Subscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.
Holly Wyatt, MD, is the medical director of the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center and for the ABC hit series “Extreme Weight Loss” on Wednesday May 27, 2015 at the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. Season 5 is the second season filmed on the Anschutz campus and premiered last Tuesday. (Photo by Gabriel Christus/Aurora Sentinel) Wyatt, known affectionately by most ABC viewers simply as “Dr. Holly,” returned last year to film the fifth season of the fitness program, which premiered its first episode on May 26. This is the second year Wyatt served as the show’s medical director, and the second time the program’s 19 cast members were filmed at the Anschutz Medical Campus — something Wyatt helped facilitate after speaking with an executive producer who was visiting a family member at University Hospital two-and-a-half years ago and began asking about her work at the CU Anschutz Health and Wellness Center.“The first season I was a little nervous — I mean, here I’d agreed to do reality TV, and there were colleagues here who thought I was crazy, because when you think reality TV, you don’t think that mixes with an academic institution,” she said. “But it’s been inspiring for me, my staff, and it just fits so nicely with what we do.” “It was one of those things that was kind of meant to happen,” said Wyatt, the medical director of the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.Originally filmed in Los Angeles, “Extreme Weight Loss” follows a different cast member each episode, depicting their physical and mental transformation over an entire year, 90 days of which are spent living on the CU Anschutz Medical Campus.“Our experience working with the CU Anschutz Health and Wellness Center has been absolutely stellar,” executive producer Matt Assmus said in a statement. “Holly and the center’s staff provide unrivaled guidance and expertise, and the cast members love the supportive environment.”Since joining the show, Wyatt launched Extreme Weight Loss: Destination Boot Camp, a program for overweight people not featured on the program who are interested in slimming down.With participants from around the world, the intensive six-day program gives participants a taste of the 90-day session shown on TV, as well as nutritional, exercise and mental health information to help them diet and work out after they leave the program. The groups meet virtually for 16 weeks after the in-person, six-day session.Wyatt said the mental aspect of the weight-loss journeys the show’s participants go through has surprised her the most, and that it has bolstered her work at the CU Anschutz Health and Wellness Center. “Getting the mind right is just as important as changing your body, and if you don’t work on your mental muscle, you’re not going to be as successful,” she said. “There are a lot of things we do to facilitate that mind set shift and help people become more emotionally resilient where they can bend and not break.” AURORA | Holly Wyatt claims that it was some sort of serendipity that thrust her onto TV and streaming screens across the country last year. But a passion for healthcare and a camera-ready smile probably offer a more accurate explanation.“It was one of those things that was kind of meant to happen,” said Wyatt, the medical director of the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.That faithful trust in the powers that be is how the trained endocrinologist describes her path to becoming a central figure on ABC’s “Extreme Weight Loss,” a reality TV show that features the grueling journeys of obese Americans working to shed pounds. Holly Wyatt, MD, is the medical director of the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center and for the ABC hit series “Extreme Weight Loss” on Wednesday May 27, 2015 at the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. Season 5 is the second season filmed on the Anschutz campus and premiered last Tuesday. (Photo by Gabriel Christus/Aurora Sentinel)
BRAC Liberia, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Social welfare (MOH/SW) with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has completed a weeklong psychosocial counseling workshop for Ebola survivors and orphans in four of the 15 counties.Those counties are Grand Cape Mount, Margibi, Grand Bassa, Montserrado and Lofa. The exercise brought together hundreds of Ebola survivors and orphans.The workshop was intended for victims who were affected by the Ebola crisis in the country to share their experiences with the organization, and how to help tackle the growing levels of stigma surrounding the disease.Alexander Blackie, Psychosocial Consultant to BRAC, told the participants that there is a desperate need for psychosocial support and training in Liberia, where stigmatization has become a serious problem, pushing Ebola survivors and families out of their communities and adding to their pain.“We need to encourage the acceptance of medically cleared survivors and help communities understand the facts about Ebola transmission. It is important that communities and survivors stand in unity to successfully combat Ebola in the country,” Mr. Blackie stated.He said that survivors often face stigma, income loss and grief, particularly from surviving friends and family members of those who died from the disease.Mr. Blackie, who is a Mental Health Clinician, described the situation as “truly troubling,” because, he believes that survivors need food and other support, such as the provision of basic household items, since those who were infected had all their belongings burnt, leaving them in a desperate situation.”At the same time, Mr. Blackie is encouraging community dwellers to help ensure that survivors are welcomed and not stigmatized.Montserrado County Health Officer, Fred Amegashi, urged the survivors to think positively and forgo the stigma of Ebola, because the disease affected everyone in the country.In separate remarks, some of the survivors said that life had changed for them because community dwellers are stigmatizing them to the extent that some marketers refuse to accept money from victims for transactions.BRAC launched operations in Liberia in 2008, and has since been working for a better future with programs in microfinance, agriculture, poultry and livestock, health and empowerment as well as livelihoods for adolescents.