The Pentagon's Brain - Jacobsen

 Having finished the heavy tomb, “The Pentagon’s Brain”, written by Annie Jacobsen and subtitled “The Secret History of DARPA”, I have discovered that his book is less about DARPA and more about a dumb conspiracy theory where a profoundly successful government organization (there are not many of those) that exists as  the center for innovative excellent for the US Department of Defense is in reality an organization of unethical bunglers with nefarious intent, hell bent on world domination though the use of robots.  I normally save my stars for the end of my book review but has a little bit of history and a whole lot of fictional commentary.  I give it 2 stars and that’s generous.  I have to repeat, as an organization, DARPA is perhaps the most functional government organization in existence, principally because it stays above any political fray, is liked on both sides of the aisle, and exists not just to keep the United States advanced sufficiently ahead of our adversaries in science and technology, to avoid technological surprise (think Sputnik), but to better all of humanity (think the internet and GPS) through technical innovation.  Although DARPA is an agency of the Department of Defense, the advances in technologies coming out of DARPA, does not just kill people and break things or break international law or treaties.  DARPA researches everything.  So much technology, including munitions, but so many things in between that next new bomb, tank, satellite, or machine gun.  And yes, this does include robotics, but think self-driving cars instead of world dominating terminator machines that talk like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

At the beginning, when the Agency was established, Gen Eisenhower who was by then President was profoundly insightful with his warnings to the country about the perils of the military industrial complex.  These have always been keen words and words most American’s I know who work within this massive bureaucracy, take seriously.  Jacobsen uses these words not as a warning but as a spring board into the conspiracy.  However, the military industrial complex is not self-aware.  It is not, in the words of Black Sabbath, a collective where “General’s gather in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerers of death construction”.  The author appears to think so, or she is delusional, or she is guessing—trying to make sense of something she doesn’t understand.   The US military industrial complex, let alone DARPA, is not a consortium of war pigs, as the basic tone of her writing would have the layman believe.    To be clear, Black Sabbath was protesting the War in Vietnam.  A fair criticism.  But to blame DARPA for the manifestations of war being, not just hell, but evil, is akin to believing in aliens.  Strangely, as I write this, yet another kook has come forward with a conspiracy theory about aliens.  Turns out I knew the guy.  I’ll save that commentary for another time.  It’s surprising that kook hasn’t brought DARPA into his fantasy.  He did work at DARPA for a few years.  Good thing Jacobsen didn’t know about that. Conspiracy theories need to focus on facts and physics and less on conspiracy and we would have more truth.  As it stands, Jacobsen is mostly conspiracy.  Believe one conspiracy not based on anything real, like facts or physics, and you might as well believe them all.

In the opening Chapter she gets something right.  And that’s about the only thing.  You can stop after the first chapter and you will know all you need to know about DARPA.  It is the culture of DARPA that makes it the world class organization of innovation that is the envy of any research engineer. The secret to DARPA’s success is the rotating over a hundred brilliant, high energy, PMs through their doorway, empowering them, funding them, and getting management out of their way.  They are empowered to move quickly, empowered to fail, and empowered to fail fast—yes, that a thing, and a good thing.  Fail often and fail fast.   And of course, the true objective of DARPA for the country is to avert strategic surprise, and she does say this…but that’s no secret, it’s in the DARPA mission statement.  What Jacobsen misses is that if each PM has 2 -3 concepts and 2 -3 programs going at the same time. That means at any given time there are 400-500 active programs going on at DARPA.  Over the course of several decades that means DARPA has done research into 10,000 or more major topics.  It’s probably double that. I have no way of knowing, nor did she, but the numbers hold up.  Sadly, she reports on a tiny few.  Less than a handful.  And she culls that handful into the few that shed a negative, and seemingly sinister light, on an organization attempting to predict the future in order to keep the United States ahead of our adversaries.  If DARPA gets credit for being the Pentagon’s Brain, that is where they rule, in technology.   Not, seemingly, as a nefarious puppet master, charting the course of our wars.  It is not the nightmare organization of Ozzy Osborne’s dreams.  There are no war pigs at DARPA, only researchers, technologists, engineers, and scientists of every sort.  Also, on the Org chart for the Pentagon, not reported in her book, but easily researched, DARPA tucks up as an Agency under OSD/R&E.  DARPA does not sit near the top of the Pentagon food chain.  They don’t even have a say in the Military Strategy of the United States.  As in, the Military Strategy of the United States, doesn’t even show up in their office for coordination.

