Another Halloween is here. This one is a little less festive, mainly because we didn’t decorate this year–too much to do and too many things approaching on the horizon. I love Halloween, and am hoping that next year, I will finally be out of the city, out of this apartment, and have a porch where I can put lighted pumpkins and all kinds of cute decorations.

Check out Google’s rendition today. That artist is so talented.

One of those medi-pop TV shows was playing on someone’s television recently, and since I am hopelessly naive when it comes to these things, my educated guess is that it was Grey’s Anatomy. One of the characters looked familiar–in fact, now that I think about it, he was on the cover of Seattle Magazine for their “Best Doctors in Seattle.” I’m sure that the real docs in Seattle were thrilled about that, but that’s another story.

Anyway, I have no idea what the episode was about, but a group of medical students or residents were all sitting around a table. It was a nice politically correct assortment that included both genders and a variety of colors and ethnicities. I doubt that most hospitals have such a nice ratio, and that residents tend to coordinate the gender/ethnic ratio when they all hang out together. You know, if there’s too many white guys one of them has to leave the table and they grab a Chinese woman to replace him.

But aside from the political correctness, all were young and good looking. While most residents probably are in their late 20s, some are noticeably older. A growing number of people are opting for medicine as a second career, or heading into medical school after completing a master’s degree in another subject. So by the time they reach their residency, they may well be heading towards age 40.

The good looking part, is really ridiculous. I know that TV people tend to be more attractive than the random population, but after working in a hospital, I can assure you that most residents are not good looking. Most are well, average. They look like everyone else—not better or worse. And none of these fine residents looked like they ever did a night of call in their life, and looked remarkably well rested and refreshed. Bright eyed and rosy cheeked, hair clean and styled, make-up perfect…. Yeah, and this is the same hospital where physicians change bedpans and personally discharge patients, even wheeling them down to the front door.

Aren’t they cute?

Back in Seattle and the weather was actually quite pleasant today. Fairly warm, no rain, and sad to say, much more “autumny” that Boston. I had expected to see a full blaze of color, but the unseasonably warm weather had dramatically interfered with the fall foliage. It made it nice for walking around, but not so nice for the leaf peepers like myself.

I was just thinking about the conference I attended, which was populated primarily by pharmacists but also by physicians and other healthcare professionals. The catchword of the day is of course cost, and how to control cost while maintaining high quality. It does seem that our healthcare system is finally waking up to the fact that preventing illness, or at least, preventing complications in a person who is already sick, is a lot cheaper than treatment–to say nothing of quality of life.

But while I didn’t do a survey, I was just thinking of a session I attended on diabetes. It was one of those symposiums where they ply the audience with food, and I think this one was breakfast. There was a grand buffet put out, with scrambled eggs, hash browns, French toast, sausage, and bacon. There was also a huge platter filled with the cold stuff, ie, muffins, scones, other assorted pastries, rolls, and bread. There was the obligatory fruit mix, and there was a choice of all kinds of sauces to pour over your French toast, butter, jam, and so on. Quite a feast, and looking at some of the plates, I would say people were getting their full day’s worth of calories just at that one meal.

As the speakers went on, one word kept popping up–obesity. And as we all know, obesity is one of the main contributing factors to type II diabetes. So while they’re talking about excess weight, the audience is gorging their faces with high cal food and nice saturated fat. And more than just a few in the audience had a waistline which could use a little whittling, and some who looked like they’d be more comfortable if they had two seats. It’s sort of ironic that the healthcare people are supposed to be counseling their patients about their eating habits, yet they can’t seem to control their own appetites. And perhaps some healthier offerings for breakfast might be in order? Like hot cereal? Less sweets and sticky buns, and maybe some fruit that looks fresh and juicy?

Boston is a beautiful city, but I was disappointed to find that autumn is not in full swing. I figured that by the end of October, all of the trees would be ablaze in color. But it’s actually kind of patchy. Some trees are fully turned while others are still green. That could be because of the unusually warm autumn. It was 75 when I got here on Tuesday afternoon, although it has cooled down.

Oh well. It’s nice to be here though, especially since someone else is picking up the tab.

I’m going out of town tomorrow morning, to Boston. It figures that the weather prediction for Seattle is sunny–well, at least no rain predicted all week. And rain is predicted for Boston. Oh well, win some, lose some. Today was lovely and warm, a very abrupt shift from the cold and rainy weather we were having.

Anyway, I will try to get a posts in while I’m away, but my schedule is very hectic. If not, see y’all on Sunday.

