Sunday, November 29, 2009

How I Triggered My Own PTSD

I’m in rather (quite?) a dissociative state now from yesterday/last night but I really want to write about this now.  Let’s see what I can do.  Apologies in advance for messiness, errors and severe “out-of-sens-ed-ness.”

Yesterday, it was my mother’s birthday.  She’s nuts.  Totally crazy.  So am I but at least I am dx’d and being treated.  She is not.  She is in tremendous denial.  Nonetheless, I needed to call her.  I was extremely anxious as talking to her is immensely painful.  She rambles on non-stop, all about herself…ugh.  The Asperger’s was really kicking in as I was totally stimmy.  I was going to my friend J.’s for dinner so at an appropriate stop via transit, time for Valium.

Our conversation was decidedly atypical.  It was relatively brief, all about me, my mental and physical health and even more.  A few years ago, she would not even acknowledge these things–again, complete denial.  After this phone call, I was tremendously relieved, despite its surprising nature.  I was quite happy.

Now, regarding some of the “even more,” I need to give you some background information.  A while ago, I was thinking about my great uncle (my mother’s uncle.)  He was always considered “odd.”  So much of an understatement there.  He would have been “medically dx’d” as “retarded.”  I had brief memories of him as a child but now, since my own dx. of Asperger’s, a massive sledgehammer has hit me over the head: He’s Autistic! Even after a few, simple questions to my mother, suspicions confirmed.

I had suggested to go for a visit to see them.  Them, meaning his older sister, as well.  She has devoted her entire life to taking care of him because he can not function on his own.  I had made this suggestion prior to having my tonic-clonic seizure in September.  After that happened, my health became such a nightmare, that plan needed to be put on hold.

So, during the telephone conversation last night, I tossed it onto the table again.  Of course, not a problem.  However, there is some urgency to the matter.  They are old.  I need to see him in action, this example of a possible genetic link? This is awesome! Although, this was not my trigger as I had suggested it before.

After J. and I had dinner, something was wrong.  I began to feel my anxiety rise again.  I couldn’t figure out why.  Yes, the telephone call was atypical but I was happy about it.  And in thinking, recent conversations? My mother has been more caring about my life of late with all that has gone on–getting laid off, health going down the toilet etc… I fought off taking another Valium.  I can fend off this anxiety…yes, I can.

On the way home, I gave in.  I pulled out my bottle of pills, stared at them for a bit and just popped another Valium.  Then, I began to dissociate.  When my thinking started to become a little less fuzzy, my brain virtually screamed at me: “OMFG!!! WHAT DID YOU JUST DO?!?!”

What did I do?

I didn’t think at all about the time I proposed for the visit.  I “thought” it would be nice if we did it some time around Christmas as they are all alone and on their own.  Fuck me.  Christmas has always been kind of triggery for me as my mother made it so disastrous.  Now, I’m tossing more family members into the mix that may bring back flashbacks, I have no idea…  All I do know is that I’ve now created a field full of landmines for myself.  And I’ll be walking across it wearing a blindfold.

I’ve got some time to try and prepare myself, but I’m not sure how exactly to do that, not knowing what the hell I’ll be getting myself into.  I might be able to figure something out, though, as I’m surely not thinking clearly at all now.  Even if I’m still reeling from all of this tomorrow, I think I should call Merlin #2.  I can get in before I make the visit, no doubt? He wants me to start seeing a therapist anyway, but no.  This requires immediate intervention.

I could be as dissociative to appear in a coma, yet still realize that?

[Via http://patientanonymous.wordpress.com]

Caturday

While a-wandering aimlessly through Primrose Hill yesterday, I came across the Museum of Everything. This is a pretty lofty claim for any museum to make, particularly one that small. The Museum is, in fact, an exhibition of Outsider Art.

Outsider Art is another of those very broad terms. It theoretically means art produced by someone outside of the mainstream art world. However, a few of the artists on display at the Museum (notably Alfred Wallis) are fairly respectable these days, so I suppose an easier definition would be “art by weirdoes.” No doubt someone will tell me off for that definition, but it’s the simplest one I can think of. Outsider artists are often untrained, naive and primitivist in style. The Outsider Art movement started in the 1920s when the psychiatrist Dr Walter Morgenthaler began studying the art produced by mental patients in his care. The concept was enthusiastically embraced by world of anti-establishment art and, over the years, has broadened in scope to the point where I have trouble summing it up in less than a hundred words.

The artworks on display, as you might imagine, were fascinating. Some were childlike, some obsessive, some bizarro and disturbing. Each artist’s work was displayed with a plaque giving some critical perspective, often serving primarily to show how very much cleverer the critic is than you, the plebeian viewer.

One exhibit they had was easy to overlook – a single painting, only about the size of a postcard, hung on the corridor wall. It depicted what appeared to be a cat in abstract pattern form. This was a work by Louis Wain. The critical perspective was by Nick Cave and simply said, “Louis Wain. My all-time favourite artist.” Thanks, Nick.

Louis Wain is a favourite artist of mine. I’ve never really thought of him as an outsider artist, as he enjoyed a great deal of commercial success in the Edwardian era. However, he’s now probably as famous for his mental illness as he is for his actual work, so I suppose it’s a justifiable label.

I first became aware of Wain’s work when I played him on stage a few years back (see Further Reading for a review, below). His thing, as an artist, was cats.

His most successful works depicted anthropomorphised cats, such as the ones on the left. In the Edwardian era, these were hugely popular, and there was even a series of Louis Wain annuals. It’s even commonly suggested (not least by Wain himself) that the popularity of cats as a household pet is in part due to these cartoons.

He was born in Clerkenwell in 1860 and was a sickly child with a cleft lip. He wasn’t sent to school until the age of ten, and was never what you’d call a good pupil, preferring to play truant and go off exploring nature. He trained as an artist and became a teacher and commercial illustrator. In 1883 he caused something of a scandal by marrying Emily Richardson, his former governess. The concept of a younger man marrying an older woman being considered bizarre and perverted at the time (whereas the other way round is, of course, absolutely in line with the natural order of things). Sadly, Emily died three years later from cancer. To entertain her during her long illness, Louis bought a black and white cat named Peter whom he taught to perform tricks. His pictures of Peter gave him his first major commercial success, and things took off from there.

Wain at workHis cartoon cats were, as he saw it, a means of getting closer to human nature. He would satirise current human trends by depicting its practitioners in feline form and even produced cat-caricatures of prominent figures of the day. He also produced semi-realistic portraits of cats (although they almost always had cartoonishly large eyes) and, famously, abstract “pattern cats.”

