Podcasts about equivocal

Welcome! Today, we're discussing the top causes of treatment delays for Lyme disease that I've encountered in my practice." Case Study: An 18-Month Struggle One of my patients was ill for 18 months. She had a tick bite and an atypical rash. Her ELISA titer was positive for Lyme disease, but she had only two IgG western blot bands. Despite multiple evaluations, Lyme disease was considered but dismissed after a negative test. She presented with Chronic Neurologic Lyme and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) and required extensive treatment due to these delays. Fortunately, she improved after treatment, but the delay made her recovery more challenging. Top Causes of Treatment Delays Here are the top causes of treatment delays I see in my practice: 1.  Absence of a Tick Bite: Many patients don't recall being bitten by a tick, leading to delays in considering Lyme disease.2.  Absence of a Rash: Not all Lyme disease patients develop a rash, which can cause misdiagnosis.3.  Atypical Rash: Only one in four Lyme disease cases present with the classic bull's eye pattern.4.  Equivocal or Negative Tests for Lyme: Inconsistent or negative test results can lead to delays in diagnosis.5.  Equivocal or Negative Tests for Co-Infections: Co-infections like Babesia may not be detected, complicating diagnosis.6.  Dismissal as Another Illness: Symptoms may be mistaken for chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, gastroparesis, or other conditions.7.  Inadequate Public Health Information: Lack of awareness and information can lead to delays in seeking appropriate care.8.  Poor Understanding of the Signs and Symptoms of Lyme Disease: Misinterpretation of symptoms by both patients and healthcare providers.9.  Stigma Associated with the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease: Fear of stigma can prevent patients from seeking a diagnosis.10.  Difficulties Finding a Doctor Who Will Treat Lyme Disease: Limited access to Lyme-literate doctors can delay treatment.11.  Reliance on Symptomatic Treatment or Alternative Treatments: Focusing on symptomatic relief without considering Lyme disease.12.  Reluctance of Professionals to Consider Lyme Disease: Some healthcare providers are hesitant to diagnose Lyme disease. Addressing the Challenges Addressing these challenges requires raising awareness, improving diagnostic methods, and ensuring better access to doctors experienced in treating Lyme disease. Patients and healthcare providers need to be informed about the varied presentations and complexities of Lyme disease. Conclusion Understanding the causes of treatment delays helps us improve the timely diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. If you or someone you know is experiencing unexplained symptoms, consider consulting a doctor experienced in treating Lyme disease. Thank you for watching, and stay tuned for more insights on Lyme disease.