Now is that a hot nurse or what? I know, blasphemy. One must never take the word “nurse” in vain, or joke about the profession or those who populate it in any way, shape or form. Smack my wrists, report me to the nurse guardian angel. And yes, the photo no doubt is going to help exacerbate the nursing shortage because it gives nurses a bad image. Yawn…

FYI, the photo comes from a website called Funny Pictures. It says to share with friends, so I’m assuming they mean that we can share the photos, as long as we credit them.

At any rate, I surely wouldn’t want to be stuck with that needle.

My cat Cosette has a beautiful pink triangle shaped nose. And quite honestly, that’s the only pink object that I want to see in October. In case you’ve been living in a hermitage, or have somehow missed my other two posts (could that be possible???), October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Despite these chi chi “campaigns” and the onslaught of pink colored bons bons, frous frous, and other assorted junk (do you really need a Mercedes painted bubblegum pink), the incidence of breast cancer continues to rise.

Yes, pink campaigns are supposed to raise awareness, but do nothing to stem the tide. Awareness means that you are supposed to go and get mammograms in order to detect the cancer early, and cross your fingers and hope that you don’t come from a defective gene pool that encourages the growth of malignant cells in your boobs.

What the pink campaign doesn’t do, is spread the fact about the possible causes of breast cancer, beyond the routine that is dished out now.

Breast Cancer Action is one of the few groups that is actually addressing this issue. There is a reason that the rates of breast cancer have shot up so dramatically, and it has little to do with genes, the fact that more women are getting mammograms, or that life expectancy has increased.

From BCA:

There are over 8.9 million people living with cancer in the United States. One in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime. Despite years of research, there is still a lot we don’t know about what is causing cancer. Hereditary factors only explain a small fraction of cancer cases. There is, however, growing evidence that various environmental toxins are contributing to our high rates of cancer and other diseases. While more research in the area of environmental links to health is needed (see Health-Track for one proposal to do this research), there is also enough evidence now to encourage us to decrease the use and production of environmental pollutants in an effort to stop the increasing rates of cancer.

Smoking became a campaign du jour, a causes celebre, and it suddenly became “okay” to bash the tobacco companies. Cigarette smoking became the poster child for all that was wrong with today’s health. While there is no doubt that tobacco is toxic, it most certainly is not the only carcinogen floating around in the environment. But the other toxins are seemingly off limits. The industries weld a lot of power, and the studies that demonstrate that the effect of many toxins such as pesticides, show strong associations with not only cancer but a host of other problems, are not covered by the press. They are also pooh-poohed. Not enough evidence, is the catchword.

A coalition of health and environmental groups called The Toxic Links Coalition (TLC) , of which Breast Cancer Action (BCA) is a member, discovered that the city of Berkeley was issuing a proclamation declaring October “Breast Cancer Awareness Month.” Frustrated by the fact that most breast cancer “awareness” campaigns do nothing more than encourage women to get their mammograms and virtually exclude all talk of preventing the disease, the Toxic Links Coalition decided to create its own proclamation. TLC’s document would be more than just a ceremonial proclamation—it would be a city resolution that included concrete steps that the city would take to limit toxins in the environment.

If you’re tired of seeing these silly pink campaigns, already feel about as aware as you’re going to be about the disease, and would like some real information about the causes of breast cancer–take a look at the Executive Summary of State of the Evidence: What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?

The entire report is also available on line, if you’d like something to curl up with on a rainy evening.

Want Some Answers?

Want some answers about your pink ribbons and candies? Is pasting a pink ribbon on your front door showing solidarity with your sisters? Or maybe if you go trick and treating as a pink colored witch? Will that help find the cure?

Sorry, but unless there’s a change in attitude, all those pennies are going down the drain, as they have been for the past 30 years. Think Pink campaigns seem to be designed to simply divert attention from the obvious. Read on:

Currently, there are more than 30 federal agencies and hundreds of foundations, pharmaceutical, and biotech companies conducting or funding research, but few—if any—are working together. In spite of all the research and fundraising, we still don’t have answers to key questions in breast cancer.

So that’s an issue right there? Why don’t they all join forces and share information? Think of the money wasted funding all of these different organizations, all that fundraising? Imagine if they were all linked together, with streamlined operations, and could spend most of the money on–duh—research? And all instantly share their findings with one another?

More than two million U.S. women are living with breast cancer. A woman’s lifetime risk of the disease is now one in eight. How to prevent the disease is still unknown.