He also dabbled in ceramics.Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the popularity of his cats proved to be a fad, and by the end of the First World War his work had ceased to be popular. What made things worse was the fact that while he was stylistically versatile, he only really had the one subject. He never quite got the hang of art that didn’t involve cats. An inability to adapt, coupled with his appalling business sense, resulted in his being reduced to poverty. Many of his sketches from this period were actually done in lieu of payment for goods and services.

And at this point I suppose we should get on to the reason he’s classed as an Outsider. From an early age, Wain was seen as something of an oddball. His speech tended to be disjointed and often zipping off on strange tangents. A drink he rather enjoyed was Bovril and soda. He developed strange beliefs about the properties of electricity and its effects on people. Worse, as time went on, he became increasingly delusional and violent towards his sisters (with whom he lived following Emily’s death) and in 1924 was institutionalised at the Springfield Hospital in Tooting.

The initial diagnosis was that he was a “neuropath,”  although he was later rediagnosed as having schizophrenia. A theory gaining increasing popularity is that he actually had Asberger’s Syndrome, which at the time wasn’t understood. This would certainly fit with his erratic behaviour, as well as his obsessive cat-painting. A popular but stupid theory has it that the progression of Wain’s mental illness can be traced in the abstraction of his work. That is to say, the abstract cats illustrate the way he actually saw the world at that point. As theories go, this is up there with “Hey, The Magic Roundabout is a bit weird, they must have been on drugs, amirite?” Detractors of the theory, including Yr. Humble Chronicler, make the following points.

  1. Much of his work is undated, so we have no way of knowing how ill he was when he produced his unpublished work.
  2. His father was a textile salesman. Wain’s “pattern cats” are more likely to have been influenced by fabric patterns than a disjointed mind.
  3. He produced a number of pictures during his time in hospital which aren’t abstract.
  4. If he was so nutty that he saw cats as colourful geometric patterns, how come he could still sign his name, smartarse?
  5. Schizophrenics don’t see the world like that, you fail psychology forever.

Fortunately for Wain, while he may no longer have been popular commercially, the public retained a great deal of affection for him. In 1925, when he was found on the pauper ward at Springfield, an appeal was launched to assist him with such names attached as H. G. Wells and Stanley Baldwin, the then Prime Minister. He was moved to the rather more pleasant Bethlem Royal Hospital in Lambeth (now the Imperial War Museum) and then to the more countrified Napsbury Hospital in Hertfordshire. He died in 1939.

He is buried in Kensal Green Cemetery, and his grave is, it must be said, in a somewhat dilapidated condition.

Further Reading

http://www.museumofeverything.com/ - The Museum of Everything

http://www.yat.org.uk/productions/index.php3?sid=93 - This is what happened when I played Louis Wain.

http://www.lilitu.com/catland/gallery.shtml - A Wain gallery.

http://www.chrisbeetles.com/gallery/artist.php?art=3077 - Another Wain gallery

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/gallery/gall_leonardo/fig1-a.htm - The theory about Wain’s progressive abstraction.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=8212267 - Wain’s grave

[Via http://londonparticulars.wordpress.com]

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Infection-allergy link questioned

Is this not questioning the fundamentals of vaccine?
Story:
The notion of exposing young children to infections in a bid to protect them from later allergies is wrong, latest research suggests.
The decades-old “hygiene hypothesis” holds that early exposure to microbes somehow challenges the immune system and strengthens it against allergies.
Studies have shown children exposed to bugs by older siblings or attending nursery cut their future allergy risk.
But new work published by the American Thoracic Society casts doubt on this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8241774.stm

[Via http://ramanan50.wordpress.com]

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Alternative Medicine Hospital - Goiania, Brazil

The Alternative Medicine Hospital in Goiania, Brazil provides treatments in the areas of homeopathy, acupuncture, phytotherapy, nutrition, etc.  They offer workshops, group therapy and treatments with medical doctors, psychologists, dietitians, nurses, speech language pathologists, physiotherapists, and social workers.

To go to their website, please click at the image above (unfortunately, there is no English version, just Portuguese).

[Via http://sapientias.wordpress.com]

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Eye implants enable researchers to see drug induced hallucinations.

Eye ball implants will enable researchers to see the world through the eyes of drug users.

The National Reporter
Scientists at MIT’s nanotechnology labs have developed a new type of vision enhancing implant that can be mounted onto the eyeballs of volunteers.
Once in place, the implants pick up the brainwaves of the test subject while under the influence of mind altering drugs such as LSD and are able to transmit the actual hallucinogenic images they are seeing back to a monitor.
“This is a major breakthrough in the field of psychiatric medicine.” Doctor Fred Reeves told  The National Reporter.
“This device will allow us to see exactly what people under the influence of drugs see.  This will help us to understand how certain drugs effect the mind.”
The National Reporter  was on hand during the first field test of the new device to see how it worked.
The first subject was fitted with his broadcasting unit and then given a dose of LSD,  he was then equiped with an inconspicuous antenna that was mounted on top of the head like a hat.
When the LSD began to take effect,  the subject was led away from the test vehicle and set free to walk around the town as the excited scientists watched every thing he was seeing through the monitor.
After awhile the images started to become fuzzy with small flashes of colored light skittering around objects,  then things began to stretch out of shape as if time and space itself was being torn apart.
The scientists watched closely as the subject walked up to a police officer and stared at him for a few minutes.

The subject found the traffic officer very interesting for some reason.

When we looked at the monitor we could see what he found so interesting about the policeman.
In the drug abusers mind, the police officer had become a green clay like creature and the automobiles behind him had somehow morphed into a little troll bridge like one would see in a children’s fantasy film.

The police officer appeared to be a green creature made out of clay

An aide who was following the subject to make sure he didn’t get into any trouble, came forward and nudged him away from the police officer and guided him down the street a short distance.
When he began crossing over to sidewalk cafe that was bustling with people, he stopped dead in his tracks and stared wide-eyed at a pair of small people.
For the next few minutes the subject and the tiny couple were locked in a staring contest.
They of course had no idea that he was high on drugs, they thought he was being rude.

The tiny couple and the test subject were frozen in their tracks staring each other down.

Back at the lab’s video monitor we could see exactly what our subject was seeing in his drugged up stupor and it was truly amazing.
To him, the dwarf couple appeared to be some sort of alien creatures and they were making strange sounds, like birds peeping and chirping.
Everything in the background, people, cars and objects seemed to be moving in slow motion and an odd sound like a deep oscillating hum was echoing from the distance.

The dwarf couple appeared to be small alien type beings squirming and making peeping sounds.