Episode 165: Early-Onset Sepsis Part 2Dr. Lovedip Kooner explains how to use the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator and explains other useful tools to assist in the diagnosis of EOS. Dr. Arreaza adds comments about the usefulness of this calculatorWritten by Lovedip Kooner, MD. Comments and editing by Hector Arreaza, MD.You are listening to Rio Bravo qWeek Podcast, your weekly dose of knowledge brought to you by the Rio Bravo Family Medicine Residency Program from Bakersfield, California, a UCLA-affiliated program sponsored by Clinica Sierra Vista, Let Us Be Your Healthcare Home. This podcast was created for educational purposes only. Visit your primary care provider for additional medical advice.Introduction: As a recap, Early-onset sepsis is diagnosed within 72 hours (or within 7 days, according to some experts) after birth. We talked about GBS as the main culprit of EOS. 28% of EOS by GBS are babies born 2 hours to maintain oxygen saturations > 90% (outside of the delivery room)After all that information is entered into the Kaiser Permanente calculator, the options for management are clinical monitoring, laboratory evaluation, or antibiotic administration. Example: -Incidence: 0.5/1,000 live births -Gestational age: 36 6/7 weeks-Highest maternal antepartum temperature: 102 F-ROM: 5 hours-Maternal GBS: Positive-Intrapartum antibiotics: Broad spectrum 3 hours prior to birth-RESULT: EOS risk at birth 2.34.Recommendations based on physical exam:1. Well-appearing baby, risk 0.96, RECOMMENDATIONS: No culture, no antibiotics, vitals every 4 hours for 24 hours.2. Equivocal, risk 11.61, RECOMMENDATIONS: Start empiric antibiotics and vitals per NICU.3. Clinical Illness, risk 47.46, RECOMMENDATIONS: Start empiric antibiotics and vitals per NICU.The Kaiser Permanente neonatal early-onset sepsis calculator was analyzed in a meta-analysis, as published in the American Family Physician in 2021. Six high-quality, non-randomized controlled trials were evaluated, including more than 170,000 neonates. The calculator was compared to the standard approach recommended by the CDC guidelines. The analysis showed there was a statistically significant reduction in antibiotic use, a reduction in the number of laboratory tests, and a reduction in NICU admission in neonates who were managed following the sepsis calculator compared with the standard approach. There was no difference in readmission rates to NICU and no difference in culture-positive sepsis between neonates treated using the sepsis calculator and those treated with the standard approach. In summary, I recommend using the Kaiser Permanente calculator as part of your evaluation. BTW, I received no money from KP. It is important to know that depending on resources and institutional policies, your management may change.Use of CBC and CRP.CBC interpretation in neonates: Remember that CBC in newborns needs to be evaluated following the normal parameters for neonates. For example, WBC up to 30,000 per mm3, and hemoglobin up to 19.9 gm/dL can be normal in neonates. Serial white blood cell counts and immature–to–total neutrophil ratio (I/T ratio) generally greater than or equal to 0.2 by some experts is considered positive for sepsis. Complete blood cell counts taken 12-24 hours after birth are associated with increased sensitivity and negative predictive value compared to a sample taken 1-7 hours after birth. C-reactive protein (CRP) is also often used and it rises within 6 hours of infection and peaks at 24 hours. Two normal CRP levels, one taken between 8-24 hours of age and the second 24 hours later, have an over 99% negative predictive value. Single values of CRP or procalcitonin obtained after birth to assess the risk of EOS are neither sensitive nor specific to guide EOS care decisions.Procalcitonin: Procalcitonin may be difficult to interpret within the first 3 days after birth due to elevations caused by noninfectious etiologies and the physiologic rise after birth. It is important to note that neither single values of CRP nor procalcitonin after birth should be used to guide the management plan of infants undergoing evaluation for EOS>.Extreme values in CBC: Extreme values (total WBC count 0.3; ANC

This lecture discusses the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle' work, the Categories, focusing on his distinction in chapter 1 between three types of terms - Univocal (sunonuma), Equivocal (homonuma), and Derivative (paronuma). This distinction concerns the connection between linguistic expressions and meanings. Univocal terms have the same meaning, or in Aristotle's terms, "statement of essence" (logos tes ousias). Equivocal terms have the same name or expression, but different statements of essence. Derivative terms are grammatically related to each other, and have connected meanings. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO You can find over 2500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Aristotle's Categories - https://amzn.to/3nS55ud