Has DARPA invented things that do harm…yes.  As a necessary component of defense related work, DARPA builds technology that will kill people and break things.  The military is in the business of executing violence upon those who would do us harm.    The necessity of agent Orange to destroy foliage so that the electric fence observing the Ho Chi Minh trail, was perhaps a great travesty and tragedy, owing to a lot of uncertainty in how to prevail in a conflict that we probably shouldn’t have been a part of.  That’s the mistake of history, not a mistake of DARPA trying to respond to a warfighting requirement. Generally speaking, DARPA works outside of the acquisition process.  Building technology in advance of any requirement to do so.  That’s an uncertain area of acquisition.  But one that is necessary if innovation is the priority.  There is no conspiracy just because there is no requirement.  Jacobsen seems to think DARPA is coming up with nefarious things outside of the military’s requirement to do such things, thereby pinning the ugly nature of things that go bad, on some premeditated urge to do harm.  It’s wrong, it’s misleading, and it’s really insulting to the American’s who work for DARPA, pouring in their energy to be of value.

She reports on so few programs and she stretches the involvement that DARPA may have had specifically in the involvement of nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear policy.    Ironically, whereas DARPA might have had some involvement, at the end of the day, there but for the grace of God go us, the country has averted nuclear war.   Cooler heads, smarter heads, have always prevailed in our nuclear enterprise.  The admonishments of Dr. Strangelove, won the day.  That is our reality, not the crazy antics of the military general who unleashed the power of the atomic bomb.  Adults remain in charge. Adults, and not conspiracy theorists, should write the history papers.  Not misinformed journalists with an anti-war sentiment and certainly not Hollywood.

Jacobsen get’s the VELA Incident completely wrong.  Somehow she’s twisted the mystery of possible nuclear test in the deep southern hemisphere, observed from the on-orbit VELA Satellite in September, 1979 with actual exo-atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons which occurred, by both sides, during the Cuban Missile Crises in October, 1962.  Since most of her history is taken from the transcripts of interviews she did with senior officials, perhaps this is just someone’s faded memory.  I’d didn’t stop to look into this gaff any further.

She wildly speculates about technology that remains classified, she claims successful, but for those in the know, has failed.  Fail often and fail fast.  That's what you need to know about DARPA.  Sometimes technology doesn't work and those programs go away...they don't get handed over to the "Men-in-Black" to employ from the secret organizations.  Wink Wink, Nod Nod. (said with as much snarky sarcasm as I can muster).  Enough about that subject.

She seemingly believes the sole drive of DARPA is to build warfighting automatons...we do not want to help veterans who are amputees with robotic limbs, for instance, DARPA just builds a war machine.  The job is to build a sky net.  To fight wars with robots.  On the one hand, what’s wrong with that?  What’s wrong with trying to build systems that keep Americans from dying in our wars?  That seems far more noble than sinister.  What she fails to realize is that we already have robots that fight in our wars.  The big lie, has always been that, the USAF, for instance, is only interested in manned systems.  At least one CSAF and SECAF were fired for this ignorant belief (William Gates when SECDEF did the firing) Right or wrong, the USAF has been in the business of building unmanned systems since their inception in 1947.  Missiles, rockets, target drones, autopilot, satellites, and unmanned aircraft have been in the USAF inventory.  Sure DARPA has helped that along but it has been the USAF who brought this technology to the Department of Defense and the world, in a useful fashion.  Certainly, many times, DARPA had a role in early research, but so did other centers for technology.  The research labs at each of the services, the intel organizations, and of course external development at NASA, and major commercial companies doing engineering in areas such as Boeing, for instance, building commercial airliners it’s pretty evident that aircraft building expertise, can exist, well outside of DARPA’s hallways.   The Skunk Works at Lockheed Martin as a stellar example.  Without these industry research centers we would certainly be living in the technological dark ages, still.  And losing to our adversary’s…maybe.  In the case of China, without our advanced technology to steal, they would still be in the dark ages.

