Vital Signs and Remedies for a Full Spectrum World
by Roxanne Nelson
I’m off to Hawaii in the am. I don’t think that I will have Internet access, so my blog (sniff, sniff) will not be updated again until August 10 or 11.
At that time, I will turn my comments back on and hope for the best. Maybe all of the spammers have gone to Hades, and will stay there.
This is an interesting first person article, about a woman who is an animal activist, ie, likes animals and believes that they have a right to exist in this world. And yet, some would brand her a terrorist. Granted, if she blew up a building to “save” the animals, that might border on terrorism. To say nothing of the fact that she’d be killing all of the animals in there.
But she does make a point. People are throwing around the word terrorist at anyone and everyone. The words seems to be losing its meaning. Anyone who disagrees with the current administration faces the danger of being labeled a terrorist. I mean, will nurses going out on strike soon be considered terrorists, because they’re not sucking up to the hospital bureaucracy? Will someone who sues a healthcare facility for malpractice also be labeled a terrorist?
They’re animal advocates, not terrorists
Let’s stop bandying the word “terrorists” around and restrict its use to “those who engage in violence.”In the current political climate, anyone who disagrees with the present administration is branded a terrorist. Just because I care about the welfare and fate of animals doesn’t make me a terrorist. It makes me an animal activist, if you will, or an animal advocate or simply a decent, compassionate person.
Read the full article in the Seattle PI.
One of these days I will get back to the business of serious blogging. But unfortunately, or fortunately, I have just arrived back home only to be leaving again. I am taking off on Sunday, for a real vacation, and will have minimal access to email or the Internet. But until I head off into the big blue Pacific, I need to finish up work, unpack and then pack again, and buy a bathing suit. Isn’t that something, that I don’t own a bathing suit? But it never really gets all that hot here in Seattle, and am I going to go for a swim in Puget Sound? Maybe if I was a polar bear, or having hot flashes.
I tried to buy a bathing suit while I was in Canada, but the village was very small, and there were exactly two stores that sold bathing suits. I have to assume that most of the visitors are large, because small sizes were harder to find than a brain in Dubya’s head. One store, the one in my hotel in fact, had exactly one bathing in a semi-small size. I say semi, because despite the label, the suit could easily house both me and my twin (if I had one).
Anyway, my point. Here is a press release, rather than one of my creative accounts and analyses of the nursing shortage and healthcare horrors. This bill is scary, and yes, take note even if the press release is from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. I think they have a good point.
Let us hope that this bill dies a quick and painful death in the Senate, and never surfaces again.
House Passes Giveaway to Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries
H.R. 5 Protects Vioxx, Not Doctors or Patients
(Washington, DC)–Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed a medical malpractice bill (H.R. 5) that does nothing to help doctors with high insurance rates but gives sweeping liability protections to drug companies that knowingly market deadly drugs like Vioxx.
“Today, the Congress showed once again where its true priorities lie – with the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies and their well-heeled CEOs,” said ATLA President Ken Suggs.
H.R. 5 provides sweeping immunity to the pharmaceutical industry and endangers the public health.
Even as the first trial of a Vioxx victim is bringing to light evidence that Merck may have knowingly marketed a dangerous and deadly drug, the drug companies would be given virtual immunity from punitive damages under this bill, and have their total liability for serious injury or wrongful death capped at $250,000.
“The protection this bill gives the prescription drug industry is absolutely ridiculous, especially when these companies have proven they don’t give a hoot about people’s safety,” said Congressman Marion Berry, a Democratic House member and pharmacist who voted against the bill.
“All this legislation does is take responsibility away from the business community and allow dangerous prescription drug companies to make money like gangbusters. It mystifies me that people could vote for a bill that puts their own family in harms way,” he continued.
Senior Republican Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) also refused to vote for the bill because of the liability protections for drugs, including vaccines; he voted “present.”
“The vaccine liability waiver in the medical malpractice legislation will hurt autistic children and their families,” wrote Burton in a Dear Colleague letter sent July 27. “Congress should strike this provision from the medical malpractice legislation. We serve the interests of the American people, not the pharmaceutical industry,” he admonished.
“As Vioxx has shown, these big drug companies will not police themselves – we need the civil justice system to ensure that they are held accountable if they endanger the public’s health,” added Suggs.
H.R. 5 does nothing to stop insurance industry price-gouging.
Study after study has confirmed that while the insurance industry is raising premiums for doctors at a record pace, the amount insurance companies pay out for lawsuits has remained stable. But H.R. 5 has not one word about insurance reform or any provision to require the insurance industry to stop the price-gouging and lower rates.