At the federal level alone, many different agencies are funding breast cancer research, including the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Many states have their own research programs, and there are a number of private agencies, including the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, that also fund research.

There is also funding from for-profit companies like Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder. And the pharmaceutical companies are also conducting breast cancer research.

Again, is this necessary? Money is being royally wasted funding duplicate research. And the sad thing is, where have they gotten with all of this research? Not very far.

From BCA:

The problem is that no one knows how much is spent each year on breast cancer research, and no coordination exists among these funding sources and research centers. And to the extent that research is funded, it is frequently funded in increments that prohibit scientists from pursuing answers to questions that require long-term studies.

Most women diagnosed with breast cancer today face essentially the same treatment options—surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy—that were offered when the “War on Cancer” was first declared 30 years ago. There have been some improvements in each of these types of treatment (most notably in surgery), but these are small gains when viewed in light of the amount of money invested.

Treatment has improved, but not by much. No grand and innovative treatments have arrived. Surgery has improved from the obligatory radical mastectomy to a lumpectomy in some cases, but medical treatments remain highly toxic. With all of the “awareness” and Pinky pinks, and all of the money thrown into this, you’d think we would be much further along. And I would have to say that any advancements in treatment and survival have been certainly offset by the alarmingly growing rate of breast cancer cases.

In terms of prevention, the only options available are powerful pills with dangerous side effects, and drastic surgery. The “prevention” promoted by the media, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutions are actually risk reduction measures, not real prevention. Many of these interventions create new health problems, resulting in disease substitution, rather than breast cancer prevention.

Little progress is being made because research is currently based in a hypothesis-driven model, in which well-meaning scientists and physicians decide what questions should be researched. A more effective approach would be for the affected community to ask scientists to answer their most pressing questions about breast cancer.

If you are really interested in doing something about breast cancer, like preventing it from taking hold in your own body, I’d strongly suggest avoiding the Pink Ribbon Trap, and go poking around the Breast Cancer Action website. And then take some real action.

Believe it or not, all of this is related to the Pink in question. There was an editorial in the Seattle Times today, about the war that America is winning. The war that the article is referring to is the War on Cancer, which was declared by Richard Nixon back in 1971.

Well, according to this editorial, we seem to be winning it:

Fewer people are dying of cancer. In fact, the decline rate in cancer deaths has nearly doubled. Researchers predict the rate of cancer deaths will be halved by 2015.

This is a welcome turn in the war on cancer declared in 1971 by then-President Richard Nixon. Since that president’s initial $100 million down payment, hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into cancer research and the result is amazing advances in cures and treatments.

Well that is good news. But the most important story is missing from this editorial. In a healthcare system that focuses heavily on treatment and cure, it is not surprising that very little has been accomplished in the way of preventing disease before it strikes. Preventing cancer is a helluva better option than treating it, but this editorial was completely silent about the rates of new cancer cases.

Maybe cancer patients are living longer and surviving disease, but the more important question is….has the actual rate of new cases gone down? In other words, are less people getting cancer to begin with?

Pink ribbons, anyone?

I was curious about this, so I did a little digging. And not surprisingly, found some statistics which again, really don’t tell the entire story. That may be because the entire story is difficult to tease out, but let’s take a look.

From the Online News Hour:

The National Cancer Institute reported this week ( this article is from 2001) a drop in new cancer cases and in deaths, news government officials welcomed as incredible progress. The report found between 1992 and 1998 the number of new cancer cases dropped 1.1 percent. The number of cancer deaths also dropped by 1.1 percent, much of that among black men. Four cancers– lung, prostate, breast and colorectal– make up 56 percent of all new cancer cases. Among those, only breast cancer cases continued to increase by more than 40 percent between 1973 and 1998.

So according to the NCI, the number of new cases did drop 1.1%. Not a tremendous number, but better than new cases rising 1.1%. However, the rate of breast cancer continues to increase by a rather large number. So much for the think pink mentality.

Moving along, we have yet other numbers, reported about a year later.

Reported in the Wall Street Journal October 16, 2002:

America isn’t winning the war on cancer after all.

Contrary to optimistic reports from the National Cancer Institute showing the incidence of several devastating cancers has leveled off or even declined in recent years, rates for at least some of those cancers has been rising, according to a new analysis by NCI scientists.

Previous indications of a decline reflected significant delays in reporting cancer cases, the researchers report Wednesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. More accurate information about cancer rates presents a grimmer picture.