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Reducing the risks of climate change requires additional U.S. government action; and Carbon pricing is rapidly gaining popularity, with more than 60 national and subnational programs as well as endorsements from key political figures and more than 1,000 corporations. Like anything that goes mainstream, a backlash was inevitable. But the argument for carbon pricing is so compelling—shifting the costs of climate change from society to polluters and raising revenue in the process—critics have been forced to invent their own arguments to criticize.Simply put, critics build up a “carbon pricing strawman” and then tear it down. Here’s how it works, in three easy steps: (1) put forth an argument supposedly (but rarely) made by carbon-pricing supporters; (2) explain why the argument is false; and (3) pretend this is a death blow to carbon pricing itself.Let’s consider a few examples from both ends of the political spectrum:Strawman Critiques from the Right…Conservatives criticize carbon-pricing supporters for pretending to know the right price of carbon, for believing U.S. implementation of this carbon price would by itself significantly reduce global temperatures, and for claiming these benefits can be achieved while simultaneously creating jobs and bolstering the economy. Let’s discuss the problems with these three claims in turn.In theory, the “right” price of carbon would balance the costs of reducing emissions and the benefits of avoiding damages from climate change. But quantifying benefits means deciding how to value human lives, ecosystems, and the well-being of future generations versus the present. Such questions do not have “right” answers in a precise sense, but that doesn’t mean we must throw up our hands in despair. What’s important for policy makers to understand is the current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions causes unacceptable climate risks. Climate policy must be sufficiently stringent to significantly change that trend.By itself, no single U.S. policy can significantly reduce climate change, and carbon-pricing supporters understand global action is needed to reduce global temperatures. But global action is inconceivable without a strong U.S. contribution. Any estimate of the effects of U.S. policy on global temperatures should account for how the policy encourages action (or inaction) from other countries.Economists have long debated whether carbon pricing can improve the economy by taxing things we want less of (like pollution) instead of things we want more of (like income)—they call it a “double dividend.” While the possibility of a double dividend makes for compelling (if nerdy) academic debates, it’s irrelevant for practical purposes. The economy benefits from carbon pricing the way individuals benefit from paying insurance premiums—reducing climate risks makes for a stronger and more stable economy in the long-run, precisely why economists overwhelmingly support a carbon price….And from the LeftStrawman arguments are also made by liberal-leaning critics, who accuse carbon-pricing supporters of believing a carbon price alone can solve the climate change problem. Supporters are naïve, they say, about the political constraints preventing carbon prices from being set sufficiently high and in fact are wasting time and effort that could be used to pursue more realistic policies. None is a convincing critique of carbon pricing.The vast majority of carbon-pricing supporters understand a carbon price is a necessary but insufficient tool to address climate change. In situations where people are unresponsive to price signals, additional policies are sorely needed—to promote clean energy innovation or energy efficiency, for example.Computer models predicting little to no technological change show carbon prices would need to be extremely high to meet emissions targets. Fortunately, clean energy technologies are progressing rapidly in the real world, and carbon pricing will accelerate these innovations. New technologies and complementary polices both reduce the carbon price needed to achieve a given emissions target.Finally, no evidence has been put forward to suggest support for carbon pricing stands in the way of other policies. Many supporters believe the risks of climate change are so severe they will vigorously support alternative climate policies while also promoting a carbon price. Others support a carbon price because the resulting revenues provide an opportunity to accomplish non-climate goals, like reforming the tax code or assisting struggling communities, while simultaneously taking out an insurance policy on climate risks.How to Fact Check the CriticsResearch by WRI and many others shows carbon pricing is a cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As it continues to gain popularity, expect critics to get even louder. When you see critiques, be sure to ask whether they discredit these two basic points: A national carbon price can achieve emissions reductions at a low cost compared to alternative policies, making it an important step toward addressing climate change. If not, rest assured that the arguments for carbon pricing are as strong as ever. Critics should confront carbon pricing head on, and quit tearing down strawmen.