Eu sabia que em Maio se comiam as cerejas ao borralho... mas o cenário com que me deparei ontem (29 Maio) ultrapassou a expectativa criada por qualquer ditado popular.
Quando, depois de uma ensonada hora a passar os olhos por uma caixa de email absolutamente entupida por 4 dias de neglicência total e absoluta... olho para o lado de fora da janela, reparo que o Jura me parece estranho... "hum, nao fosse a falta de cafeína a esta hora da manhã e ía jurar que o Jura estava com neve"
Olho novamente e...
Eu não estava a alucinar... O Jura estava com neve!! Inacreditável... quase não nevou no Inverno e a neve resolve cair em Maio!?!?!? em quantidades suficientes para cobrir 1/4 da montanha!
Ainda um pouco incrédula, vou até a um gabinete vizinho para confirmar com uma colega e a resposta dela não deixou margem para dúvidas... "This morning I had 20 fuck1ng cm of snow to be shoveled off my car… so I can assure that what you see on the top of the Jura is real and cold snow!"
Conclusão óbvia:
Os deuses da neve devem andar loucos e não deve faltar muito para que o céu nos caia na cabeça!
quarta-feira, maio 30, 2007
quarta-feira, maio 23, 2007
Freak control... quem? Eu!?!?!?!?!
Até trabalhar com a minha colega holandesa eu achava que eu e a minha supervisora alemã eramos verdadeiras "freak control"...
Mas isso era dantes...
Eu achava que já era muito fazer "to do lists" diárias...
A minha colega holandesa não só tem listas diárias como também semanais e overviews mensais...
Eu achava muito tirar apontamentos durante reuniões de equipa ou de departamento e eventualmente apontar tarefas que me eram atribuídas por outras(os)...
A minha colega holandesa nunca inicia uma reunião sem ter as folhas dos apontamentos e faz SEMPRE minutas de reunião... Seja qual for o tipo de reunião! Como se não bastasse... ela também manda emails com os pontos essenciais discutidos em todas as reuniões e conferencia telefonicas... Todas!!
Eu também achava muito eu ter alguns ficheiros com "hard copies" dos documentos e emails mais importantes... ela tem ficheiros impecavelmente organizados com... TUDO!
Eu achava o máximo conseguir organizar a minha secretária 1 vez de 2 em 2 meses.... A secretária dela está sempre impecavelmente limpa... ou se por acaso tem papeis, estes estão perfeitamente categorizados e organizados...
Deste modo... permito-me então concluir que os meus niveis de freak control, ainda que provavelmente acima dos recomendados para uma vida saudável... são quase de certeza abaixo dos mínimos aceitáveis para os standards de organização desta minha colega...
UFA!!!! Valha-me ao menos isso...
Mas isso era dantes...
Eu achava que já era muito fazer "to do lists" diárias...
A minha colega holandesa não só tem listas diárias como também semanais e overviews mensais...
Eu achava muito tirar apontamentos durante reuniões de equipa ou de departamento e eventualmente apontar tarefas que me eram atribuídas por outras(os)...
A minha colega holandesa nunca inicia uma reunião sem ter as folhas dos apontamentos e faz SEMPRE minutas de reunião... Seja qual for o tipo de reunião! Como se não bastasse... ela também manda emails com os pontos essenciais discutidos em todas as reuniões e conferencia telefonicas... Todas!!
Eu também achava muito eu ter alguns ficheiros com "hard copies" dos documentos e emails mais importantes... ela tem ficheiros impecavelmente organizados com... TUDO!
Eu achava o máximo conseguir organizar a minha secretária 1 vez de 2 em 2 meses.... A secretária dela está sempre impecavelmente limpa... ou se por acaso tem papeis, estes estão perfeitamente categorizados e organizados...
Deste modo... permito-me então concluir que os meus niveis de freak control, ainda que provavelmente acima dos recomendados para uma vida saudável... são quase de certeza abaixo dos mínimos aceitáveis para os standards de organização desta minha colega...