Finally, Jacobsen, had an annoying fixation on cost.  She reports cost in the year and current year dollars for the programs she discusses on almost every page. These cost numbers are tiny in comparison to the DoD budgets at the time, and exist for her to simply write an extra, irrelevant paragraph in every chapter, expanding her book, and the garbage it contains, into something that many, might deduce as well researched and factual.  Program budget numbers are probably the only factual thing she could obtain in her research and Freedom of Information requests.  The rest is conjecture at best and pure conspiracy theory at worst.  This book is fundamentally flawed.  It should never have reached best seller status. That merely builds its credibility and adds to the conspiracy theory we all should be dismissing as not true, except in the movies.  Too many inaccuracies for this book to be made into a movie…by any Hollywood director, short of Oliver Stone.  And I hope he’s too old to take on this kind of a project.  DARPA, as an organization, deserves credit and praise, not criticism of its science, and certainly not conspiracy.

Drawing conclusions and asking questions to suggest answers amount to full on manipulation at worst and or shoddy journalism at best.  DARPA deserves a better historian and a better recorded history.  I give her 2 stars for this crappy history, and that’s generous.

Heaven is Real - Burpo

Meet Colton Burpo.  At age four Colton knows more about life and the afterlife than most of us will know in a lifetime.  Why?  Because Colton has been to the pearly gates.  In his recent book,  “Heaven is for Real” Todd Burpo, Colton’s father  a Christian pastor  from Imperial Nebraska, chronicles a series of medical close calls that eventually led Colton to a near death experience and to seemingly experience “for real”, a three-minute slice of Heaven.  Improbable as it might seem to non-believers, Colton’s story must be true.  There can be no other accounting for his awareness and the clarity of which he describes his visit.  Unencumbered by the stigma or the stigmata Colton met Jesus and described the wounds in his flesh as simply markers of red color on the man with “pretty eyes” who held him in his lap during the last few moments of his life.  And, while infection ravaged his small body during the last few moments of his life his dad, closed off in a hospital closet, privately cried and cursed his own creator and savior. 

Many have seen the white light and moved towards it, only to be recalled back to the operating room or accident scene by doctors or EMT’s working frantically to save them.  Colton seems to have traveled beyond.  Perhaps he slipped away unnoticed by an incompetent medical staff for his brief encounter with the sister and grandfather he never knew, an exquisite kaleidoscope of rainbow colors, God the Father, the Angel Gabriel, the Virgin Mary, and of course the One who undeniably Loves us all an perhaps the little children just a little bit more..

Many others have written about the afterlife, Mitch’s Albom’s account, in “Five People You Meet in Heaven” springs to mind.  But while beautifully written and articulated, Albom’s account is a fancifully fabricated story that simply brings us great joy to believe.  Colton’s account cannot be a work of fiction because at his age he had nothing upon which to base his story.  Simple Bible stories would not impart the sophisticated tapestry of past, present, and future (including the end of times) events upon which Colton was conversant.  Only first hand witness explains his account, which he began sharing first with his family, and later with those he came into contact who could be comforted with his knowledge.

A light read, a compelling story, and a simple solution for where we all are headed.  As with all things that require faith you must also make a personal choice to believe in this book.  Five stars for the spectacular and haunting picture of the Prince of Peace…but four stars overall.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Pirsig

 

I first read this masterpiece of fiction when I was fifteen, I remember clearly it was 1980 and I spent days in my room trying to understand the big words and attempting to figure out all the characters Pirsig would reference, Kant, Hume, Poincare, and the ancient Greeks.  Since we were well before a simple Wikipedia search, it would be years before I would hear most of their names again.  What I do know very clearly is that when I emerged from my room I knew I was going to college to become a Mechanical Engineer.  I had long since forgotten why I came to that conclusion until I relieved my young experience on page 176 just a few days ago.  It was my third reading of this book.

My second reading came in 1992, I was 28.  In those days I was brash, arrogant, and full of gumption, as Pirsig would call it.  I knew a lot more about philosophy and theology and engineering at that time.  I also owned a motorcycle and had completed an active duty tour in the military.  I was working as a systems engineer for the DoD and was in school working on my second Master’s degree.  The book still made sense… a lot of sense.  At that point I knew it had nothing to do with Zen and even less to do with motorcycle maintenance, but Pirsig has always told us that up front.