The revised estimates present a dispiriting picture of the nation’s progress in preventing cancer. Breast-cancer rates in white women had been almost flat since 1987, according to the original NCI figures, which the American Cancer Society also uses as the basis for the popular “facts and figures” on its Web site.

The reanalysis shows that breast-cancer rates actually have been rising 0.6% a year since 1987. That prompted the NCI scientists to call for research “to explain the cause for the recent rise in breast cancer incidence.”

So we’re not winning the “war” on cancer, if one wants to take into consideration the fact that there hasn’t been any drop in the number of people getting cancer. In fact, the number appears to be increasing.

Lung cancer in women also had been believed to be flat; the re-analysis shows it has been rising 1.2% a year since 1996. Melanoma rates in white males had reportedly been flat or even falling. The new analysis finds it has been soaring 4.1% a year since 1981, suggesting that prevention strategies that focus on staying out of the sun are falling short. Prostate-cancer rates in white males, rather than falling since 1995, have in fact been rising 2.2% a year. For white men, 1998 prostate-cancer rates are actually 12% higher than originally reported; for black men they are 14% higher.

Colorectal cancer cases for both genders and all races are 3% higher than first reported, suggesting that early-screening techniques (which focus on discovering precancerous polyps through colonoscopies) aren’t as powerful or widely used as hoped. The rate of colorectal cancer in white women, for instance, has been rising 2.8% annually since 1996, rather than the originally calculated 0.9%.

So, this does put a whole new light on things, doesn’t it.

Finally, I looked up cancer stats at the American Cancer Society. In 2007, they predict that there will be 1,444,920 new cases of cancer. In 2006, there were 1,399,790, and in 2005, 1,372,910.

So in raw numbers, cancer is rising. Now, we do have to take into consideration that there has been an increase in the population, although it really isn’t clear if that has anything to do with the higher numbers. Between 2005 and 2007, for instance, there’s an increase of about 72,000 cases. Unless there was a rash of cancer among newborns, or among immigrants to the U.S., it would be hard to blame an increase in population for those 72,000 extra cases.

Now, 10 years ago, in 1997, there were 1,382,400 new cancer cases. This is slightly higher than it was in 2005. I didn’t look up every year between 1997 and 2007, but it is interesting to note the fluctuations, and the fact that in the last two years, the rates have gone up.

Sorry, but I can’t really consider that we are winning the war if the rate of people actually getting cancer is not moving in a negative direction. And this is my basic gripe with the Pinkies.

Stay tuned to the final installment…

I was planning on continuing my assault on the pink campaign yesterday, but I had a migraine, and the day seemingly vanished. I also noticed when I was in the supermarket yesterday, a display of pink mints–cutsie little pink metal boxes with ribbons. How sweet! The mints, of course, were priced higher than others in the same category, and I wondered just how much of the revenue was actually being sent to breast cancer research.

And of the money that is donated to breast cancer causes, how much of it is actually being put to good use, as in being used to finance innovative studies that actually tell us something. As opposed to these same tired studies which look at the number of tomatoes you eat, or the servings of green vegetables. It has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that eating a diet rich in fresh green vegetables, fruit, and minimally processed foods is healthy. It may not be a specific “breast cancer fighter” but the healthier the diet, the healthier and stronger the body will be. And the less processed food that you eat, and the more organic food you eat, will go a long way in eliminating the intake of assorted and sundry chemicals, carcinogens, hormones, and antibiotics that all can wreck havoc on your overall health.

Anyway, hopefully I’ll have time today to finish up on my pink attack. There’s a big pink elephant sitting in the room, which the chemical and pesticide industry would like us to ignore. Focusing on mammograms, genetics and drugs allows public scrutiny to be averted from the things that are very likely causing this massive upswing in breast cancer.

I know, I know, I’m the outcast. The supposed left coast liberal who isn’t all that bleeding heart and who can be dangerously politically incorrect at times. And now for another bit of blasphemy—just as I refused to go along with all the cotton candy sweetness of National Nurses Week (how about a raise instead of free donuts, Bud?), the National Breast Cancer month extravaganza leaves me a little high and dry.

Yeah, I know. Every three minutes, a woman in the United States is diagnosed with breast cancer, and breast cancer incidence in women has increased from one in 20 in 1960 to one in eight today. So to combat those stats, we’re supposed to wear pink binkies, bows, and doodles, and buy pink toilet paper to battle this terrible disease. Or if we’re so ambitious, we can “run” for the cure. Dressed in pink bloomers, of course.