© JPS Archives

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for April 7, 2023 is: equivocal • ih-KWIV-uh-kul • adjective Equivocal means "having two or more possible meanings" or "difficult to understand or explain." It can also mean "uncertain." // When I asked Fatima how her job was going, she gave me an equivocal response: "Let's just say I won't be a sous-chef for much longer." // The most recent clinical trial produced equivocal results. See the entry > Examples: "Hitchhiking—that good old sustainable form of ride-sharing—has declined in popularity in recent years, stoked by equivocal legislation and shifting cultural attitudes. But, with climate change becoming an increasingly urgent crisis, the need for more creative transportation options has never been more pressing." — Brendan Sainsbury, Condé Nast Traveler, 3 Jan. 2022 Did you know? If you're unsure about how to use equivocal properly, it may help to first remember its antonym, unequivocal, which is without a doubt the more common word of the two. As unequivocal means "leaving no doubt" or "unquestionable," it stands to reason that equivocal applies to language that is open to multiple, often differing interpretations. Equivocal can also have a sinister slant: equivocal language is usually used to mislead or confuse, its vagueness allowing the speaker to avoid committing to a firm position or opinion, and to later disavow anything listeners found objectionable if need be. To use a related verb, politicians are often accused of equivocating when, for example, they respond to yes-or-no questions with rambling, unrelated anecdotes.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: I'm less approving of the EA community now than before the FTX collapse, published by throwaway790 on December 16, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is mostly a counterpoint to Will Aldred/Duncan Sabien's post. I'm not really an EA; haven't taken the pledge, don't work at an org, have been to no EA meetups in my life, (haven't been a speaker at EA Global). However, I have been close to the EA community for a while, agreeing with many of its goals and donating to many of its key causes. Reading Duncan's post made me want to defend the case for why I'm less approving of the EA community than before. I want to be a little specific about what I'm less approving of. EA™ - CEA / EVF (I'd never heard it called EVF before FTX) Will MacAskill personally Donation practices during the "funding overhang" era There are some people/orgs I am more approving of: Peter Wildeford (and Rethink Priorities more generally) Rob Wiblin Dustin Moskovitz I'm not going to say anything about Peter/Rob/Dustin in this post, although the amount I approve them more does not change the net effect, which is less approving of EA. Lots of the reasons I am less approving of EA now than I was prior to FTX collapse are things I could have known. However I am aware of them because of the FTX collapse. Others might have already been aware of everything I'll mention, in which case I would agree with Duncan - with few exceptions, the communities reaction to the FTX collapse has been very good and I largely approve. So, what have I learned since the FTX collapse which makes me approve less of EA? Will MacAskill: Initial reactions thread I read this as both minimizing the event and distancing himself from SBF, which is not credible in light of: Elon relationship - you don't go and bat for someone with the richest guy in the world unless you are confident in who you're batting for Their long history of a close relationships (shared board memberships, his earlier mentorship etc) Guzey's review (this episode is why I'm posting as a throwaway) Equivocal statements during the early crisis: Will MacAskill Holder Karnofsky (note the edit and Alexander Berger's comments before blaming Holden) There were more statements I was annoyed with at the time, but I can't remember enough of the specifics to search them right now. If I remember them, I will add them here. (Part of my praise for Rob was his statement was in sharp contrast of what was coming out at the time) Wytham Abbey - I don't especially want to relitigate this but it makes me think less of EA - you can read many takes on EAF - probably the fairest place to start is the reasoning for why it was bought. People who received funding in dubious ways and didn't say anything (North Dimension donating on behalf of FTX Future fund) EA (generally) treating FTX as something which "happened" to them, rather than being something they were intimately involved in. (Initial funding for Alameda coming from the EA community, ...) I suspect (but can't prove) that the EA orgs are using the excuse of legal advice / legal threats to avoid saying things they don't want to say for other reasons. (And my suspicion is that this is because they have done something which could be bad) People in the community knew SBF's image was manufactured to some degree but didn't say anything (general take from forum - summarized in this New Yorker piece) EA's earlier relationship with a sketchy billionaire (and the degree to which this was covered up) All of these things put together are enough for me to downgrade my opinion of EA. I've put this together from off the top of my head, so there are likely other things which have affected my view over the last month. To be clear - I am still very much in favor of EA principles, the EA community and will continue to donate to EA causes but will ...

More great books at LoyalBooks.com

Here's a link to the two articles we reference in the podcast: https://sti.bmj.com/content/78/3/160https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-019-1285-xVisit www.spfpp.org to check out the HSV survey from 2021 as well as more podcast episodes and options to leave a donation to help us continue to pay for therapy.

Your Equivocal Presence by Channel Interlude

The Houston Astros should be banned from the MLB. Who's with me!? Altuve was my hero, but now he's just a crook. Let's get these cheaters out of the leauge. Sign up for our email list here --> https://mailchi.mp/644bb32f036b/gre-vocab-yo --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/grevocab/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/grevocab/support

第一条 独一上帝 创造主-受造物之间的区别； Archetypal-Ectypal 原本与复本的区别； Univocal, Equivocal, Analogical 单义、歧义、类比； 上帝的属性：不可传递的属性；可传递属性 simplicity 单纯性；aseity 自存性； divine sovereignty and human freedom 上帝的主权与人的自由

In this episode Dr. Jim will discuss the issues and concerns surrounding uncertain or equivocal deaths where the manner of death may be in question.  The most common one seen surround the cases where a suicide comes under scrutiny and families believe it is a homicide.  Other possibilities exist with Homicide versus Accident or Suicide versus Accident.  In a general sense Dr. Jim will describe how some of these cases, at least by perception if not fact, become questionable and how they can cause us more time and money then if due diligence had been seen from the onset of the investigation.  As a side note, one of the cases briefly discussed is the Sherman case come from Toronto, CA and while Dr. Jim is not an expert on that case, he is providing information gleaned from public sources where the truth of the matter still remains to be determined.  Nevertheless, an interesting death case where it is alleged that the initial label was a Murder/Suicide and now is a double Murder, still unsolved.  As part of this Dr. Jim is including an audio clip from a news conference that the family’s lawyer addressed about his findings in his investigation.  This information came from CTV News in Canada and the direct link to this news briefing can be found at https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1524442&jwsource=em.