“The insurance industry is price-gouging doctors and lying to the public all to justify limiting the rights of victims so that the industry can add to its already record-setting bottom line,” said Suggs.
Even supporters of H.R. 5 could not defend the bill – House leaders refused to hold a hearing, limited floor debate, and refused to allow any amendments or substitutes.
So much of the health and medical news is disappointing, discouraging, and downright criminal. That’s why, when good news comes along (and especially if it has to do with the Bush administration) it is almost shocking. Like, gag me. Is this real? Is the Bush camp really not screwing up some poor sick people?
And this bit of news really does send shivers down your spine because it concerns one of those social diseases that neocons think only evil people contract…..AIDS!!!
I’ll cut the suspense and let you read the press release from HIVMA:
HIV Care Providers Applaud Bush Administration on Ryan White Proposal
Front-line HIV medical care providers from a leading organization of health care professionals are applauding the Bush administration for making medical care the top priority in its newly released guidelines to Congress for renewing the nation’s largest program dedicated to HIV/AIDS care, the Ryan White CARE Act.
Ryan White CARE Act programs provide medical care and other services for more than half a million low-income, uninsured, or underinsured people living with HIV/AIDS. The Act expires on Sept. 30, requiring Congress to reauthorize it.
“Ryan White was originally written at a time when HIV infection was a death sentence,” says Paul Volberding, MD, chair of the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) Board of Directors. “HIVMA members from across the country have been there as new drugs and medical care changed it into a chronic condition.”
HIVMA is pleased to see that the administration’s guidelines for reauthorizing Ryan White follow recommendations the Association made this spring along with the American Academy of HIV Medicine (AAHIVM). Those recommendations focused on revising Ryan White’s funding priorities to ensure access to lifesaving medical treatment for people with no other source of care. The recommendations drew from members’ abundant experience in providing HIV care, and were informed by a key 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine.
“We see wide variations across the country in the care to which people with HIV/AIDS have access. That’s not right,” says HIVMA board member Anita Vaughn, MD. “Whether you get the treatment that can save your life shouldn’t depend on where you live. We’re glad to see the administration understands that.” The administration proposes that 75 percent of Ryan White funds be used for core medical services. HIVMA looks forward to working with the administration and members of Congress to define a set of core medical services that reflects the complexity of HIV disease, including mental health, substance abuse, and nutrition counseling services.
HIVMA is also pleased to see the administration backing the Association’s proposal for a federal list of core anti-AIDS medications based on federal treatment guidelines. “All low-income people deserve access to a minimum set of essential drugs,” Dr. Vaughn says.
The administration proposes establishing indicators to determine “severity of need” for Ryan White funds. The intention is to target money to places and groups that need it most. “We’re glad to see the administration’s efforts to make Ryan White funding more equitable,” Dr. Volberding says. “We look forward to working with the administration and Congress on how to define ’severity of need.’”
The Association will also work to expand the Act to encourage training, recruitment, and retention of HIV care providers.
“Experienced providers are closing their practices, and there aren’t many new ones willing to take on this demanding complex field,” Dr. Volberding says. “This is a major factor decreasing access to care. We badly need more care providers to treat the increasing number of people living with HIV/AIDS.”
“We congratulate the Bush administration for providing the leadership necessary to spur action on this essential program,” Dr. Volberding says. “We urge Congress to take up the matter right away, so a new Act is ready when the old one expires Sept. 30.”
###
The Bush administration’s Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization principles are online at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2005pres/ryanwhite.html.
I haven’t yet had time to look at the August issue of Parents magazine and see if this news item is true–but if it is, well, very disturbing indeed. This is a news release that I just received from the Organic Consumer’s Network:
PARENTING ADVICE: EAT YOUR PESTICIDES
“Parents Magazine”, one of the most influential parenting publications in the U.S., advised parents not to worry about pesticide residues in children’s food in its recent August 2005 issue. In an article titled “Food Under Fire,” the magazine belittles the benefits of organic foods as a myth, and endorses pesticides in foods as safe, stating: “there’s no evidence that these chemicals, used at the low levels found in our food supply, are harmful to children.” The author of the piece based his research on the opinion of a single “expert,” never mentioning three decades of scientific evidence from academic, government and industry sources that states otherwise. The magazine serves as a “parenting guide” to more than 14 million subscribers. Read some related facts below, and write a quick letter to their editor here: mailbag@parentsmagazine.com
And here’s a few quick facts about pesticides and children:
QUICK RELATED U.S. GOVERNMENT ISSUED FACTS:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that one of the main sources of pesticide exposure for U.S. children comes from the food they eat.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, half of produce currently tested in grocery stores contains measurable residues of pesticides. Laboratory tests of eight industry-leader baby foods reveal the presence of 16 pesticides, including three carcinogens.