After a few minutes, the dwarf couple gave the test subject a dirty look and walked off.
He started to follow them but he was intercepted by the aid and brought back to the lab.
The scientists figured he had too much LSD and that he might get himself into trouble.
The subject was sedated and placed on a cot with his arms and legs strapped down for safety reasons while the scientists sat at the monitors reviewing the recordings of his LSD adventure.
“This is going to be a major breakthrough in the study of drug induced psychosis.” Doctor Freely said. “Instead of guessing what is wrong with a patient and taking great risk to calm them down when they are in this condition, emergency room personal will be able to see what is going on in the minds of their patients and it will be much easier for them to treat them.”
The National Reporter - It’s also very amusing to see the bizarre things that they are seeing.
“Yes, it is.” Doctor Freely said.

[Via http://aceflashman.wordpress.com]

Impactiviti Daily 112409

I wish all my readers and pharma-industry colleagues a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday!

TODAY’S NEWS

Cephalon, Ception, and CINQUIL: the stats don’t reach significance, but at least all the names are similar – “We are pleased to see a positive biological effect of CINQUIL,” said Steve Tullman, Chief Executive Officer at Ception Therapeutics. “Conducting clinical studies in a new disease area is always challenging. We will continue to review the data from this study and from our ongoing open-label study to find the best path forward for CINQUIL for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.”…more

Might a few companies (such as Endo or King) be targets to go private? WSJ reports.

Can pharma sales reps be turned into better value creators? A question we’re all thinking about…

Duh.

Oops. Abbott’s Meridia weight-loss drug associated with higher rate of cardiovascular events – Meridia is a weight-loss drug approved in 1997. As part of its post-approval commitments, Abbott has been conducting a large study of 10,000 patients to determine whether treatment with Meridia could reduce the number of heart-related adverse events compared to a placebo. In mid-November, however, Abbott reported to regulatory agencies that treatment with Meridia was associated with an 11.4% rate of cardiovascular events compared to 10% for patients treated with placebo…more

RECOMMENDED

HR – leadership, compliance, diversity, and more. The Impactiviti network of providers has solutions, not only for pharma sales training, but for a whole range of corporate and HR training (inside and outside of life sciences).  Contact us (stevew at impactiviti dot com, or phone at 973-947-7429) for recommendations.

PLUS

An update on Pfizer’s Social Media initiatives. Encouraging!

JUST FOR FUN

Changing behavior through fun. The Piano Stairs.

———-

Subscribe to the Impactiviti blog via e-mail (which will bring you Impactiviti Daily – a brief of the day’s top pharma news)

Sign up for the Impactiviti Connection twice-monthly e-newsletter (see sample)

Connect with Steve Woodruff

[Via http://impactiviti.wordpress.com]

Sunday, November 22, 2009

You Need It To Live, But Too Much Will Kill You

You Need It To Live, But Too Much Will Kill You

Seldom in history has a product worn the horns of the Devil and the wings of an angel at the same time. Loved and respected because it provides the energy we need to work, to play, even to breathe, sugar is so important to our diet our bodies take several things we eat and convert them into sugars.

However, eat too much sugar and your body will blimp up and your organs will slowly but surely break down. Never has “moderate consumption” been so important.

But what’s “moderate”? How can we tell what’s too much?

Let’s look at an example.

In our example you will eat 16 teaspoons of refined sugar all in one short sitting. Don’t worry, it will be in liquid form. Sound outrageous? That’s how much sugar is in a 20 ounce bottle of cola. In every bottle.

In general, if you look at the ingredient list of products before you buy them and see some that end in the letters “…ose” you have various different kinds of sugars. Sugars come with other name endings, but “…ose” tends to be the most common ending in packaged foods we eat. Most of them are complex sugars our bodies break down into simple ones so they can be used to burn as energy.

Sugars, along with starch, are the basic carbohydrates. Inside your gut they all become sugars, ultimately simple sugars. What your body can’t use it will expel through your colon or convert to fat for storage.

Because our bodies can only convert a limited amount of sugar into fat at one time, if you are going to eat too much sugar, eat it in a binge. Most of it you will enjoy in your mouth and you will get rid of it in the toilet the next day. Eat a little too much sugar on a regular basis and your body will store it in special cells in your body known as fat cells.

The average American consumes 61 pounds of refined sugar each year. About 25 pounds of that would be in the form of candy. That’s just sucrose, though, and the number doesn’t include amounts of any other sugars we consume.

Sugar may cause your skin to wrinkle. Called glycation, blood sugar in the skin binds to collagen so the skin loses its elasticity. Cut out excess sugar consumption and your skin may retain its elasticity. No good or easy or cheap method exists today to help skin regain its elasticity.

There’s nothing new about the kind of sugar we eat. When Alexander the Great invaded India over 2000 years ago he was shocked at how the people managed to create “honey” without bees.

Sugar cane is a plant of hot climate countries. That’s why people who live in the tropics have had it sweet for so long. Andreas Marggraf discovered, in 1747, that the sugar in sugar beets was the same as that in sugar cane. Sugar beets can be grown in much colder climates than sugar cane.

The first sugar beet factory opened in 1802. Over half of the 8.4 metric tonnes of sugar used in the USA this year–no, seriously, make that 8.4 million metric tonnes–will come from sugar beets. Sugar beets are a form of beet with white sweet roots. Only the root is used to make refined sugar.

Getting back to soft drinks, the kinds with artificial sweeteners may contribute to obesity rather than prevent it. A study at Purdue University using rats had one group consuming soft drinks with artificial sweeteners and another with sugar-sweetened drinks.

The group that drank the artificial sweeteners consumed more calories from other foods than the sugar group. The study did not consider the controversial belief that long term consumption of the artificial sweetener aspartame might cause major diseases. Rats don’t live long enough.

Like many popular discoveries artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharin were found by accident. Lab researchers working on projects having nothing to do with sweetening mixed some test compounds and decided to taste them.

Ask yourself what kind of researcher eats his own experiment.

The artificial sweetener Splenda came about in an even stranger way. The scientists were looking for a new insecticide. [I'll just wait here while you process that thought. Prepare yourself for the next part so we don't have to pause again.]

A lab assistant had been asked to “test” the compound, but he thought he had been told to “taste” the compound. Remember, they had been looking for an insecticide. [Good thing you prepared yourself for that.]

Table sugar certainly isn’t the sweetest taste around. A compound called lugduname is actually 200,000 times sweeter. [Do you wonder where the lab assistant is today that tasted that stuff?]

Sugars are compounds of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The simplest (simple sugars) are most commonly known as glucose, fructose and galactose. Table sugar (a complex sugar) consists of one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule fused together. Other complex sugars dance with different partners.

We don’t want to avoid sugars totally because they are carbohydrates, by far the most common organic molecules in all living things. [Unless you consider minerals to be "living," which is a whole different discussion.]

An eight-atom sugar called glycolaldehyde has the ability to react with a three-carbon sugar to form ribose, a major component of RNA (ribonucleic acid), which does the real work in living things while DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) takes all the credit.