UFA!!!! Valha-me ao menos isso...
quinta-feira, maio 17, 2007
Conversa de telhado... café, muffin partilhado, jet d'eau, mas sem mont blanc
- Everybody keeps telling me how brave I am because I've decided to move back… Why can't someone just tell me "you're making the right decision!".
Just that… no "buts" or esoteric compliments…
- ahaha and… do you expect to hear that from me?!?!?!? You know I'm the most insensitive and rational person in the world when it comes to analysing such decisions… and you known I don't believe in "love & shelter" kind of decision…
- I know… but in fact… yes, I was expecting to hear that from you…
- You shouldn't!
- But tell me what do you think…. Bluntly …
- I don't think I should…
- I really need to know…
- Well… I think that if you made a well thought decision… if you weighted all pros and cons and you came to the conclusion that you would rather be here with him then somewhere else… than, I'm sure you made the right decision.
As long as you know that you're moving back because You decided and You felt that would be the decision that would made You happier... Just don't feel pressured to do something you're not sure it's really what you want! Otherwise on the 1st argument you'll scream out that you moved just because of him… and that's not fair!!
You should never put that kind of blame in the other person's shoulders…
As long as you know you can't blame anyone else but you for what you decided… than you'll be fine… Plus… it's not such a big deal is it?
- Of course it is… I'm leaving so may great job opportunities behind…
- But you can always go back…
- I suppose I can…
- Then, just think carefully…
- I don't want to be apart anymore… This is really what I want…
- Then you don't need to hear from me that you're making the right move do you?
- Nope… probably not…
- Good! I would hate to take part in such a decision chain!! ahahahah
Just that… no "buts" or esoteric compliments…
- ahaha and… do you expect to hear that from me?!?!?!? You know I'm the most insensitive and rational person in the world when it comes to analysing such decisions… and you known I don't believe in "love & shelter" kind of decision…
- I know… but in fact… yes, I was expecting to hear that from you…
- You shouldn't!
- But tell me what do you think…. Bluntly …
- I don't think I should…
- I really need to know…
- Well… I think that if you made a well thought decision… if you weighted all pros and cons and you came to the conclusion that you would rather be here with him then somewhere else… than, I'm sure you made the right decision.
As long as you know that you're moving back because You decided and You felt that would be the decision that would made You happier... Just don't feel pressured to do something you're not sure it's really what you want! Otherwise on the 1st argument you'll scream out that you moved just because of him… and that's not fair!!
You should never put that kind of blame in the other person's shoulders…
As long as you know you can't blame anyone else but you for what you decided… than you'll be fine… Plus… it's not such a big deal is it?
- Of course it is… I'm leaving so may great job opportunities behind…
- But you can always go back…
- I suppose I can…
- Then, just think carefully…
- I don't want to be apart anymore… This is really what I want…
- Then you don't need to hear from me that you're making the right move do you?
- Nope… probably not…
- Good! I would hate to take part in such a decision chain!! ahahahah
sexta-feira, maio 11, 2007
Morning has broken...
A verdade... é que o Cat não se compara a ti....
E ouvi-lo descontextualizado de um bom karaoke natalicio, faz com que a musica traga para o carro as saudades brutais de quase 3 meses de ausência...
photo by: cdgabinete, Amsterdão, Feb 2007
E ouvi-lo descontextualizado de um bom karaoke natalicio, faz com que a musica traga para o carro as saudades brutais de quase 3 meses de ausência...
photo by: cdgabinete, Amsterdão, Feb 2007
Neglecting Evidence?!?!?!?! I don't think so.....
WHO Criticized for Neglecting Evidence
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer
8:23 PM PDT, May 7, 2007
http://www.physorg.com/news97810869.html
LONDON -- When developing "evidence-based" guidelines, the World Health Organization routinely forgets one key ingredient: evidence. That is the verdict from a study published in The Lancet online Tuesday.