According to EPA’s “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment,” children receive 50% of their lifetime cancer risks in the first two years of life.
In blood samples of children aged 2 to 4, concentrations of pesticide residues are six times higher in children eating conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables compared with those eating organic food.
I would be curious to read the issue and see who the “expert” is, the know-it-all who may very well be on the payroll of some corporation. Many of the articles appear in consumer magazines are nothing more than a handful of anecdotes and selected sound-bytes. What they don’t tell you that in many cases, the “experts” and sound-bytes have been carefully vetted to make sure that they don’t conflict with advertisers. What they also fail to acknowledge is that many of the medical and scientific experts quoted in an article are on the payroll of a corporation, work as consultants for the products that they are telling you are “safe,” or may even have a strong financial stake in it.
This may well be the case with the Parents article. Otherwise, how can anyone in their right mind tell you that pesticides are safe and that there are no benefits to eating organic food? Again, I would have to read the article myself to pass full judgment, but having seen this type of thing so many times before, and even have written trash of that nature myself, I tend to think that the press release is accurate. And if so, then shame on Parents magazine. How could they allow such a biased piece of junk journalism to be printed and offered as advice to parents? Research based on the opinion of one person, and completely ignoring all of the scientific evidence to the contrary? Presenting one side of the story with the most minimal of back-up support?
I hope that Parents get several million letters from angry readers and threats to cancel subscriptions, unless they print a retraction. And please tell us, Parents mag, what is the real story behind this? Which advertiser are you protecting? Or does your EIC or CEO have mega-stakes in a company that manufactures pesticides?
As many of you know, the great nursing crisis of the new millennium is not limited to the US. Nurses are treated badly the world over, and as a result, many leave the profession or at least escape from hospitals. And as a career choice, many young people decide that there are greener pastures than nursing.
Here is a curious article from Australian News.com.au which can’t seem to decide if their “crisis” is improving, staying the same, or getting worse. Australia is both a nurser poacher and poachee–they recruit nurses from other countries, and their own nurses are heavily recruited from the US, UK, and Canada–all of which offer better pay and in some cases, working conditions.
So here we go. The article begins on a note of optimisim:
AUSTRALIA’S nursing shortage appears to be easing, with a new report showing there are more nurses per patient today than there were three years ago.
Then it hits you in the face with a wet diaper:
But the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report also shows the female-dominated profession is still facing the challenge of an aging workforce.
Nothing like putting a damper on the enthusiasm. And then we continue on this zigzag path–does she or doesn’t she? Are we losing nurses or gaining?
The AIHW report said there were 1106 full-time equivalent (FTE) nurses for every 100,000 people in 2003, up from 1031 two years earlier.
Okay, so there’s more nurses. But…..
The study contradicts an Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) report released earlier this week which found the ratio of nurses had dropped from 1080 per 100,000 people in 1986 to 908 in 2001.
Nothing like being indecisive, I always say. But never fear, now it tries to rationalize:
However, the AIHW report covers the two years immediately following the period studied by the ABS - indicating that the downward trend may be over.
But, still can’t make up their minds…
The ABS also found there was a 10 per cent increase in the overall number of nurses between 1986 and 2001, but the AIHW found just five per cent growth from 2001 to 2003.
Sounds like they need to learn how to count.
But perhaps the increase in nurses may not be a real increase at all, but just the fact that in the past two years, the number of hours that nurses are working has lengthened. And less nurses are working part time. So how there been any real increase? Or just nurses working longer and harder?
Stay tuned, I’m sure that they’ll make up their minds one of these fine days.
A day behind as usual, but this is a moment in the annals of medical history which should not go unnoticed. On July 25, 1978, the first baby conceived from an in vitro fertilization technique was born in England. The birth of Louise Joy Brown certainly changed the way we looked at conception and birth, and opened a Pandora’s box of ethics and arguments.
When does life begin? The age old question that even Moses didn’t seem to have an answer for. Does life begin at conception? At implantation in the womb? And most importantly in the debate over embryonic stem cells, does it begin in a petri dish?