Who cares? Glycolaldehyde has been found in an interstellar gas cloud near the centre of the Milky Way. [Stay with me here.] Glycolaldehyde may therefore be a precursor of life on our planet. If it’s in space, it might have been here.

That same gas cloud, by the way, contains ethylene glycol, which most of us think of as antifreeze. Which is sweet, but lethal, as many animals have learned when they licked up antifreeze leaks.

These are complex sugars. In deep space. We must at least hypothesize that they were synthesized in space. We haven’t yet guessed how that could happen.

Sugar can be used as more than a fuel for your body. Burn table sugar (sucrose) with some corn syrup and a bit of saltpeter and you have a popular amateur rocket fuel.

It’s also sometimes prescribed by doctors. Yup, you pay a dispensing fee to buy a product called “Obecalp,” a sugar pill made to FDA specifications. It may be prescribed for mild problems with a variety of symptoms but no clear therapy. [Spell the product name backwards.]

Not only is the “placebo effect” surprisingly real according to recent studies, the sugar itself may actually help clear up symptoms. Glucosamine works as an immunosuppressant (drug that lowers the body’s normal immune response) in mice.

Immune system suppression is a mixed blessing because while it can go crazy sometimes, such as with allergies, it also protects us from viruses and bad bacteria. The sugar alcohol xylitol can be used to prevent ear infections in children.

You better have a dose of Obecalp and think about this.

Bill Allin is the author of Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today’s Epidemic Social Problems, a guidebook for teachers, parents and grandparents who want to grow children who are healthy in all developmental streams, not just intellectually and physically. It’s a great gift.
Learn more at http://billallin.com

[Primary resource: Discover, October 2009]

[Via http://tiabuilder.wordpress.com]

Senate Health Bill Clears Hurdle

By Anna Edney and Dan Friedman

The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines Saturday night to take up sweeping healthcare overhaul legislation, a victory that belies the tough haul ahead to assuage lingering Democratic concerns that threaten final passage.

Four moderate Democrats – Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut – have made clear they will help Republicans thwart final passage if Majority Leader Reid does not change the opt-out public plan in his $848 billion bill. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, did not vote.

“I’ve already alerted the leader, and I’m promising my colleagues, that I’m prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included,” Lincoln said Saturday afternoon.

Lincoln, preceded by Landrieu by about two hours, was the last Democratic holdout to reveal she would vote for cloture on the motion to proceed, giving Reid the 60th vote he needed to move forward on the bill.

Senators will now scatter to their home states for Thanksgiving break and return Monday, Nov. 30, to begin debate on amendments. President Obama wants the Senate to pass the bill before Christmas. Saturday night’s cloture vote, which doubled as a motion to proceed to the bill, allowed Reid to bring up his proposal as a substitute amendment.

Immediately after the vote, Reid suggested the version of a public option in his bill could be altered.

Asked in a post-vote press conference how he can line up 60 votes for his bill in the face of the moderates’ opposition to its proposed national public option with a state opt-out, Reid appeared to open the door to a less-robust alternative being developed by Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., Landrieu and others.

Reid said the group, which also includes Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., hopes “to find a public option that is acceptable to all the Democrats.” Asked if he had requested the alternative, Reid said, “No, it is my understanding that Senator Landrieu said today that she is working with Senator Schumer and Carper.”

Carper’s alternative would require a public option be established the same day exchanges created in the plan take effect, but only in states that do not meet a yet-to-be determined affordability standard for coverage. It would begin under HHS direction but eventually have a nonprofit, presidentially appointed board, Carper has said.

But such an option would face opposition from liberals who could defect, public option backers said. “Four members of the Senate aren’t gonna tell the other 55 what to do on these issues,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. “I expect this bill to pass with a public option.” Brown said he would not draw “lines in the sand” but said other liberals might. “We’ve compromised four times already,” he said.

Sen. John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W.Va., another backer of a public option, downplayed Reid’s statement, saying, “Harry has always said that. And he has always meant it.”

Landrieu insisted that any public option resemble a trigger approach championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Landrieu wants the version to be a “free-standing, premium-support, competitive community option,” rather than the national, government-run plan in the bill.

Lincoln said private insurers can be held accountable without the public option.

“We can still force private insurance plans that participate in the exchanges to provide standard benefit packages that are easy to compare and more fairly priced,” she said. “We will be bringing millions of new customers to the exchanges so insurers would be motivated to lower their prices and be competitive.”

Lieberman previously said he would not support final passage of the bill if it includes a public option, and Nelson has expressed similar concerns.

Nelson also has said he has concerns the legislation permits federal funding of abortions. The Senate overhaul proposal does not allow federal funds to be used for abortion except in extreme cases and tasks HHS with deciding if and how the public option might cover abortions.

Senate Republicans presented a unified front in what aides described as a coordinated attack on Reid’s bill in the past two days of floor debate and in media appearances, blasting the bill’s size, cost and outcomes. In an effort directed by Senate Minority Leader McConnell and assisted by Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, leadership aides arranged for about 15 GOP senators to appear on their local television and radio stations, while all but seven GOP senators spoke on the floor Friday and today, GOP aides said.

“There has really been a team effort on making that happen,” said a Republican leadership aide. “That doesn’t always happen.”

McConnell said a vote in favor of this bill “is a vote in favor of tax burden of the American people in the middle of double-digit unemployment” raising “health insurance premiums on people who were told they should expect their health insurance costs to go down” and of continuing “the out-of-control spending binge Congress has been on all year.”

Reid said the vote was only a vote to debate the overhaul, not in support of anything.

“Let us negotiate. Let us deliberate. Let us debate,” Reid said. “Our country needs this debate.”

Republicans also lamented the party-line vote. The vote represents “the first time in half a century that a historic piece of legislation … was enacted on party lines,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whose vote Democrats still hope to win. “That would be a sad commentary on the political process.”

Snowe said it is one thing to debate these public option alternatives and “another thing whether or not they’re prepared to incorporate bipartisan proposals.”

The vote came before a packed gallery, with senators sitting quietly in their seats, even though the outcome was effectively determined. Breaking the somber mood during the vote, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., laughing, in a voice audible in the press gallery, joked “What’s going to happen?”

TonyfromOz adds …..

Watch as the Pork starts to get loaded onto this to win key votes. This is going to be the biggest bacon bonanza in history.

Read more timely articles at Congress Daily and the National Journal

[Via http://papundits.wordpress.com]

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Parents' Level of Care Must Be Monitored

Submitted by Richard Hetzler

When the level of care for your aging parent must be increased, it’s important for caregivers to take a more active role in how that care is delivered.