The medical journal's criticism of WHO could shock many in the global health community, as one of WHO's main jobs is to produce guidelines on everything from fighting the spread of bird flu and malaria control to enacting anti-tobacco legislation.
"This is a pretty seismic event," Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton, who was not involved in the research for the article. "It undermines the very purpose of WHO."
The study was conducted by Dr. Andrew Oxman and Dr. Atle Fretheim, of the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services, and Dr. John Lavis at McMaster University in Canada. They interviewed senior WHO officials and analyzed various guidelines to determine how they were produced. What they found was a distinctly non-transparent process.
"It's difficult to judge how much confidence you can have in WHO guidelines if you're not told how they were developed," Oxman said. "In that case, you're left with blind trust."
WHO issues about 200 sets of recommendations every year, acting as a public health arbiter to the global community by sifting through competing scientific theories and studies to put forth the best policies.
WHO's Director of Research Policy Dr. Tikki Pang said that some of his WHO colleagues were shocked by The Lancet's study, but he acknowledged the criticism had merit, and explained that time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work.
"We know our credibility is at stake," Pang said, "and we are now going to get our act together."
WHO officials also noted that, in many cases, evidence simply did not exist. Data from developing countries are patchy at best, and in an outbreak, information changes as the crisis unfolds.
To address the problem, they said, WHO is trying to develop new ways to collect information in poor regions, and has proposed establishing a committee to oversee the issuance of all health guidelines.
The Lancet study -- conducted in 2003-04 through analyzing WHO guidelines and questioning WHO officials -- also found that the officials themselves were concerned about the agency's methods.
One unnamed WHO director was quoted in the study as saying: "I would have liked to have had more evidence to base recommendations on." Another said: "We never had the evidence base well-documented."
Pang said that, while some guidelines might be suspect and based on just a few expert opinions, others were developed under rigorous study and so were more reliable.
For example, WHO's recent advice on treating bird flu patients was developed under tight scrutiny.
Oxman also noted that WHO had its own quality-control process. When its 1999 guidelines for treating high blood pressure were criticized for, among other things, recommending expensive drugs over cheaper options without proven benefit, the agency issued its "guidelines for writing guidelines," which led to a revision of its advice on hypertension.
"People are well-intended at WHO," Oxman said. "The problem is that good intentions and plausible theories aren't sufficient."
It remains to be seen how WHO's 193 member countries will react to The Lancet study, released just before WHO's governing body -- the World Health Assembly -- meets next week at U.N. headquarters in Geneva to decide future health strategies.
"If countries do not have confidence in the technical competence of WHO, then its very existence is called into question," said Horton, the journal's editor. "This study shows that there is a systemic problem within the organization, that it refuses to put science first."
WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan, who took over the position this year, will be under pressure to respond to the study's criticism.
"We need a strong WHO," which in recent years "has seen its independence eroded and its trust diminished," Horton said. "Now is a fabulous opportunity for WHO to reinvent itself as the technical agency it was always meant to be."
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer
8:23 PM PDT, May 7, 2007
http://www.physorg.com/news97810869.html
LONDON -- When developing "evidence-based" guidelines, the World Health Organization routinely forgets one key ingredient: evidence. That is the verdict from a study published in The Lancet online Tuesday.
The medical journal's criticism of WHO could shock many in the global health community, as one of WHO's main jobs is to produce guidelines on everything from fighting the spread of bird flu and malaria control to enacting anti-tobacco legislation.
"This is a pretty seismic event," Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton, who was not involved in the research for the article. "It undermines the very purpose of WHO."
The study was conducted by Dr. Andrew Oxman and Dr. Atle Fretheim, of the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services, and Dr. John Lavis at McMaster University in Canada. They interviewed senior WHO officials and analyzed various guidelines to determine how they were produced. What they found was a distinctly non-transparent process.