I’m sure Louise had no idea about the fervor that her birth would cause. But any way you look at it, in vitro was a rather monumental accomplishment. It is just too bad that in their zeal to find a way to overcome infertility, the docs and scientists who pioneered this method never seemed to give second thought to thought to dealing with the ethics and potential problems that could arise. Like, what do we do with the half a million embryos chilling out in petri dishes–some who have been in deep freeze for over a decade?
Anyway, happy birthday Louise.
They let me back in the U.S., despite all of the nasty things I say about the FDA on my blog. And my denial of the “nursing crisis.” Anyway, I am tired, have a bunch of emails to answer, and it is hot in Seattle. Read hot with no air conditioning.
I was up in Harrison Hot Springs, which is about 90 miles from Vancouver. It is so beautiful up there. No wonder license plates from BC read “Beautiful British Columbia.” Meh, I wanted to stay. Now that I’m back in Seattle, though, I realize how tired I am of city life. I’ve lived in large cities nearly my entire life, or in suburbs that were just as bad, and it is time for a little more peace and quiet.
Anyway, will be back tomorrow.
I almost forgot to post. Been kinda busy with the conference and trying to relax. I haven’t missed a day since mid-December, although I’m not sure what I’m going to do when I go to Hawaii next week. No laptop, minimal Internet availability….
Anyway, I am still basking in paradise, aka beautiful British Columbia.
Yes, just another day. I didn’t read the news today, didn’t listen to it, didn’t turn on the TV. It’s enough I had to sit for a few hours and listen to someone talk about dread diseases, with rather unappetizing slides to boot.
So, I don’t know what crises occurred in healthcare today. Hopefully, the dweeb that Bush wants to warm the Supreme Court bench will have turned into a pile of soot, or at least, been thrown out of the running by the Senate.
Well, I can dream, can’t I. It is a full moon, afterall.
I can’t complain. This place is absolutely beautiful. British Columbia, Canada, is truly one of the most beautiful places on earth. Mountains, some still with a sprinkling of water, contrasted against water. Thick greenery covering the hillsides. It is quiet, serene, refreshing, and just does a soul good. I almost forgot that I’m here for a conference.
But anyway, I am addicted to the Internet and email, and in all fairness, I do have some work to do which does require access. They said that there’s free wifi in one of the lobbies, but I was struggling with it for about 20 minutes and ready to give up. I resigned myself to the fact that I would have to use back-up dial-up, if that worked. I found two numbers in this area code, but don’t know if they’re considered local or not. Plus, you are charged for each local call you make.
But then it worked. I got online, and my email appeared. And I am able to post on my blog, and not miss today. So I hope it continues working. Maybe it’s just a bit temperamental.
Anyway, the big news is the judge that Bush would like to put on the Supreme Court. He sounds like a real winner, and better suited to 16th century courts. Here’s an interesting post from TomPaine.com. As in Thomas Paine, who is famous for his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech circa 1776.
As we know, if Bush likes this man, then he is an ultra-reactionary when it comes to both common sense and women. I wonder what his view is on birth control? He has made it quite clear that he would like to roll back time to the days of back alley abortions, as though that’s going to make them go away. It always astounds me how minds like Bush (and perhaps his Supreme Court nominee) think that if you keep people ignorant (like abstinence only sex ed), and make contraceptives difficult or impossible to obtain, and make abortion a criminal offense, that will stop unwanted pregnancies. Sorry guys, but you know, we’ve been there, done that. Why not take the lead from nations who have reduced rates of unplanned pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases, by education and easily obtainable and effective birth control? And surprise surprise, but in countries where abortion is legal and even paid for by government insurance, the rates are lower than they are here. So accessibility and low cost/no cost, do not spur people into being careless.
Anyway, here’s the post. Hope it’s okay to repost it. I think it’s really important.
Dr. Wendy Chavkin is the chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. She and other doctors who provided or facilitated abortions before Roe v. Wade share their experiences on a new website, www.voicesofchoice.org.
As much as the nomination of a new U.S. Supreme Court Justice is about individual rights and freedoms, it’s also about public health. Doctors across the country know that—but few know it as personally and profoundly as the physicians who provided or helped women gain access to abortions before Roe v. Wade .
Fourteen pre-Roe physicians issued a public statement recently, saying they fear the country will repeat “a dark chapter of its history” if Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement opposes legal abortion—as Judge John Roberts apparently does. I am one of those 14 doctors.
I didn’t actually perform abortions before Roe v. Wade because I was still in college at the University of Chicago. But I supported a group called the Jane Collective—women who became trained by a physician to provide abortions themselves. I lent my apartment to the group.