When my mother moved to the Chicago area, she stayed in an assisted living facility with which we were extremely pleased. But after a stay in the hospital, she was required to move to the rehab facility on the same campus.  Since we were so happy with the assisted living facility, I made the mistake of assuming that she would be well cared for in the rehab facility.

They had made no effort to compare treatment plans from the adjacent building. For example, they had every pain medicine labeled “PRN” (Latin: pro re nata, which means taken as needed).  That meant that she would receive no pain medicine unless she asked for it, but she had been on a pain management regiment for years so never had to ask before, and now did not realize the change.  Once I saw the intense pain that she was in, I had to act, to get the facility to resume her pain management regiment, but it was a difficult process.

Most facilities have a certain level of care that they are prepared to offer, and sometimes do not recognize when residents require greater care.  It’s important for children and caregivers to get involved and stay involved in the decision making process before a parent is moved.

Uninsured Twice as Likely to Die in ER

“Uninsured patients with traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital as similarly injured patients with health insurance, according to a troubling new study.

The findings by Harvard University researchers surprised doctors and health experts who have believed emergency room care was equitable.” (Truthdig)

Thursday, November 19, 2009

New guidelines for breast cancer detection

The new mammography guidelines are shocking because they cloud the issue of breast cancer, and move us backwards rather than forwards to a cure.
If we want to discover breast cancer early, we need to practice early detection.
If we follow the new guidelines, more women under 50 will have advanced breast cancer before it’s treated.
It seems the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force has a mission to increase the incidence of breast cancer in young women where the impact on women and their families is greater, and more expensive treatments are required after diagnosis.
It seems to me like a plot to ramp up big business, and to create more money for companies with an interest in chemotherapy drugs, cancer treatments, etc.
You can read more about the guidelines at: http://breastcancer.about.com/b/2009/11/16/mammo-guidelines.htm?nl=1
In light of the new recommendations, we need a grass roots movement to protect ourselves from the curse of cancer. Here is a good article with advice on what individuals can do to prevent breast cancer:
Integrative Medicine Approaches to Reducing Breast Cancer Risk
-Practice monthly self-breast exams.
-Eat 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day, preferably raw
-Limit your intake of animal fats, particularly red meat.
-Eat lots of fiber
-Avoid drinking two or more glasses of alcohol per day
-Increase your intake of superfoods high in antioxidants, such as kale, beets, carrots, beans, collard greens, brussel sprouts, and broccoli. If you’re not good about eating your veggies, try Sun Chlorella.
-Drink green juice. It’s a great way to alkalinize your body, and cancer likes acid, not alkalinity.
-Avoid dairy or use organic butter, cheese, and milk, as they are less likely to be contaminated with human growth hormone or estrogen, which is sometimes used to stimulate milk production in cows.
-Use extra-virgin olive oil, raw flaxseed oil, and cod liver oil.
-Expose yourself to the sun. High levels of Vitamin D help fight cancer.
-Exercise. It helps detoxify the body and decreases the amount of estrogen that reaches the breasts. Women who exercise regularly have a 30% lower risk of breast cancer.
-Apply loving energy to your breasts with daily massage. Massage your breast tissue and the area under your arms while you’re soaping yourself in the shower. Close your eyes and visualize healthy breast tissue. Release all fear of breast cancer through a release valve at your root chakra. Dump the toxic energy of fear into the earth’s core and allow the golden light and radiant healing of the Universe to enter through the top of your head. Close your eyes and imagine healing energy extending from your heart, through your arms, to your hands.
-Talk to your doctor about when you should begin mammography and/or breast thermography.
-Be aware of your family history. If you have a first degree family member who was diagnosed with breast cancer before menopause, consider talking to a genetic counselor.
-Limit alcohol intake, and if you do drink alcohol, make sure you’re getting enough folic acid in your diet. If not, take a supplement that includes folic acid.
-If you are at higher risk for breast cancer, talk to your doctor about supplements you can use to reduce your risk.
You can find the whole article at: http://www.owningpink.com/2009/11/17/owning-our-boobs-thoughts-on-the-new-mammography-recommendations/
Women need to unite and fight back against the new guidelines.
We need to stand up for ourselves, and protect our health so we stay well rather than raise our risk of getting cancer.
Cancer is a despicable disease – my breast cancer advanced to Stage II because I hadn’t done screening mammography or Breast Self Examination (BSE). My doctor was doing cursory Clinical Breast Exams on a yearly basis, but breast cancer can grow rapidly, between visits, in young women. Women who are taught how to do proper BSE on a monthly basis do not increase the number of false positives.
Breast Self Examination helps women to take charge of their health.
This website will show you how to do BSE: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_How_to_perform_a_breast_self_exam_5.asp?sitearea=
I used to do mammography, so I support annual mammograms and I think it is good advice to do BSE consistently and well:
Keep a journal of what you find – each month, when you do BSE, draw a picture of your breasts and date it. Draw in any lumps, ridges, thickening, skin changes, etc. Measure areas you want to watch and record the size; you can equate the size to a grain of rice, pea, grape, walnut, etc. In this way you have a record which you can show your doctor. It will increase your confidence if you practice BSE properly. If you have a controlled record of what you find, there is less chance of worry over lumps that are not changing. New changes and visible changes such as dimpling and thickened skin should be reported immediately.

The small stuff

Don’t sweat the small stuff, don’t lose the forest for the trees–great advice, generally. But little things sometimes make all the difference, as I’ve learned in both my profession and my passion.

My day job is radiology. I sit before a bank of flat screens and look at x-rays, ultrasounds, CTs, and MRIs—thousands of images a day. Each must be evaluated carefully, on its own and with its fellows, for every case. Often there’s just one that shows the crucial finding—an errant lymph node, a wedge of fluid where none belongs, a wayward spot in an unsuspecting brain. Sometimes it’s what we call a ‘corner shot,’ a flicker at the edge of vision. Far from the center of attention, like a kidney mass on the last image of a chest CT, these may be overlooked. Every detail, though, is created equal in my world, and as such must be respected. Of course, that doesn’t mean losing sight of the patient. Getting these details right is a necessary first step to seeing the whole picture.

Photography, my other occupation, is no different. Here too every detail counts, from gear to composition. Did I set the aperture right for the depth of field I wanted? What about the exposure comp? Did I remember to charge my spare batteries? Will this scene look better as a vertical, or a horizontal? And do I want a fast shutter, a slow one, or something in between? The crucial question is this: what image do I hold in my head, what am I striving to create? Sure, some things can be tweaked in Photoshop, but the fundamentals must be right before the shutter snaps.

Though I love the vastness of the forest, I recognize the value of each tree—not to lose myself in, but as pieces of that prized larger picture. That small stuff can be pretty big.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Mammogram Confusion

Image via Wikipedia

Up until recently, women have been advised to start getting mammograms at age 40 and to also engage in regular self-examination. However, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently decided that women under 50 should no longer receive routine screenings.