"It's difficult to judge how much confidence you can have in WHO guidelines if you're not told how they were developed," Oxman said. "In that case, you're left with blind trust."
WHO issues about 200 sets of recommendations every year, acting as a public health arbiter to the global community by sifting through competing scientific theories and studies to put forth the best policies.
WHO's Director of Research Policy Dr. Tikki Pang said that some of his WHO colleagues were shocked by The Lancet's study, but he acknowledged the criticism had merit, and explained that time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work.
"We know our credibility is at stake," Pang said, "and we are now going to get our act together."
WHO officials also noted that, in many cases, evidence simply did not exist. Data from developing countries are patchy at best, and in an outbreak, information changes as the crisis unfolds.
To address the problem, they said, WHO is trying to develop new ways to collect information in poor regions, and has proposed establishing a committee to oversee the issuance of all health guidelines.
The Lancet study -- conducted in 2003-04 through analyzing WHO guidelines and questioning WHO officials -- also found that the officials themselves were concerned about the agency's methods.
One unnamed WHO director was quoted in the study as saying: "I would have liked to have had more evidence to base recommendations on." Another said: "We never had the evidence base well-documented."
Pang said that, while some guidelines might be suspect and based on just a few expert opinions, others were developed under rigorous study and so were more reliable.
For example, WHO's recent advice on treating bird flu patients was developed under tight scrutiny.
Oxman also noted that WHO had its own quality-control process. When its 1999 guidelines for treating high blood pressure were criticized for, among other things, recommending expensive drugs over cheaper options without proven benefit, the agency issued its "guidelines for writing guidelines," which led to a revision of its advice on hypertension.
"People are well-intended at WHO," Oxman said. "The problem is that good intentions and plausible theories aren't sufficient."
It remains to be seen how WHO's 193 member countries will react to The Lancet study, released just before WHO's governing body -- the World Health Assembly -- meets next week at U.N. headquarters in Geneva to decide future health strategies.
"If countries do not have confidence in the technical competence of WHO, then its very existence is called into question," said Horton, the journal's editor. "This study shows that there is a systemic problem within the organization, that it refuses to put science first."
WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan, who took over the position this year, will be under pressure to respond to the study's criticism.
"We need a strong WHO," which in recent years "has seen its independence eroded and its trust diminished," Horton said. "Now is a fabulous opportunity for WHO to reinvent itself as the technical agency it was always meant to be."
segunda-feira, maio 07, 2007
Não acredito nos desencantos com mudanças de forma...
O namorado e o tempo...
"O namorado contempla
O corpo da namorada.
Vê o corpo como está,
Não vê como o corpo foi
Nem como o corpo será.
Se aquele corpo amanhã
Mudar de peso, de forma,
Mudar de ritmo e de cor,
O namorado, infeliz,
Vai sofrer mesmo demais:
Não calculou o futuro,
A mulher quebrou o encanto,
Ele só vê a mulher
No momento em que a vê."
Poema de: Murilo Mendes
Não acredito nos desencantos com mudanças de forma... Nunca acreditei.... aliás, nem em encantamentos nem em desencantamentos, muito menos se tiverem formas como origens... No entanto, a riqueza do poema promove-o a motivo de conversa de gabinete!
"O namorado contempla
O corpo da namorada.
Vê o corpo como está,
Não vê como o corpo foi
Nem como o corpo será.
Se aquele corpo amanhã
Mudar de peso, de forma,
Mudar de ritmo e de cor,
O namorado, infeliz,
Vai sofrer mesmo demais:
Não calculou o futuro,
A mulher quebrou o encanto,
Ele só vê a mulher
No momento em que a vê."
Poema de: Murilo Mendes
Não acredito nos desencantos com mudanças de forma... Nunca acreditei.... aliás, nem em encantamentos nem em desencantamentos, muito menos se tiverem formas como origens... No entanto, a riqueza do poema promove-o a motivo de conversa de gabinete!
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)