Fast forward sixteen years…a family, a company, a new career, a fresh read.  Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is still every bit the masterpiece it was back in 1974.  But ultimately what is it about – if it’s not about Zen or art of motorcycle maintenance?  Certainly much has been written over the past four decades attempting to define exactly what Pirsig was trying to tell us.  No need for that.  Read the book, Pirsig will tell you.  No matter what you may hear, no matter what you may think, this book defines for us that which can never be expressed through words and rational thought alone.  It must be experienced.  Experience is the life changer, not thoughts or deeds.  Experience this book and understand why.

Why We Make Mistakes - Hallinan

As a professional problem solver I am intrigued by the fact that in my day job I can decompose a problem, put together a number of corrective actions, evaluate those actions with quantitative and qualitative factors, and recommend a competent solution.  Why, when I’m away from the office, equipped with the same problem solving skill set, do I make seemingly endless mistakes?  Investment decisions are of course the most painful.  The only thing easing that pain is the knowledge that everyone (almost everyone) is suffering along with me.  But I am also plagued by more common decisions like should I switch insurance companies?  Should I put my kid in braces?  or my favorite…should I fire my lawn guy?  I will give you more details on the fate of my lawn guy in a minute.  So basically I have this endless feeling of incompetence stemming from the endless array of everyday decisions I always seem to get wrong.   Enter Joseph T. Hallinan and his book, “Why We Make Mistakes?”  I can sum up his book with three words word…”Oh, that’s why”.  

It appears, according to Hallinan, the entire world conspires against our ability to make correct decisions.  Or, we have been set up, since birth, to make mistakes--at least by our birth into modern society.  Speaking from the standpoint that we are products of evolution, we simply are not equipped to make correct decisions in our modern world based on the way were receive and process information.  Our memory’s stink, we scan and simplify what’s in our field of view, we wing it, and we bias things unconsciously all day every day.  His book is very easy to read and while it is clearly comprehensive, well researched, and detailed, it flows effortlessly off the page making perfect sense as it winds along.   After reading his book I highly suspect I do everything wrong.   It’s all there and I am guilty down to my last ounce of over confidence.

Yet somehow I must not do everything wrong. I’ve been equipped with a great education that allows me to have a super job.  I have a super family and can honestly say I am a very happy person who is afforded leisure time, to not only read Hallinan’s book, but to write about it.   But I fret over the simplest of decisions…I make decisions, I don’t delay, but I worry if I’ve made the right ones.  And typically they don’t appear so good after I’ve made them however I have a tremendous ability to rationalize them or put the blame on something beyond my control.  Of course that’s exactly what Hallinan says I do.  So he is right again.  

In the end he really doesn’t provide a recipe for not making mistakes.  We will continue to make mistakes and waste time in the process.  He just wants us to be aware of the things that influence us, when we don’t realize we are being influenced.  He believes that it’s the mistakes that keep us from enjoying life that are the ones we want to try hardest to avoid.  So tomorrow I will fire my lawn guy.  One he is too expensive for the service he provides. Two he gives me a headache when all I want is my lawn mowed.  Three he is constantly badgering me for more work.  And four, I’ve always enjoyed mowing my own lawn, typically on Saturday’s, with a gin and tonic, and a slice of lime.

The God Who Is There - Schaffer

If you are looking for proof that there is a “…God Who is There”, as given to us by Francis A. Schaffer in 1968 in his book, ‘The God Who Is There”, unless you are willing to convert to Christianity on the spot, you will probably look elsewhere.  In this book Schaeffer is not writing as an apologetic to the masses who have not found salvation through Jesus Christ.  He is writing to those already saved and explaining to them a formula to combat Secular Humanism and still win disciples for Christ in this 20th Century.  In so doing he tosses out the theology of men such as Soren Kierkegaard disallowing a “Leap of Faith” discussion, which Schaffer believes to the root cause of a New Theology.   A theology that is incorrect because it merely uses religious Truths shared as iconic representations of greater meaning without actually understanding that which is true, namely that God exists.

If this is the best Schaffer can do, he still has some unfinished work left.  Unfortunately he moved on in 1984.  As far as I can tell, however, it is three things that form the basis of Truth.  

First, the observation of God's of effect on humanity.  Using the scientific method, we first conduct an experiment and look at the result.  God exists because we can observe how people change in his presence.  