Somebody would come to my door and say, “Jane would like to see you next Thursday. She’ll be here at 7:30 a.m.” That meant I should leave the apartment at 7:30; when I left, the person would say “Jane will be here until 7 p.m. tonight,” which meant that I shouldn’t come back until after that. While the Jane group had a remarkable safety record, I once came home after “Jane” had visited and found blood splatters on the walls.
I was young and unsophisticated, but I knew that nobody should be subjected to having a surgical procedure in someone’s apartment, and nobody should be in the position of trying to provide an urgently needed service without the right equipment and training. It’s one of the reasons I decided to become a doctor myself.
Since that time, I’ve talked with many doctors who practiced medicine before Roe v. Wade . Some of them provided abortions even though it was illegal, and many of them dealt with the consequences of illegal abortion. That’s why 14 of us are speaking out. We know what’s at stake. We can never forget what we saw when abortion was illegal, and we don’t want anyone to repeat this experience.
Before Roe v. Wade , emergency rooms, doctors’ offices and hospital wards were often full of women who had tried self-induced abortions or gotten unsterile, poorly performed abortions illegally. Some of these women ended up with severe infections or life-threatening hemorrhages. Some died, while others lived but would never be able to have children.
If a reconfigured Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the consequences to women’s health would look different than before 1973—but they would still be serious. The advances of the last three decades, including medical abortion and emergency contraception, would likely change the landscape for women with unintended pregnancies if abortion was illegal. We’ve already heard anecdotal reports of women buying medical abortion pills online and taking it themselves without seeing a doctor.
However, overturning Roe v. Wade is not the sole strategy of anti-choice conservatives. They have imposed restrictions—like parental consent laws and mandatory delays—that chip away at reproductive health care. Rather than trying to ban abortion outright, they’ve made it increasingly difficult for doctors to provide abortion and for women to get the care they seek.
It’s a clever political strategy: satisfying the right-wing base by severely limiting access to abortion, without drawing a line in the sand against the nation’s pro-choice majority. But it’s bad medicine.
The web of restrictions on reproductive health care has grown increasingly complex in recent years. It may be difficult to get Judge Roberts to directly answer questions now about whether he thinks Roe v. Wade should stand—let alone what he thinks of certain abortion procedures, parental involvement requirements, laws that give rights to zygotes and fetuses, building regulations that target abortion clinics and the many other state and federal restrictions that impede women from getting necessary health care.
That’s why the question for Judge Roberts isn’t just whether he agrees with Roe v. Wade and specific restrictions. It’s whether he will put the health of the American public ahead of ideology. It’s whether, when faced with an abortion case that pits medical evidence against unsupported rhetoric, he will rule on the side of science and facts. It’s whether he will let doctors care for patients and treat reproductive health care just like every other area of medicine.
Judge Roberts has many critically important questions to answer before being confirmed. These are among the ones I’ll be listening for—along with my colleagues who know first-hand the disastrous consequences when politics trumps health care. We’ve lived in an America where women were put in the terrible position of forgoing standard medical care, and we don’t want anyone to live there again.
Dr. Wendy Chavkin is the chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. She and other doctors who provided or facilitated abortions before Roe v. Wade share their experiences on a new website, www.voicesofchoice.org.
As much as the nomination of a new U.S. Supreme Court Justice is about individual rights and freedoms, it’s also about public health. Doctors across the country know that—but few know it as personally and profoundly as the physicians who provided or helped women gain access to abortions before Roe v. Wade .
Fourteen pre-Roe physicians issued a public statement recently, saying they fear the country will repeat “a dark chapter of its history” if Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement opposes legal abortion—as Judge John Roberts apparently does. I am one of those 14 doctors.
I didn’t actually perform abortions before Roe v. Wade because I was still in college at the University of Chicago. But I supported a group called the Jane Collective—women who became trained by a physician to provide abortions themselves. I lent my apartment to the group.
Somebody would come to my door and say, “Jane would like to see you next Thursday. She’ll be here at 7:30 a.m.” That meant I should leave the apartment at 7:30; when I left, the person would say “Jane will be here until 7 p.m. tonight,” which meant that I shouldn’t come back until after that. While the Jane group had a remarkable safety record, I once came home after “Jane” had visited and found blood splatters on the walls.
I was young and unsophisticated, but I knew that nobody should be subjected to having a surgical procedure in someone’s apartment, and nobody should be in the position of trying to provide an urgently needed service without the right equipment and training. It’s one of the reasons I decided to become a doctor myself.