While the Task Force presented a fairly clear statement, there seems to be some confusion about this matter. This is due, in part, to the fact that other experts have been rather critical of the new guidelines.

Some might also suspect that folks in the media have contributed to this confusion, perhaps knowing that such controversy is a way to gain a larger audience.

In any case, it seems important to sort things out a bit.

First, the Task Force did recommend that women 40-49 should no longer get mammograms as a matter of routine. However, this does not mean that women in that age range should not get mammograms-rather, they should consult their doctors and assess the risks and benefits of being screened.

Second, the reason for this change seems to be based on new utilitarian considerations about existing data rather than significant new findings (although some might dispute this). As such, much of the dispute is not about the effectiveness of mammograms but whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks.

It is generally agreed that about 15% of women aged 40-49 have breast cancer detected via mammography. The Task Force members are aware of this, but note that the harms outweigh the benefits of making screening routine. One harm is that such routine testing generates a significant number of false positives thus leading to anxiety and unnecessary medical procedures, such as biopsies. Another harm is that the testing is not itself risk free, due to the fact that it generates radiation that is, ironically, capable of causing cancer. There is, of course, also the matter of cost of such tests.

Others, such as Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society, use basically the same factual data but come to a different conclusion.  Dr. Brawley asserts that “with its new recommendations, the [task force] is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them.” Not surprisingly, the American Cancer Society is sticking with the previous guidelines. The reason is, obviously enough, based on their assessment of the costs and benefits based on their values. On their view, the benefits of routine screenings outweigh the harms and hence they support this practice.

Thus, the dispute is not primarily one of fact but of value. The Task Force and its critics generally agree on the facts, but they disagree in their assessment in regards to whether such routine testing is worthwhile in terms of their weighing of the risks and benefits.

Since non-experts turn to experts for answers, the fact that the experts disagree means that the rest of us are somewhat at a loss when deciding what to do. After all, if the experts disagree, then a non-expert has little basis on which to decide which expert is most likely to be right.

In this situation, the facts seems to be that mammograms can be effective in detecting breast cancer in women under 50, but that there are legitimate concerns about the possible risks. As such, the best advice seems to be what both sides suggest: consult your doctor in this matter and hope that s/he is able to provide an effective and reasonable recommendation.

One last matter worth considering is what effect this will have on insurance coverage for mammograms.  Since insurance companies use the Task Force’s guidelines there is some concern that mammograms for women under 50 might no longer be covered. After all, the insurance companies can point to these guidelines when denying coverage-thus having an easy and seemingly reasonable way out of paying.

Those inclined to being suspicious might wonder about the timing of this change. After all, the insurance companies have been involved in all the deal making about health care reform and one might suspect that such a change in guidelines might be connected to politics. Then again, it might just be a matter of coincidence.

Related articles by Zemanta
  • Wait until 50 for mammograms (medicineandtechnology.com)
  • Stop Annual Mammograms, Govt. Panel Tells Women Under 50 (abcnews.go.com)
  • New Mammogram Advice Raises Questions, Concerns (abcnews.go.com)
  • Panel: Wait until 50 for mammogram (msnbc.msn.com)
  • To Screen or Not to Screen? Experts Debate Breast Cancer Checks (abcnews.go.com)
  • Women in their 40s Ponder Whether to Skip the Mammogram (health.usnews.com)
  • New advice: Skip mammograms in 40s, start at 50 (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Voices from the Recession: Restaurant Owner in Flushing

This is a little off the Sunset Park track, but with Obama in China and Flushing only a “dollar van” ride away I thought I’d pass this along:

As part of the radio station’s “Main Street” series, WNYC’s Richard Yeh spoke with one business owner in Flushing. A recent study said eaters look to spend 20 percent less on meals these days, and that has showed at the tables of Ice Fire Land, a hot-pot restaurant in Flushing. But the restaurateur also owns a few herbal/traditional medicine shop in the area. He told Yeh that more sick people and less health care have kept business steady there. Many come in to buy vitamins and fish oil to send back to China, he said.

Hear the full story at WNYC.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Pelosi Says Jail “Very Fair” Punishment For Not Buying Health Insurance

By Conn Carroll

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

Have you noticed something that has become prevalent these days. You sit and watch the TV news and current affairs TV where someone is interviewing  any politician from the Government who is in front of the cameras and behind the microphones, and the same thing applies as you watch this short video. Think for one minute. Have you ever found yourself talking to the image on the screen of that politician, and saying the same thing, time after time. “Answer the damned question.”

According to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the House health care bill passed last Friday empowers the federal government to imprison people for up to five years if they willfully refuse to buy federally regulated and approved health insurance.

Shomari Stone of Komo 4 News in Seattle pressed the Speaker on this point yesterday. Watch:

President Barack Obama recently told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that he shares Pelosi’s belief that jail time is an appropriate punishment for not buying health insurance. Obama did not always believe this. Debating Hillary Clinton in 2008, Obama said:

And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it’s not affordable, then there’s going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don’t have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don’t think, is helping those without health insurance.

Conn Carroll is the Assistant Director of Strategic Communications at The Heritage Foundation and is also an Editor at The Foundry.

Read more from The Heritage Foundation at The Foundry

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Yes "Oui" Can? Informing the Healthcare Debate: The French Example

An original piece originally published in September on Scoop44 (now ScoopDaily):

By Michael Barrett / September 7th, 2009

As the healthcare debate remains intense in Washington and across the country, leaving fiery protests at town hall meetings in its wake, one way to have a more knowledgeable discussion is by looking to examples of healthcare in other countries.

The Obama administration has been criticized by some conservatives as wanting to impose a socialist system in not just healthcare but also in economic matters. One of the countries referred to the most by both critics and proponents of Obama’s policies is France, the supposed beacon of socialism and the welfare state. It is important, however, to get beyond ideologies and examine the facts. What could the U.S. learn from the French healthcare system, both what to do and what not to do?

France’s public health system provides a basic form of mandatory health coverage for everyone, including foreign residents like myself with valid working papers. The main fund, Sécurité Sociale (Sécu), covers 80 percent of the population, and two other entities exist for the self-employed and agricultural workers. France also provides options for those ineligible for Sécu or below a certain salary threshold.

Everyone covered by the system uses a health insurance card resembling a debit card, called a Carte Vitale. This is equipped with a computer chip that can be read by doctors’ and pharmacists’ computers to access a patient’s insurance coverage information. All French citizens from 16 years old are required to have one; those younger are on their parents’ plans. While practical, this card can represent the excessive paperwork and hurdles that foreign residents must get through in order to obtain one. It took me several months to get my Carte Vitale, somewhat delayed because I had provided one too many pieces of identity for their comfort.