Second, each and every individual longs for some meaning in their life.  

And third, the argument for a source from which morality springs.

In his first proof, which I believe to be his most compelling, we cannot differentiate Christianity from other religions.  Plus, if as what Marx calls the opium of the people, or as Freud calls an illusion, we still see societies reacting in ways that are rallying around a higher calling.  Societies can always be motivated to rally around a higher calling...there are many examples both good and bad.

In his second proof, the search for meaning at the individual level, here too, if Christianity is an illusion -- just like a placebo, the meaning could profoundly affect the individual. It is this purpose that separates us from the machine, plants, and animals. A lot wrong here -- and although his profound love for humanity is clear, he has no faith that humanity is ultimately good and will find their own way to the Truth.  Instead, if they are left to their own devices they will only deteriorate and then commit suicide.  He uses prime examples from the masters of Secular Humanism who happen to be some of the most arrogant individuals in society -- that were in fact -- truly lost because of their pride and higher intellect.  He paints a very depressing and bad view of society without the Love of Christ in an individual’s heart.  Christians know that God works in everyone even if they are not "conscious" of his presence, and humanity, on the whole, has more love than hate.  So Schaeffer is really dark on this subject. 

And finally in this third proof, I think a great deal of work as been done in the area of morality and where it comes from since Schaeffer wrote this book.  Again, Christians already believe the work of God always prevails here – because they can pin it on Him because they know His finger prints.  The rest of humanity will still search for another cause and never see that He was in the house.  No proof here for those who do not believe already.

So basically -- once you come to believe -- the proofs Schaeffer uses are self-evident which brings up his most powerful contribution to both theology and conversion.  This is his requirement for apologetics to both prove God's existence and communicate His existence at the same time.  Otherwise they are just philosophers. It puts the burden on the actions and deeds of the individual and not just the words. And for the witness, once you bring someone over to Christ, what more proof do you need.  It's a self reinforcing algorithm.  And for the subject, once you believe, again, the proof becomes self evident.  So it's a great approach for gaining disciples -- which is what Christians are called to do, and why this book is from them.   

So Schaeffer was clearly one of the best apologetics and put the formula for coming to know the Truth in writing.  Ultimately -- the proof is in the pudding.  It's therefore a very powerful proof – it does not mean, however, that the Kierkegaard  “Leap of Faith” is wrong because the Truth can still not be proven quantitatively -- and therefore, no matter how deep we dig, taking the plunge is what's important -- that also gets the non-believer where they need to be…believing.

Artemis - Weir

Just Go Watch Total Recall with Schwarzenegger Instead

What a disappointment.  Sorry Mr. Weir, perhaps after "The Martian", there is no way to live up to the task.  I am still a fan but I can't, in good conscience, recommend "Artemis" to your fan base.

First, F. Scott Fitzgerald, tells us to write what we know.  You are a computer scientist, not a welder or a twenty something female who thinks like a boy in middle school.   Jazz is not Lisbeth Salander, but perhaps she could have been?  The computer science you wrote into "The Martian" was extremely accurate.  The computer science you wrote into "Artemis" despite the futuristic setting, was all of late 1990's.  Far from science fiction. This makes sense because although I said the computer science in "The Martian" was accurate, it was dated given the necessity to find engineers from the previous decades to reprogram the Mars lander.  You never really gave major advances in computer science a spin and could have given your background.

You choose Artemis as the name of the Moon Base. How cliché, but then again, you write with clichés.  I didn't count them but it feels like there is one on every page.  You named the Moon base after a Greek Goddess, whose space program was developed in an African country, with a Muslim heroin, and a South American mafia as the antagonist.  Are you trying for a diversity award? Diverse yes, but culturally speaking, you've stereotyped everything and everybody.  It's a bit the opposite of being in the running for a diversity award.  A Ukrainian computer wizard?  Ugh. Well at least he, spoiler alert, gets the girl.

As far as plot development goes, it's not clear if Jazz isn't the antagonist.  The ethics of her decision to engage in an act of sabotage for money, is no deeper than the dollar amount, followed by her saying, "I'm in".  Repaying her estranged father for burning down his lab was a weak attempt at a justification.  Maybe Jazz has some depth, seemingly because she's always referring to a second meaning behind everything she says.  There could be merit in this approach to her character, except for everything she says or thinks, and every double entendre she manifests, she gives it a sexual reference. Ugh.  Note comment on a boy in middle school above.  