Since that time, I’ve talked with many doctors who practiced medicine before Roe v. Wade . Some of them provided abortions even though it was illegal, and many of them dealt with the consequences of illegal abortion. That’s why 14 of us are speaking out. We know what’s at stake. We can never forget what we saw when abortion was illegal, and we don’t want anyone to repeat this experience.
Before Roe v. Wade , emergency rooms, doctors’ offices and hospital wards were often full of women who had tried self-induced abortions or gotten unsterile, poorly performed abortions illegally. Some of these women ended up with severe infections or life-threatening hemorrhages. Some died, while others lived but would never be able to have children.
If a reconfigured Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the consequences to women’s health would look different than before 1973—but they would still be serious. The advances of the last three decades, including medical abortion and emergency contraception, would likely change the landscape for women with unintended pregnancies if abortion was illegal. We’ve already heard anecdotal reports of women buying medical abortion pills online and taking it themselves without seeing a doctor.
However, overturning Roe v. Wade is not the sole strategy of anti-choice conservatives. They have imposed restrictions—like parental consent laws and mandatory delays—that chip away at reproductive health care. Rather than trying to ban abortion outright, they’ve made it increasingly difficult for doctors to provide abortion and for women to get the care they seek.
It’s a clever political strategy: satisfying the right-wing base by severely limiting access to abortion, without drawing a line in the sand against the nation’s pro-choice majority. But it’s bad medicine.
The web of restrictions on reproductive health care has grown increasingly complex in recent years. It may be difficult to get Judge Roberts to directly answer questions now about whether he thinks Roe v. Wade should stand—let alone what he thinks of certain abortion procedures, parental involvement requirements, laws that give rights to zygotes and fetuses, building regulations that target abortion clinics and the many other state and federal restrictions that impede women from getting necessary health care.
That’s why the question for Judge Roberts isn’t just whether he agrees with Roe v. Wade and specific restrictions. It’s whether he will put the health of the American public ahead of ideology. It’s whether, when faced with an abortion case that pits medical evidence against unsupported rhetoric, he will rule on the side of science and facts. It’s whether he will let doctors care for patients and treat reproductive health care just like every other area of medicine.
Judge Roberts has many critically important questions to answer before being confirmed. These are among the ones I’ll be listening for—along with my colleagues who know first-hand the disastrous consequences when politics trumps health care. We’ve lived in an America where women were put in the terrible position of forgoing standard medical care, and we don’t want anyone to live there again.
I know, this is a very lame post. I’m leaving in the am, and trying to finish up some work. Proofreading a 6,000 word paper on methicillin resistant Staph. If you don’t know what that is, believe me, you’re lucky.
Anyway, I hope I will have Internet access tomorrow, so that I can post.
In the never ending saga of mad cow disease. Yes, as you can tell, this is a quick press release. I am trying to finish up a ghosted article about some nasty infectous microbes before I head to Canada for a conference, and I really don’t want to miss a day of posting. So here we are, Mad Cows.
MAD COW USA: SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
In the wake of recent news reports that the government had attempted to cover-up another case of Mad Cow disease, an internal feud has erupted inside the USDA. The most recent case of Mad Cow Disease was detected in a Texas cow that was slaughtered in November of 2004. At that time, the USDA claimed tests for the disease on the suspect cow were negative and that the cow was healthy.
But several weeks ago, after a public outcry by the OCA and other public interest groups and internal USDA accusations of improper testing, USDA Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong reopened the case and ordered new tests on the remains of that cow, the results of which turned out to be positive. The USDA has since admitted that its testing procedures are not stringent enough, but instead of creating policy that would upgrade testing for Mad Cow, the agency has begun to focus its energies on attacking Fong. This week, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, who was appointed to his position by President Bush earlier this year, said Fong had no right to reopen this case and should not have implemented further tests for Mad Cow disease. According to Johanns, Fong’s discovery of the second case of mad Cow disease in the U.S. is behavior that will not be tolerated within the agency.
Read the rest of the story
No, not war of the worlds. Words. And since it touches on a few health related issues, I thought I’d post it. It’s one of those things that floats around the Internet, but I liked the point that it makes. Especially the last point.
On the war of words:
I like being called Liberal. Imagine if I were called “illiberal.”
I like be called Progressive. I’d hate to be called “regressive.”
I’m glad I’m Pro-choice. Why would I want to be “anti-choice”?