This notorious bureaucracy makes even the French cringe, but there is a silver lining: when getting laid off from a job does not result in losing a steady health insurance plan, the benefits seem worth the hassle. These are reaped not only individually but also economically. Indeed, the French social safety net played a role in bringing France officially out of the recession this past quarter, providing a stable foundation for increased consumption and other economic activity.

In addition to the public system, there exists a huge private market for health insurance in the form of supplementary medical plans known as mutuelles. These tend to pay for some of the costs not covered well by Sécu. Most French opt for these; the Boston Globe puts the rate at 90 percent of the population. For non-E.U. citizens moving to France, private medical insurance is mandatory.

These mutuelles are run by private insurers that offer a variety of plans to different groups, from students to professionals (and this is again subdivided into job sectors, like teachers). They often cover expenses not already paid for by the Sécu. For example, the standard doctor’s consultation will cost 22€ (about $31) and Sécu will normally reimburse 70% of this, or 15.40€. The mutuelle will usually make up some or all of the difference. My mutuelle is with the LMDE (la mutuelle des étudiants – student’s private option), which along with the other student option (SMERRA),offer beneficial plans to students in coverage and cost.

I just upgraded mine, and it will help cover most prescription costs, doctor visits, some dental and eye appointments as well as hospital stays. The cost for my total coverage per year? 393€ (195€ for Sécu, 198€ for LMDE) – about $560 a year ($47 a month). Not bad, considering that this covers the entirety of my asthma prescription costs for medicines I take daily, for which I’d pay a lot in the U.S. even with insurance. Not to mention a good portion of the costs incurred for hospital visits, dentist appointments and other procedures.

This is one of the key differences between the French and American systems. In the U.S., if you are prone to illness or have a chronic condition, health insurance providers will often either increase your payments or drop your coverage. As stated in the Boston Globe article, the French system makes it “more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health.”

Another difference is that associated with unemployment. If you lose your job in the U.S. and are not covered by government employee plans, you will likely have to pay more for private health insurance than through a company-provided scheme. In France, everyone is covered by the public option so that even those laid off by their employers don’t have to fear enormous costs in going to the doctor in case of illness.

One more aspect is that when ambulances are dispatched to treat injuries, a doctor comes along with appropriate equipment to start treating the patient at the scene before going to the hospital for further care. This was featured by CBS news.

The benefits can be seen in many ways, such as life expectancy: France is ranked 7th among UN nations (77 years for men, 84 for women), whereas the U.S. is at 35th (75 for men, 80 for women). Moreover, the World Heath Organization (WHO) has ranked France’s healthcare system as the best (though debatable). Indeed, according to the Boston Globe article, France’s ranking is based on “its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and the longevity of the country’s population.” The U.S. comes in at a meager 37th place. People like Fox News anchor Glen Beck should reconsider their statements.

Image: The Economist

So we see that the system in France has positive aspects, but what could be the costs of such a universal scheme? It does not come cheap, at about $3500 per capita (Boston Globe), but it is much less expensive than the U.S. ($6100). In terms of overall spending, France devotes 10.5% of its GDP to healthcare, whereas America spends 16%. More on the U.S compared to other countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) can be found in this 2004 report. As addressed by Medical News Today, the financing for the public health system is provided for by employers, employee contributions and personal income taxes, with around 20 percent of a working person’s gross salary deducted to pay for the Sécu.

There should be no surprise, therefore, that French authorities are trying to cut down on costs in the system. According to this article, instead of years ago when people would go to any doctor they wanted, “family doctors must now coordinate treatment.” I have witnessed this in France, where a patient must have the approval of his or her general practitioner before going to a specialist for a specific problem (exceptions: gynecologists, ophthalmologists and dentists – no need for referral).

There certainly needs to be reform in the U.S. of some sort. Indeed, the majority of Americans view the U.S. health system as “average” or “below average” according to the Pew Research Center. Even if a public option comes into existence in the U.S., it would likely not be mandatory for everyone, unlike the French system. The crux of the debate is whether or not a government-run public option would result in healthy competition with private insurers and lower premiums or if it would dominate the market and be a weight on business. A public health insurance option in the U.S. might dramatically increase coverage, but it will be vital in the long-term to reduce cost. Streamlining government bureaucracy could contribute to that endeavor.

Policymakers in Washington would be wise to take heed from French lessons of mixing public with private insurers. According to the American Journal of Public Health, these lessons include: “the importance of government’s role in providing a statutory framework for universal health insurance” and “understanding that universal coverage can be achieved without excluding private insurers from the supplementary insurance market.”

We can learn from France without becoming France, taking what works and leaving aside any nuisance to long-term growth while encouraging innovation to reduce costs, increase coverage and improve medicines. Our collective health depends on it.

If you would like a very in-depth analysis of the benefits and pitfalls of France’s whole economic system, I invite you to read the Economist article cited here. You can find more info on the French social protection system here and on this site.

Alzheimer's: Devastating diagnosis for patients and loved ones.

Do you know someone who suffers with Alzheimer’s disease?  Or someone who is a caregiver to a loved one with this devastating disease?  If so, you understand the heartache associated with an Alzheimer’s diagnosis.

Who are we without our memories of past experiences?  For most of us, the though of losing our memories to Alzheimer’s disease is horrifying.  But there is much more to Alzheimer’s than memory loss.

*Read full post at catherine-morgan.com

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

เวชศาสตร์นิวเคลียร์เบื้องต้น

421322     เวชศาสตร์นิวเคลียร์เบื้องต้น     Introduction to Nuclear Medicine

ฟิสิกส์ของเวชศาสตร์นิวเคลียร์ ความปลอดภัยทางรังสีในงานเวชศาสตร์นิวเคลียร์การวัดปริมาณรังสีจากการนำสารไอโซโทปรังสีเข้าสู่ร่างกาย เครื่องมือทางเวชศาสตร์นิวเคลียร์เคมีภัณฑ์รังสีและเภสัชภัณฑ์รังสี เวชศาสตร์นิวเคลียร์คลินิก

(Physics of nuclear medicine, radiation safety in nuclear medicine, dosimetry of internally administered radionuclides, nuclear medicine instruments, radiochemicals and radiopharmaceuticals, clinical nuclear medicine.)

(421322 มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์)

Democrats Out of Step; Pass Healthcare Bill in House

On November 7th, the US House narrowly passed their healthcare reform bill. The vote was 220 for and 215 against, largely along party lines. In fact, only one Republican, Joseph Cao (LA), voted for HR 3962, titled the Affordable Health Care for America Act. See how your representative voted in Roll Call 887. I can tell you, Michigan’s delegation voted strictly by party, Democrats for and Republicans against. How’s that for independent thinking and voicing the will of their constituents? At least 39 Democrats from other states voted their conscience.