There are two reasons why the pink campaign makes me want to reach for—what else, but pink Pepto Bismol. First, have you ever wondered if all this “pink” money is actually going towards something worthwhile? Like that big display of pink yogurt–do you actually know how much of a donation the company is making towards breast cancer causes? Or are they just ripping off customers, trying to convince you to buy pink crap you don’t need and pocketing the revenue.

From the Seattle Times:

Not so fast, say the folks behind Think Before You Pink (www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org), a group called Breast Cancer Action. A lot of those pink products aren’t as benevolent as they seem to be. Some companies donate just a tiny portion of proceeds or set a limit on the amount they’ll donate, making the pink ribbon far more profitable for the company than it is for breast cancer.

In 2004, for instance, 3M launched a big campaign to sell Post-it Notes to increase breast cancer awareness. The company spent $500,000, according to PR Week, on the marketing campaign (which included a 70-foot-tall pink ribbon, fashioned from Post-its, in Times Square) — but 3M donated only $300,000 to the cause.

So in other words, 3M spent more money on its advertising and marketing products, than it gave in donations. Nice, huh.

Take some advice from the Think Before Pink campaign, courtesy of Breast Cancer Action:

The list of pink ribbon-wrapped products grows every year. From M&Ms to tennis balls to automobiles, thousands of companies are pinning pink ribbons on their products in an attempt to boost their image and their profits by connecting themselves to a good cause.

Before you impulsively buy one of these products in the belief that your money is going to breast cancer, Breast Cancer Action urges you to “think before you pink”—and ask these critical six questions:

How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer?

For example, Yoplait donates ten cents for every pink yogurt lid mailed back to the company—it would take four lids just to make up for the price of the stamp. If a company is not giving as much as you think it should, you might choose to give directly to an organization or charity instead.

What is the maximum amount that will be donated?

For instance, Cartier sold a “pink ribbon” watch for $3900, but capped its donation at $30,000 – after the company had sold 10 watches, consumers were no longer contributing to breast cancer causes.

How much money was spent marketing the product?

In a 2005 PR Week article, 3M touted that its 2004 breast cancer awareness effort, involving a 70-foot-tall ribbon made of Post-it Notes in Times Square, reached more than three million people and increased sales 80% over expectations. The article reports that 3M spent $500,000 on the marketing campaign (no actual numbers on profits were released), but only gave a little over half of that amount ($300,000) to the cause.

How are the funds being raised?

Every October, Lee Jeans proclaims a “Lee National Denim Day.” Participating companies allow their employees to wear jeans to work in exchange for a $5 contribution to Lee Jeans, which then sends the money to designated breast cancer organizations. According to its website, Lee donates the “net proceeds” that it has collected. What isn’t clear is how Lee defines net proceeds–e.g., are marketing and administrative costs deducted from funds raised?–or whether the company itself donates any money.

To what breast cancer organization does the money go, and what types of programs does it support?

If research, what kind? Are they the same studies we’ve been doing for decades that already get enormous financial support, or is it innovative research into the causes of breast cancer that is woefully underfunded?

If services, is it reaching the people who need it most? Campaigns that are not locally focused may siphon funds away from the community and give them to larger programs that are already well funded.

If advocacy and education, do the programs make steps towards ending the epidemic? Programs supporting “breast health awareness” ignore that we are already well aware that cancer is a problem and it’s time to move from awareness to action.

What is the company doing to assure that its products are not contributing to the breast cancer epidemic?

Many companies that raise funds for breast cancer also make products that may be contributing to the epidemic. Is the promotion a golf tournament on a golf course sprayed with pesticides? Is $1 being given each time you test-drive a polluting car, as in BMW’s Ultimate Drive Campaign? Are the products being sold cosmetics containing chemicals linked to breast cancer?

Contribute to a Cause, Not Cause-Marketers

Far too many marketing campaigns exist for it to be possible to trace the threads of profit for each, and it’s difficult to verify whether a promotion is legitimate while you’re standing in the store. Make the best choice you can with the information you have. If you have trouble getting answers or if you feel that a promotion is questionable, write to the company responsible, consider buying a different product, and tell your friends.

Better yet, ignore the pink campaign. If you want to give money to a breast cancer cause, just donate directly. This way you can be assured as to where your money is going, and for what.

My second gripe is even more politically incorrect, and borders on blasphemy, but some of it has been mentioned by Breast Cancer Action. I’ll blog on it tomorrow.

