is no accountability for the actions that young people take nowadays. These students got to rack up a 250 thousand dollar credit bill, but not a single mention of disciplinary action? That seems a little absurd to me.

It seems as though people are just allowed to do whatever they want and MAYBE get a slap on the wrist. Then theres professions like the one I am pursuing in which one accident or mistake can be your career down the toilet.

No matter the case, it is still interesting to see the reaction of the school to say they would allow for another student government to be formed in the future, instead of just keeping the control of the situation to themselves because the students had basically broken the trust they had. In most situations that would be the case–i.e if one person on a team breaks a rule everyone gets punished. But I guess there is more leniency than the normal standard response.

Times have changed is the appropriate response I’m guessing. I try to allow my mind to be as open to change and possibilities as I can, but some things like this just don’t seem logical. Maybe I am overreacting and it really isn’t that big of a change.

Well I should get going my train is going to be pulling into the station soon and I should collect myself so I can get off quickly and get home.

I hope you all enjoyed a bit of my mind being put down on the screen for you all to read.

Until next time..

Upon reading this blog post that calls out the underlying misogyny of the Oscar awards selection process I found myself agreeing with the points made, but I feel a different way about how this should be combated.

Why should women be subject to review by a small group of people who choose, what might be, one of the greatest achievements in someones career? It just allows this systemic oppression (just like in so many other cases in every day life) to continue suppressing the achievement and success of a minority/underrepresented group.

If only there was a simple way to dissolve the Oscars as a whole and start a whole new award show that has a well thought out group of seasoned actors who are known to be neutral and won’t allow things like gender/sex to sway them.

This solution however is not one that is feasible, so there needs to be some other change.

I like the idea of changing the existing group of academy members to be a more diverse and inclusive one thus ensuring more advocation for diverse selection when it comes to it, but who is to say that if this were to be done that the changes would be sufficient.

Without a system that is completely transparent–that shows the public how these academy members are voting–there is no telling if they are truthfully who they say they are.

All in all, I try not to think much of corrupt systems like that because I tend to get all jumbled up with the large amount of thoughts that come to mind on how it should be resolved or ways it can be tweaked to make it that much better–SO, I’ll leave you with this…

Systemic oppression is something that happens everywhere and to try to fix something of less importance like the Oscars being a patriarchal selection show before you look into things like the prison industrial complex in America. There’s a lot more important stuff going on over there than women not getting enough Oscars.

So today, I was scrolling through my Apple News app while eating my very brief breakfast before going in to the hospital when I stumbled upon a headline that made me groan from its rather annoying nature. It is not that I’m not used to seeing things like this on the news, but it is nonetheless still disheartening. The headline was “Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-gay adoption bill.”

Big shocker right?

Being from a place that is so welcoming to people of all variations, it just seems like this is an absurd thing to try to bring back after it has already been phased out of legislation in the years passed.

As you all know I am on the path to becoming a medical professional. This means I have had a ton of education in ethics, so in seeing this I couldn’t have helped in thinking how unethical it is for this to even be allowed the time of day in the point in history that we are in. More so by someone who is an elected leader in a government.

From the absurdity of keeping orphaned children from a potential loving family to the denying of people based on their sexual orientation (which is being proved more and more to be biologically predetermined and not a choice) this whole situation is just infuriating to say the least. These are people who just want to be brought together with someone who they can call their family and to deny that based on some religious or other belief that you share with some bigot group members is just a shame.

The fact of the matter is, there are researchers that concluded that kids have the same outcome, mentally, in a household of same-sex parents as those who live in a household of different-sex parents. It was found that sometimes they come out with better mental health because their parents are more functional as a pair and are more capable of resilience, compassion and tolerance. So my question is: what is the problem with allowing kids who are without families, or are in danger of being put in a corrupt foster care system, into a home of loving parents that just happen to be LGBTQI+?

There is so much that happens that just denies people from things that have nothing but positive effects. It could be that I’m completely missing something that could be a negative, but I am highly doubtful that this specific instance has any possible negative outcomes that are foreseeable. Yes, it might be against the religion or beliefs of others, but that is when people need to realize…HAVING A RELIGION AND BELIEFS DOES NOT MEAN ALL OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD NEED TO FOLLOW THEM.

It is just so saddening that so much discrimination still happens in America when uncalled for. It is nice to feel like I live somewhere that the citizens and government seem to have their shit together on some level.

Hello everyone! Welcome to my blog. My name is William Martin. I am a third year medical school student at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. I come from a family of blue collar workers who haven’t obtained much of an education, so I tried my best to set a new standard for myself and my family to come. As a medical student I do not have much free time, however some of my favorite activities are watching ice hockey, having brunch with friends, fishing, and volunteering at the LGBTQI+ youth center.

Speaking from a more political standpoint, I am very much an advocate for human rights. I believe as humans, everyone should be allowed to live the way they please under the condition that it is not in spite of another person or group of people, it is not with malicious intent, and it is not in a way that is to elevate in some type of societal or institutional status.