This week on StoryWeb: Herman Melville’s novella Billy Budd, Sailor. While “Bartleby, the Scrivener” and Moby-Dick get a lot of attention (and are taught frequently in high school and college classes), fans of Herman Melville’s work think a lot about a piece he was writing at the end of his life. Though Melville had been working on the novella Billy Budd, Sailor for the last five years of his life, it appears that he may not have finished it when he died in 1891. It’s surprising that Melville had been working on the novella for such a long time. Earlier in his life, he was known for the extremely rapid pace at which he wrote. For example, he wrote the mammoth Moby-Dick in just eighteen months – an epic novel that was about six times longer than Billy Budd. So it’s odd that Melville would spend so much time on one piece – and still leave it unfinished. Also puzzling is Melville’s motivation in writing Billy Budd at all. After he published Moby-Dick in 1851, he went on to write three other novels – Pierre; or, The Ambiguities; Israel Potter; and The Confidence-Man. Each subsequent novel increased the public’s sense that Melville had lost his mind, that his books were the ravings of a lunatic mad man. Looking back after more than 150 years, we can see that Melville was not insane but was rather highly innovative and deeply cynical about the human psyche. Like Walt Whitman, Melville blew the lid off literary convention and, also like Whitman, was very much misunderstood and rejected by many in polite society. But unlike Whitman – and indeed unlike the whole band of Transcendentalists and their friends – Melville had a deeply pessimistic view of the world. When he saw Nathaniel Hawthorne in Europe in 1856, he told his friend that he had “pretty much made up [my] mind to be annihilated.” Hawthorne summed up Melville’s dilemma: “He can neither believe, nor be comfortable in his unbelief; and he is too honest and courageous not to try to do one or the other.” As he wrote novel after novel in the 1840s and ‘50s, Melville’s view of the human psyche became darker and darker, with the monomaniacal Captain Ahab epitomizing the terror of the human soul gone mad, consumed by evil. So intense was the public’s vitriolic reaction to Melville’s work that he quit writing entirely. He disappeared into a quiet career as a New York Customs House inspector. Indeed, he had become such an obscure figure that a New York newspaper, whose offices were located just two blocks from Melville’s home in Manhattan, wrote an article that wondered if Melville had died. So the question many Melville fans ask is: was the author of Billy Budd still cynical about the human soul and was his final novella thus a “testament of resistance”? Or had he made his peace with darkness, had he come to some kind of spiritual acceptance of the world – with the novella a “testament of acceptance”? And what of the fact that the manuscript was apparently unfinished? When Melville died, the manuscript had not been prepared for the printer – and much ink has been spilled since that time trying to determine Melville’s intentions as a writer. Given all the mystery surrounding this short piece of fiction, we must ask ourselves why Billy Budd is so ambiguous and what this ambiguity can tell us about Melville’s final message to his readers. When we look closely, I believe we’ll see that Billy Budd is ambiguous because Melville’s own ideas changed as he wrote it and because he wanted his readers to explore for themselves the profound questions the book asks. He wanted to challenge the intelligent and alert reader – the reader whom he so desperately wanted to find, the reader who would be waiting for him later in the twentieth century. When Melville died in September 1891, it had been five months since he had written “End of Book” on the last page of Billy Budd. Why, then, do scholars think the novella was unfinished? Fragments, repetitions, scraps of text compete with each other. In fact, even though the book was rediscovered in the 1920s, it wasn’t until the 1960s that a somewhat definitive version was published – but even that version feels unfinished and incomplete. Melville had a lifelong history of losing control of manuscripts. For example, he told a friend that Pierre had “got somewhat out of hand,” ending up much longer and much more complex than Melville had originally intended. And in the famous cetelogy chapter in Moby-Dick, the narrator, Ishmael, says he leave his “cetological system standing thus unfinished. . . . God keep me from ever completing anything.” The editors of the 1962 version conclude: Perhaps the “unfinished” Billy Budd should be regarded in this light. Melville’s often declared conception of the relation between reality and literature, between “truth” and the writer’s attempt to see and state it, involved both incompletion and