There is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal online about workplace violence–healthcare workplaces that is. The scary thing about this article is not so much the degree of violence that healthcare workers, but how blase these people seem. They seem to take it in stride and “accept” it as being a normal part of the job.

From the WSJ.com:

The risks are part of the nursing job that doesn’t get talked about much or even reported. Most nurses I’ve known seem to figure it comes with the territory. It’s something that you can’t always guard against.

Many nurses and nursing assistants have had patients accidentally injure them. One obstetrics nurse at our hospital was injured when a patient grabbed her around the neck while pushing in labor. She needed medical treatment for a neck strain afterwards.

Certified nurse assistants, who do the bulk of patient lifting and moving, get back injuries frequently. They often work shorthanded because the pay is low, the work is hard and their co-workers don’t show up. Patients unexpectedly drop on them or grab them and pull them off balance.

A 2002 study in the Journal of Emergency found that at a large Florida hospital 88% of nurses reported being verbally assaulted and 74% reported being physically assaulted while at work in the past year. (Read the abstract)

With hospitals focused on patient safety and patient satisfaction, the nursing safety issue hasn’t gotten as much attention.

Nurses and doctors in the emergency department are the most likely to encounter workplace violence.

A 2005 study of Michigan ER doctors showed that 75% were verbally threatened, 28% were physically assaulted and 3.5% were stalked in the previous year.

No, I’m sorry, but these risks are not part of the nursing job. At least, not to the rate that they are occurring. Doesn’t the rate of 74% of ER nurses being physically assaulted send out shock waves? Shouldn’t these nurses (and the physicians and everyone else in the ER) be demanding increased security in their work area? Then again, that study was done in Florida, one of those glorious right-to-work states that prides itself on crushing labor unions. But even so, there are enough jobs all over the state, and no one should be forced to work in that type of situation.

This is really a case of where healthcare workers just have to refuse to take this kind of abuse. Working as a nurse, physician, aide, etc, is hard enough as it is. You shouldn’t have to worry about violent patients and an employer who doesn’t care what happens to you. I don’t care if the hospital has to post a whole squadron of armed security guards in the ER–healthcare workers need to be protected in order to do their job.

And as far as accidental injuries, well, many if not most facilities don’t really care either. If they did, patient lifts would be standard equipment, and they’d make sure that they had sufficient personnel to assist with moving heavy equipment and patients. Hire a team of muscle men if you have to, but nurses aren’t weight lifters. But yet, I’ve heard nurses complain about how they have to lift a 300 pound patient all by themselves, or have to go and beg for help…you know what? As long as the nurse will do it, things aren’t going to change. The outcome is that the nurse thinks that she’s “helping” the patient by moving a body that needs an electronic lift or ten pairs of strong hands. She’ll hurt her back or worse, and then the hospital doesn’t want to know her. They’ll fire her, do their best to deny workman’s comp….basically, nurses are often treated like pieces of equipment. You use it until it breaks or gets worn out and then toss it out.

Do doctors and nurses ever get mugged on the TV show ER? Or do they exist in a perfect world, where all patients survive and all are bursting over with gratitude?

This is a real cutie pie spam that I received in my regular email (as opposed to the trash that litters my comment box on this blog). I assume that the spammer was hoping to make contact with a bored male social misfit who is having trouble finding a chickie on his own. Instead, it fell mercy to my delete button.

Looking to meet up with the local bar slut? Well she is looking for you as well. Horny single girls in your area who are looking for no strings attached fun. Hop inside and find yourself a horny little fuck buddy.

Now in this day and age, you really need to know more about a person if you’re interested in such a proposition. HIV and other assorted delectable STDs are rampant, so surely you would think that any self-respecting fuck-buddy to be would be able to show her future partner lab reports which indicated a clean bill of health. That’s something one must insist upon these days, with HIV still on the rise, and those ordinary run of the mill STDs becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics.

So the girl has got to be more than just horny and willing to screw without questions. She’s got to be cleaner than a whistle, and as antiseptic as Listerine.

Do you think spam will catch up to the modern age? Do you think that I would care if these spammers were infected with multi-drug resistant syphilis, and left to wallow for years as the disease ate away their body and brain and finally killed them?

I am so tired of spam. Sometimes I even accidentally delete real email as I’m clearing my mail box. And it’s funny, because rather than convince me to buy something, the continuous spam only strengthens my resolve to avoid any product that they’re pitching. Even if I was in dire need of Viagra…

You just never know what a nursing might be hiding in those sacred private parts.