I like that you tried to research and build a firm basis for the Moon's economy.  It's a foundation, although, completely wrong, lends credibility.  We can assume there will be some sort of currency, with some sort of exchange, but it's safe to say, those living on the moon, even at this seemingly advanced, and mature stage, with only 2,000 residents, will still be hugely subsidized by government or industry investment.  Think about this for a second.  Every trade on the Moon has a guild.  There are a lot of trades on the Moon.  How many trades would you need to establish a functioning colony.  There are a bunch of welders and tour guides…but only one law enforcement officer. Ugh.   When there are 20,000 residents on the moon, there might be the beginnings of a stand-alone economy.  But more likely it takes many more.  Even then, the Moon wouldn't be able to sustain itself because there simply are no raw resources on the Moon…or Mars for that matter.  You cannot compare Moon or Mars exploration with the colonization of continents on Earth.  When settlers came to the "New World', everything they needed was already in place.  The resources to live were in place, food, water, shelter.  All that was necessary was a strong back and a set of hands.  You carved out a living on the land and traded what you had in excess.  Moon dwellers will be completely dependent on Earth forever.   Once we colonize Mars, terraform the atmosphere, and turn it into its own ecosphere, perhaps.  But we are talking centuries from now.

This book does not push the genre for this fiction in any direction.  The closest perhaps to what you were trying to achieve would be "Total Recall", either the original short story idea by Phillip K. Dick, or the novel by Piers Anthony, or even just watching the movie, the Schwarzenegger version as I had trouble with Collin Farrell.

All of this criticism aside, you do write well.  Perhaps it comes from your experience as a blogger.  The story moves quickly and you want to turn the pages, but for me, I had to suspend complete belief.  Those with a technical background, who loved "The Martian" cannot love this book for the same reasons despite the ease of your writing.  Others will…so perhaps you've carved out a followership that will allow you to continue to write.  Good for you.  It's doubtful I will read another book, and be content simply to go back and reread "The Martian".  Five stars for the promise, subtract one for implausible plot, and one for character development, and one more for juvenile use of double entendre…basically every ugh.  Add one star back for smooth and easy writing.  Three stars for Artemis…sadly it is not "The Martian".  

Better - Gawande

 

On the cover of “Better” by Atul Gawande, the thoughtful Malcolm Gladwell exclaims, “Better is a masterpiece…”.  To be sure “Better” gets high marks for exploring territory that the medical profession might sooner forget, even Gawande admits to his discomfort level but to suggest that the bell curve tells us “…something unforgettable about the world outside” is to know very little about the world outside.  However, I don’t want this to be about Gladwell.  Gawande is a good writer.  He captures the medical world, a world alien to most of us, through the eyes of a surgeon in a way that makes those who heal, those we trust and respect more than any others in society, almost human.  They are just like us.  As the father of a daughter who was brought into this world with a mere 23.3 weeks gestation and a zero Apgar score, who just turned 10 years old this month, I considered these healers and decided they were superhuman.  They were sheltered from a world of stress, financial worry, problems with relationships, and the like.  I knew I was kidding myself but I chose to believe.  I knew the doctors and nurses caring for my daughter in the NICU for 87 days were on top of their game.  Gawande pierces the veil and I applaud the effort to capture his thoughts.  To take the time from his busy schedule to think and to consider the meaning in what he does, to improve, to get better.  He has a simplistic five-step method; Ask an unscripted question, don’t complain, count something, write something, and change.  Simple enough, and the beauty of his formula is that it will work, and it can be applied to all aspects of life – so do as Gawande asked, heath professional or not, improve what you are and what you do.  However the real message, the journey Gawande takes us on to reach his formula, is the better part of “Better”.  And since we all get sick and need the medical profession, we should all stand in the shoes of a medical professional.  Gawande let’s us stand in those shoes, if just for a brief moment, to glimpse a world where life and death decisions hang in the balance. Followed shortly by a life and death decision in the next examination room.  Most of us will never know this kind of life.  So here is my formula, first go wash your hands.  Second go read this book.  It will not change your life, but it will change your perspective on your next visit to the doctor’s office and how you perceive the hidden world of medicine.