I feel better supporting Privacy. Why would I want to support “snooping”?
If I need a prescription, I’d rather go to my doctor than some pharmacist at Rite-Aid or CVS.
And if Democracy means bombing Iraqi children, torturing prisoners, letting our soldiers lose limbs, and supporting the greed of Halliburton, we need a new definition of what once was a wonderful word.
Hard to believe, but Scott McClellan makes former White House press secretary seem like a rocket scientist. I mean, I know that you can’t appear too intelligent when you’re trying to make sense out of Bush’s nonsensical ramblings, but this has gone on long enough.
Does he or doesn’t he? Does Bush believe in birth control or doesn’t he? It seems like a simple, straightforward question to me, one which can be answered with a yes or no. Those are two simple one-syllable words which fall in the realm of Bush’s limited vocabulary. But it seems the man just can’t fart out an answer to this ridiculously easy question. And his press secretary can’t even muster up an intelligent excuse.
It’s really difficult to tell–who is dumber, Bush or McClellan? Maybe I should take a poll?
Read this press release from the office of Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), and weep–that our nation is being represented by a man who is unable to spit out a one word answer, and who has managed to hire someone even dumber than himself to do the talking.
The Clock’s Still Ticking
No Answer Yet If President Opposes Contraception
McClellan asked again at WH press briefing, still no answer almost two months later
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan again refused to answer the question of whether or not President Bush opposes contraception. Reporter Les Kinsolving initially asked the question at a May 26 press briefing - McClellan replied that he would not dignify such a question with a response (see transcript below). Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) and 18 other Members of Congress have since sent the president a letter asking the very same question (text of letter: http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/choice/071205PresidentContraception.pdf), so Kinsolving again raised the same question today - and McClellan again refused to directly answer the question (transcript also below).
The fact that McClellan cannot or will not respond to this question leaves the right of access to birth control unclear at a time when the President is set to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace women’s rights supporter Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Recently, the right of access to contraception has also been compromised - an increasing number of pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills based on their personal beliefs. 95% of American women use contraception at some point in their lives.
“Apparently, the White House finds answering a simple question about contraception as difficult as answering questions about Karl Rove,” said Maloney. “It’s been almost two months, and we still have no response. Why can’t Scott McClellan answer such a simple question - a question to which American women deserve an answer? Is contraception somehow related to Karl Rove? Are birth control pills related to an ongoing criminal investigation? These questions might seem absurd, but not as absurd as Scott McClellan’s refusal to answer a simple question about whether the president is opposed to contraception.”
Excerpt from today’s Press Briefing:
Q I have one follow up. Nineteen members of Congress from seven states have written a letter to the President saying that they are still waiting for an answer to a May 26th question: Is the President opposed to contraception. And my question is, could they now have an answer to my question? Or do you regard them, too, as not to be dignified with a response?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think we’ve talked about these issues before and these issues when it comes to the federal government and programs aimed at promoting abstinence and how those ought to be funded on at least equal footing with other programs, so I think we’ve addressed the President’s views in that context.
(Is this man a total moron or what? Does he really think that idiocy which spewed from his mouth will suffice, and take the place of a real answer?)
The entire transcript of the briefing is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050718-2.html.
Excerpt from the May 26, 2005 Press Briefing:
Q There are news reports this morning that parents and children who were guests of the President, when they visited Congress, wore stickers with the wording, “I was an embryo.” And my question is, since all of us were once embryos, and all of us were once part sperm and egg, is the President also opposed to contraception, which stops this union and kills both sperm and egg?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has made his views known on these issues, and his views known -
Q You know, but what I asked, is he opposed — he’s not opposed to contraception, is he?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and you’ve made your views known, as well. The President –
Q No, no, but is he opposed to contraception, Scott? Could you just tell us yes or no?
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think that this question is -
Q Well, is he? Does he oppose contraception?
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think the President’s views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life –
Q If they were clear, I wouldn’t have asked.
MR. McCLELLAN: — and if you want to ask those questions, that’s fine. I’m just not going to dignify them with a response.
The entire transcript of the briefing is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526-1.html
Yes, I know I complain about spam a lot. And to get a reprieve, I turned off my comments. In fact, I deleted the program which allows comments to even come in, because turning it off just wasn’t working. And today, I received two spams to my blog.
How did they get through when there’s not even a program to allow comments? Have the spammers entered the Matrix or something, and transcended normal software? This is scary. This is like super-spammers.
May they rot in hell for all eternity. May they be forced to sit and have a conversation with George W. Bush for 10 million hours.