From AllAfrica.com:

A 22 year old nurse, Ngozi Emeka, has been arrested with 1.375 kilogrammes of cocaine neatly concealed in her private part and wig.

According to Ofoyeju Mitchell, Public Relations Officer of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Murtala Mohammed International Airport, the suspect was arrested on October 6, 2007 while attempting to export the drugs to Venice in Italy aboard an Alitalia flight.

He said Emeka, a native of Igbanke in Edo State, had spent eight years in Italy where she trained as an auxiliary nurse

They don’t say anymore about the mysterious private part, but since the article goes on to mention that the suspect has been excreting the cocaine, then it would seem that she swallowed it, rather than inserted the loot into one of those unmentionable body cavities.

Whatever, I just thought it was an amusing story about a fallen nurse who has lost her angel wings. And one in obvious need of money, as the pay for nurses in Africa is quite poor.

I don’t know how I could have missed this exceedingly important day in history. It really should have been on my calendar…

On October 5 (the day I should have made this entry) 1823, the extremely prestigious medical journal The Lancet, made its debut. It is published out of the UK, and has spawned a little family over the decades; The Lancet Oncology, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, and The Lancet Neurology. Published out of the UK, the journal is named for the short, wide surgical knife with a double-edged blade that is used to slice and dice patients. Now why would a medical journal be named after an instrument of torture, you may wonder. Then again, this is the land that produced Frankenstein and Dracula (Bram Stoker was Irish by birth, but wrote Dracula while living in London, while business manager of the Lyceum Theatre). No wonder they found sharp instruments so exciting, and intriguing enough to name a medical journal after one.

I am a bit prejudiced towards The Lancet since I have written extensively for it, as well as its offspring. It is a fabulous medical journal, and the staff that I’ve worked with there are some of the best to found anywhere–in regards to their professionalism and the relationship with writers.

So happy belated birthday.

On a nice rainy day like today (my friend in Atlanta just emailed me and asked for some of our rain since they are in a severe drought), I thought I would send shock waves through the Internet.

First question–whatever happened to the bird flu? What happened to that dire pandemic that was upon us, and the predictions that this was the Armageddon that we’ve all been waiting for.
Is the sudden media silence about this deafening? Does it remind you of the threat of small pox a few years ago, when Bush was trying to talk everyone into getting vaccinated–that is, after giving Adventis (I think) about a billion dollars to produce a vaccine?

The threat of bio-small pox vanished when less than 10% of the “first responders” got vaccinated and the rest flatly refused. It seems that the bird flu is going down the same road. Nothing happened, it didn’t spread, it didn’t jump species in any significant way.

Second question–Does eating soy make kids gay? Don’t laugh, some people think so. If you’re feeling droopy over a dark rainy day, reading this should bring a smile to your face, and then you realize how truly loopy some of us are. According to Jim Rutz, who authored this profound piece of scientific discovery, ingesting soy products feminizes men and in turn, makes them gay.

Well according to this logic, then most of the men living in Asia are gay. Or since soy has been consumed in Asia for thousands of years, it seems that their societies would have died out long ago, since there just wouldn’t have been enough straight guys to keep producing babies.

And I’ve also seen a lot of gay men who redefine the term masculine–nothing sweet and chi chi about these bruisers. They probably beat up hairdressers for fun.

Anyway, the stupidity of this logic isn’t worth discussing, but there is a lot of soy-mongering going on these days. I may blog about that later on, as I’ve been reading some of this stuff on the web, and it seems to emanate from a few small but very vocal groups–primarily those who promote eating beef and drinking cow’s milk. Strange, huh. But I look at it this way—you can do all the scientific studies that you want, but the fact remains that soy has been an integral part of Asian diets for millenniums. In China, soybean were mentioned in texts that are over 5,000 years. Soybeans were introduced to Indonesia about 1600 years ago.

Considering the population of Asia, I doubt that soy has had a detrimental effect on health. Considering that the Japanese who eat traditional diets have some of the longest and healthiest lives on this planet, and considering their love affair with soy (there are 38,000 tofu shops in Japan and even the 7-11 stores sell tofu), I can’t imagine what danger soy holds for me.

I have added a new category to my repertoire called celluloid healers, which will highlight the blunders, idiocy and occasional reality that pops up on both the small and big screen. Celluloid medicine, celluloid doctors, celluloid nurses. I have mentioned this in passing in other posts, but I think it’s a fun topic and that deserves some attention–considering that many people tend to think of medical themed television as quasi-documentaries.