formal imperfection as a necessity: a work that is faithful to reality must in the end be both incomplete and unshapely, since truth is both elusive and intractable. . . . When we look at Melville’s writing process, then, we should remember his wide-ranging, deep-diving psychological journeys. As he responded to Hawthorne’s letter on having read Moby-Dick, “The truth is ever incoherent. . . . Lord, when shall we be done growing? . . . Lord, when shall we be done changing?” Or as one critic said, Billy Budd “seems to chronicle a divided conscious; divided not by irony alone but by the reading and reflection and changing thoughts and attitudes of those five years of revisions and reconceptions.” But Billy Budd is not simply an unfinished manuscript. To the degree that it is finished, it is deliberately ambiguous. Throughout the novella, Melville uses a quite large number of “sliding” words, changes our perspectives on all the main characters frequently, and makes direct comments regarding ambiguity and the problems of definitively answering troublesome questions. Melville’s purpose, it seems to me, was to set up a book in which the reader asks questions along with the author and, instead of having the questions answered by the author, is forced to grapple with them herself. Take sliding words. Billy Budd is peppered with words that give the book an unfixed quality. Strange. Mysterious. Peculiar. Singular. Lurking. Secret. Obscure. Subtle. Questionable. Equivocal. Vague. Puzzle. Vex. Perplex. Wonder. Speculate. Ambiguous. These words are used in key scenes – scenes we often recall vividly. But when we reread these scenes, we find that any vividness we remember is but the vividness we have ourselves created. Similarly, the book’s image patterns put us in a world where the line between awake and asleep is thin and malleable, a world of dreaming and trances. And the main characters – Billy Budd, John Claggart, and Captain Vere – shift and shape-change not only throughout the book but also within individual scenes. The reader simply can’t get a grasp on who these characters are. Is Billy Budd an Adam, a Christ, and Claggart a devil? Not so fast, Melville seems to say. Truth is not so neat. Perhaps the most telling statement is one that appears late in the novella. The narrator says, The symmetry of form attainable in pure fiction cannot so readily be achieved in a narration essentially having less to do with fable than fact. Truth uncompromisingly told will always have its ragged edges; hence the conclusion of such a narration is apt to be less finished than an architectural finial. Melville urges us to take care with what we read, to be slow in casting judgment and in reaching conclusions, and to allow ourselves to fully enter into the ambiguous exploration of the labyrinth. One scholar says that Billy Budd trails off, “leaving endless reverberations in our minds. There is more mystery than we had thought, and we may agree with dying Gertrude Stein that answers are less important than questions. . . . Not the tidy discourse of our first impression, [Billy Budd] is almost as inexplicable as Moby-Dick.” If Melville had arrived at a well-defined set of answers, if this book was intended as his “testament of acceptance” or his “testament of resistance,” it is likely that he would not have carefully and neatly woven those answers into a story. Perhaps nothing underscores this more than the fact that readers and scholars have been finding their own individual answers to the problem of Billy Budd since the book was first published in 1924. While not all have followed Melville’s cues, each has at least tried to determine for himself what the book means. But the best defense for a purposefully ambiguous reading comes from Melville’s own lifelong struggle with truth, from his long and shifting writing process, and from a thorough and alert reading of the novella. Not the unfinished, disunified work of art that many have seen, Billy Budd is a triumph as a novella that lets the reader discover “truth” for herself. If you’re curious about the challenges Melville’s manuscript presented to scholars who rediscovered it in the 1920s, visit the University of Virginia’s outstanding American Studies website on Billy Budd. There you’ll also find a great list of online resources to help as you read the novella. If you want to own what many scholars believe to be the “best” version of the controversial manuscript, you’ll want the 1962 Hayford and Sealts edition. And finally, if you want to learn more about Melville’s life, check out Andrew Delbanco’s biography, Melville: His World and Work, or Hershel Parker’s famous two-volume biography. Visit thestoryweb.com/billybudd for links to all these resources. Listen now as I read Chapter 2 from the 1962 Hayford/Sealts edition. It provides our first full introduction to Billy Budd.