Being fat (yes, that politically incorrect word) is not only unhealthy, it is expensive. Again, another zing to those who think that we will be in healthcare heaven if we can only limit malpractice awards.
No, sorry. You literally can’t have your cake and eat it too. You know why? Because cake puts the pounds on.
This is some interesting data, comparing the high cost of being obese. Something to think about before you buy that 42 oz soda, or ultra-huge Big Mac with triple cheese on top.
From USA Today:
Comparing the Data
In an examination of national surveys of about 14,000 people from 1987-2002–which included data from health care spending, medical conditions and trips to the doctor, hospital and pharmacy–researchers found:
On average, it cost $1,244 more in 2002 to treat an obese person than it did to treat a healthy-weight person; in 1987 that difference was a mere $272.
Diabetes treatments rose 64%t from 1987 to 2002.
About a quarter of the morbidly obese were treated for six or more conditions in 2002, close to double compared to 1987.
The number of obese patients treated for mental disorders, upper gastrointestinal problems and high cholesterol jumped 10%.
Thus, these findings prove that as Americans continue to pack on the pounds, medical costs continue to boom.
Medical bills are one of the primary causes of debt in the U.S. Yes, I know, government sponsored healthcare sucks. The free market system gives and takes, and people need to be responsible for their healthcare. And yes, I know that many people balk at spending $200 a month for health insurance premiums but think nothing of spending triple that amount on cigarettes, junk food, and booze, or feel the need to buy a new SUV every year.
But like it or not, there are, at any given time, about 40 million people in the U.S. without health insurance. About 80% of them are employed, and they are too wealthy for Medicaid. And even those with insurance often end up with a hefty bill. If you’re policy only pays 80% of the bill, and your hospital and surgical bill come to a total of $200,00–well, that’s $40, 000 that you have to pay out of pocket.
So, how about allowing Uncle Sam to take care of you? Afterall, prisoners get top notch free healthcare, shelter, three square meals, and even the opportunity to get a college education. Of course, you do have to live behind bars, but that may be better than living on the street. Especially if you have health problems.
A US man shot his postman so that he would get sent to prison for life and escape his crippling medical debts, investigators say.
Yes, you read correctly. This man deliberately shot a mail carrier so that he would go to prison and not have to worry about paying his medical bills, which he feared would leave him homeless.
William Crutchfield shot 59-year-old postman Earl Lazenby in Snellville, Georgia, two weeks ago. Mr Lazenby survived the attack but the shots punctured his colon and intestine and fractured bones in an arm.
After shooting Mr Lazenby, the 60-year-old electrical contractor drove to the police station and confessed.
Crutchfield apparently told the police that he shot the postman as a way of escaping medical debts of $90,000. He said he feared losing his home and thought that living in prison would be better than surviving on the street.
“He was saying that he wanted to be cared for by the federal government, that he was in poor health and wanted to be taken care of,” Atlanta postal inspector Tracey Jefferson said
So isn’t this a bizarre conundrum. We take care of people who have broken the law–perhaps murdered, raped, tortured, etc–and provide them with free, first class medical care. But for law abiding citizens, we give them the opportunity to incur huge debts and possibly lose their very home to pay for them. And even if a person can afford insurance, very often they can’t get it if they have a medical condition. Or their insurer drops them.
Is this what Bush means by promoting family values????
Read the complete story in the BBC
Ever wonder what PPO really stands for when you are perusing health insurance policies? Well, it really means pig people from outer space. If you’ve been screwed by health insurance, can’t afford it, have a policy that sucks, or just want to laugh, take a look at this video from ConsumerWatchdog.org
This little video is especially “hysterical” if you happen to have the fortune or misfortune of living in California. Arnold, are you listening?
Okay, I’m a day behind in health history. But no bother, here’s the big highlight for July 14, which incidentally, is also Bastille Day. What kind of Francophone am I, that I didn’t mention it? A stressed out one, I think, with too much to do and not enough time to get it done.
But on July 14, 1883, the first issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association appeared in print. I love reading the articles in old medical journals–absolutely fascinating. And I’m sure, a hundred years from now, people will be reading about our so-called state of the art discoveries and theories and wonder, “What were these idiots thinking?”
Anyway, the journal was published with Nathan S. Davis, M.D., a major proponent for medical education and the driving force behind the creation of the American Medical Association 36 years earlier, as the editor. The first issue was only 32 pages long (probably not a lot of advertising). Today, there are about 90 pages of editorial content, and it is published weekly.