This is a great article on the subject that appeared in Slate, and that was written by two doctors. In this article, they mention an old TV show called The Nurses, that was ultimately a flop. The article says that… “Its producer, Herbert Brodkin, refused to hire AMA vetters, instead employing a nurse to ensure medical accuracy. The Nurses flopped.”

I am curious why the show was a flop. It apparently ran from 1962 to 1963 and then the name was changed to The Doctors and Nurses. This is a description of the show from the IMDB:

The story takes place in a large hospital and revolves around two nurses, Liz Thorpe (Shirl Conway), the older head nurse, and Gail Lucas, the naive student nurse. The two nurses were joined by doctors in 1964 and these doctors tried to help the nurses resolve moral and ethical problems.

Were the nurses not all that interesting on their own, without the support of the handsome TV doc to solve all problems? Although, in 1962, nursing had far more limitations on it than it does now, and most vital decisions would have been deferred to the physician. Also, in 1962, nursing was a low paying job that many women entered because older professions were closed off to them, or difficult to enter because they were female. Since nursing education at the time was largely via a hospital which usually supplied room and board and even a stipend, it was a cheap way to get trained and enter the job market. Finally, many women did become nurses in hopes of meeting the doctor-husband who would raise their status in the world, and allow them to quit nursing!

So maybe the public didn’t find a show about nurses all that intriguing, due to attitudes and perceptions of the time period of women in general, and nurses.

Just a little tidbit of information for the statistically minded folks among us. Despite all of the money we pour into healthcare, the United States continues to lag at least 40 other nations in life span. Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, has the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to a U.S. Census Bureau analysis of 2004 international data. It was followed by Japan, Macau (which is part of China), San Marino and Singapore.

Now how does that grab you? Imagine being beaten out by a country the size of a flea.

Just like a virulent bacteria or virus, Wal-Mart has spread across the U.S. The entry from Boing Boing contains an interactive map, which shows the insidious spread of WalMartitis, from ground zero in Bentonville, AR.

When you click on the Boing Boing link, you will see a map of the US that begins in 1962, with the first Walmart store. Then as the years and decades go by, you can see how the WalMart pathogen has spread, just like any other dangerous parasite.

The good news is that we seem to be developing a way of containing WalMartitis, and of eradicating the parasite. Hopefully, we will see it vanish, just like small pox and polio.

Today, though, Wal-Mart’s influence over the retail universe is slipping. In fact, the industry’s titan is scrambling to keep up with swifter rivals that are redefining the business all around it. It can still disrupt prices, as it did last year by cutting some generic prescriptions to $4. But success is no longer guaranteed.

Rival retailers lured Americans away from Wal-Mart’s low-price promise by offering greater convenience, more selection, higher quality, or better service. Amid the country’s growing affluence, Wal-Mart has struggled to overhaul its down-market, politically incorrect image while other discounters pitched themselves as more upscale and more palatable alternatives. The Internet has changed shoppers’ preferences and eroded the commanding influence Wal-Mart had over its suppliers.

You know, the Walton family are among the richest people in the world. WalMart still earns zillions in profit. So why should I have to subsidize WalMart employees, who are often eligible for public assistance (think Medicaid) because their pay check is so low, and WalMart refuses to offer universal health insurance to its employees.

Well, if you read my saga over Stargate Atlantis the other day, it seems that other people were also having this problem (iTune didn’t single us out!), and the defective DVD has been removed. Hopefully the really season opener, Adrift, will be on line at iTunes, so desperate folks such as myself can finally see it.

This has caused severe mental stress (Stargate addiction), so this topic does fall under the health category. And while I’m at it, here’s another tie-in between healthcare and the Stargate series—they are doctor killers. Yes, blood thirsty doctor killers. On both SG1 and Stargate Atlantis, two of the main characters were killed off. Both were very popular, well liked with fans (especially Carson Beckett from Atlantis), and what’s more, there was absolutely no reason at all to kill them. None whatsoever. It didn’t anything to the story line, didn’t advance the story, didn’t make the show more interesting. There were no also disputes with the actors themselves, ie as in one of them wanting to leave the show, or demanding a ridiculous sum of money, etc.

Both characters killed were doctors.

So, what do the producers of Stargate have against the medical profession?

Just a note from those glorious archives of healthcare history. On this date in 1918, the very first school of public health opened. The School of Hygiene and Public Health opened its doors as part of Johns Hopkins University, and its goal was “the preservation and improvement of health.” There were 16 students in the first graduating class.