Author Jennifer Ledford discusses her research, co-authored by Erin E. Barton, Jessica K. Hardy, Katie Elam, Jordan Seabolt, Meredith Shanks, M. L. Hemmeter, and Ann Kaiser. Ledford discusses their methodology applied, their findings, and future steps in the field. This article can be found in the June 2016 issue of the Journal of Early Intervention. 

The Latin root word voc and its variant vok both mean “call.” These roots are the word origins of a fair number of English vocabulary words, including vocal, vocabulary, invoke, and provoke. The roots voc and vok are easily recalled through the words vocal, of “calling,” and revoke, to “call” back.Like this? Build a competent vocabulary with Membean.

For many Jews, the fact that Albert Einstein was Jewish is a point of pride. But what do we know about his Jewish self-identification? And how many folks out there could claim to have a basic understanding of his General Theory of Relativity? In Einstein: His Space and Time, biographer Steven Gimbel tackles these and other fundamental aspects of Einstein’s life and work. Gimbel is chairman of the philosophy department at Gettysburg College. He spoke with Vox Tablet host Sara Ivry about Einstein’s religious period (it came to an abrupt end when he discovered geometry at age 10), his clashes with all forms of authority, and his love of Israel, which fit uneasily with his profound distrust of nationalism. Gimbel also lays out the basic tenets of Einstein’s achievements in physics in terms that will make even science-phobes comfortable. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Explore YHWH's perfection and presence. "God is not merely distinct from the world, but also distinguishes Himself from it and it from Himself . . . and by means of this absolute inalienable Self-mastery of God, this doctrine opens the prospect that God can communicate Himself to the world without detriment" as Isaak Dorner states in System of Christian Doctrine. For humans, giving to another involves detriment to oneself. How can God give to us and not cause himself loss? God is the transcendent God but also near. Peter Leithart states, "I teach my theology students to be “because of” theologians rather than “in spite of” theologians. God is immanent not in spite of His transcendence, but because of His transcendence. The Son became man not in spite of His sovereign Lordship, but because He is Lord, as the most dramatic expression of His absolute sovereignty. Creation does not contradict God’s nature, but expresses it." Consider that Jesus stating "I AM" in the New Testament is his claim to be God and is what causes Him to be killed. How will we know God when we are perfected? Knowledge of something is always limited. There is Archetypal knowledge which is God's knowledge of God - perfect and comprehensive. We have Ectypal knowledge which is dependent on another. We will never comprehend him and know Him to the fullest depths. Consider words we use to relate to God. Univocal language is using a word to mean exactly the same thing in every sense. Equivocal language applies to different speech where nothing is the same and there is no similarity between the two words. Consider Aquinas' thoughts on Univocal and Equivocal language in relation to the Bible. Analogical language is neither. Aquinas holds that all our language is analogical. Consider that words apply to God by analogy. God takes our ordinary language and uses and perfects it to speak of glorious heavenly things.

Background/Aims: It has been hypothesized that the intrauterineenvironment is an independent factor in obesity development. If so, thematernal effect is likely to be a stronger influencing factor (’fetalovernutrition hypothesis’). We aimed to systematically evaluate theassociations of offspring body mass index (BMI, or adiposity) withpre-pregnancy BMI (or adiposity) of the mother and the father. Methods:The Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched inMarch 2012. Results: Seven cohort studies were eligible for theanalysis. Among these, 2 groups of trials presented different data fromthe same parent-offspring cohorts (the Avon Longitudinal Study ofParents and Children, ALSPAC, and the Mater-University Study ofPregnancy, MUSP). In total, 3 large birth cohorts and 1 additional smallstudy were identified. Three studies provided a direct comparison ofparent-offspring associations, with a statistically stronger maternalinfluence found only in the MUSP cohort. Equivocal results were obtainedfrom all studies describing the ALSPAC cohort. The parental effect(indirectly estimated based on the presented odds ratio) was similar inthe Finnish cohort. In 1 additional small study, maternal BMI was foundto be a strong predictor of childhood obesity. Conclusions: There isonly limited evidence to support the ‘fetal overnutrition hypothesis’.

RSC Public Seminar series of Hilary Term 2012. Podcast from the Refugee Studies Centre's Public Seminar Series on 'Critical Approaches to Environmental Displacement' convened by Dr Alexander Betts. This podcast was recorded on Wednesday 15 February 2012 at the Oxford Department of International Development, University of Oxford. The seminar was delivered by Calum Nicholson, Swansea University.