I’m not convinced our healthcare system is the greatest on the planet; I know it has flaws. I also think every human being is entitled to basic health care and that society owes such to its members. But I’m not a proponent of so-called socialized medicine nor do I support mandated insurance. To be honest, I don’t have an answer as to how to reconcile my belief in universal access without the stipulations of the various healthcare reforms under consideration. I think, however, mandating coverage or penalizing individuals and/or businesses for not having such is not the answer. I’m also somewhat disturbed the by the emphasis on “get this done now.”

Frankly, I don’t understand why we don’t look at fixing the issues with the current healthcare system. Once upon a time, every hospital wasn’t supposed to have the latest and greatest, but now they all do. And both Medicare and Medicaid are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. There aren’t enough investigators to trim this bloodletting, but hiring more investigators has got to be cheaper than HR 3962.

The economics of the House bill are certainly questionable. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says the unfunded mandate on the private sector exceeds the $139 million cap established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). So, how can Congress pass a bill that violates another law? I also question the Constitutionality of mandating everyone buy insurance. Constitutional lawyers seem to think it’s ok, however. They cite Congress’ authority under the commerce, taxing, or spending powers.

But, if this is such a good thing, why is it so definitively split among party lines? The House plan still won’t insure everyone, achieving 96% at best. Support for the bill in the Senate is questionable. Independent Joe Lieberman threatens to prevent the House bill from coming to a vote as long as it includes a so-called public option insurance plan.

So, how are Democrats out of step? Well, to begin with, HR 3962 was passed, barely, along party lines. Further, the 2009 election results show Obama’s charisma has faded from the minds of voters. On top of that, jobs seem to be a low priority for Democrats. Unemployment keeps creeping up even though President Obama and Congress threw $787 billion at creating or keeping jobs.

No new jobs. No economic revival. No tangible benefit to credible infrastructure from the so-called Stimulus. Has anyone actually read the bill? Democrats are out of step with the priorities of the nation. And since current government healthcare is riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse, why would anyone propose expanding such a program?


Sunday, November 8, 2009

House Passes Bill To Socialize Medicine

Freedom took a knife in the back when Democrats passed Obamacare last night. The looting of your wallet to follow.

Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House – NYTimes.com.

Handing President Obama a hard-fought victory, the House narrowly approved a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system on Saturday night, advancing legislation that Democrats said could stand as their defining social policy achievement.

After a daylong clash with Republicans over what has been a Democratic goal for decades, lawmakers voted 220 to 215 to approve a plan that would cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democrats said the legislation would provide overdue relief to Americans struggling to buy or hold on to health insurance.

“This is our moment to revolutionize health care in this country,” said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and one of the chief architects of the bill.

Democrats were forced to make major concessions on insurance coverage for abortions to attract the final votes to secure passage, a wrenching compromise for the numerous abortion-rights advocates in their ranks.

Many of them hope to make changes to the amendment during negotiations with the Senate, which will now become the main battleground in the health care fight as Democrats there ready their own bill for what is likely to be extensive floor debate.

MSF vaccination used as bait in unacceptable attack on civilians

“We feel we were used as bait,” said Luis Encinas, head of MSF programmes in Central Africa. “The attacks coincided with the beginning of our vaccination and put the lives of civilians in extreme risk. Thousands of people, and the MSF teams, were trapped in the gunfire. Kinshasa – Seven Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) vaccination sites, where thousands of civilians had gathered, came under fire during attacks by the Congolese army against the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). MSF denounces this clearly unacceptable abuse of humanitarian aid for military purposes.

MSF launched a mass vaccination campaign in Masisi district to support the Ministry of Health in response to a measles epidemic. On October 17, MSF medical teams were vaccinating thousands of children in seven different sites in Ngomashi and Kimua zones, controlled by the FDLR at the time.

All parties to the conflict had given security guarantees to MSF to vaccinate at these locations at those times. However, the Congolese national army launched attacks on each of the vaccination sites. All the people who had come to get their children vaccinated were forced to flee the heavy fighting. Scattering everywhere, they are now in unknown locations and thus cannot be vaccinated. MSF had to stop their activities in these zones and evacuate the teams to Goma city.

“We feel we were used as bait,” said Luis Encinas, head of MSF programmes in Central Africa. “The attacks coincided with the beginning of our vaccination and put the lives of civilians in extreme risk. Thousands of people, and the MSF teams, were trapped in the gunfire.

“The attack was an unacceptable abuse of humanitarian action to fulfil military objectives. How will MSF be perceived by the population now? Will our patients still feel safe enough to access medical care? We are compelled to strongly denounce this situation as such actions seriously compromise our neutrality.”

MSF is an independent medical, humanitarian organisation that delivers impartial medical aid according to the strictest principles of neutrality. It is this neutrality that makes it possible for MSF teams to vaccinate in such FDLR-controlled zones, which, until that point, had been inaccessible to Ministry of Health staff.

In addition, the last few months have seen a worrying increase in attacks against humanitarian organisations by various armed groups in North and South Kivu.

“MSF demands that all parties to a conflict respect the work of humanitarian organisations,” added Meinie Nicolai, MSF director of operations. “If not, it is the populations who pay the price. Those already overwhelmed by extreme violence and endless displacement are the ones who may end up cut off from humanitarian assistance.”

165,000 children aged from six months to 15 years were vaccinated against measles during this campaign in the Masisi region. In Masisi, MSF supports a hospital, a health centre, runs mobile clinics and vaccinations. MSF also brings medical care to the people in Walikale, Rutshuru, and Lubero districts, as well as in South Kivu province. MSF has worked in North Kivu since 1992.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

House Debates Socialized Medicine

The debate to turn medical doctors into slaves has begun in the US House of Representatives.

Obama Weighs In as House Debates Health Overhaul – NYTimes.com.

President Obama exhorted Democrats on Saturday to approve a sweeping overhaul of health care and to “answer the call of history” as the House began debating legislation that would transform the nation’s health insurance system.

Democrats quickly took a significant step toward passage of the plan by surmounting a key procedural hurdle in approving the rules for debate.

Despite a sharp party divide over how strictly to limit spending for abortions, leading Democrats were increasingly confident they had locked up the necessary support for the measure. A handful of undecided lawmakers announced they were ready to back it.

“We are on the cusp of making a historical decision on behalf of the American people,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.

The LOVE Police

The LOVE POLICE’s light-hearted approach to opening minds and educating the sheepish masses is neither offensive nor heavy, but rather a crowd-engaging and humorous group experience. Their short films waver between documentary and commentary , and subject matter touches everything from pandemics to paparazzi.

Watch the video. If you laugh, good! Watch it again. And again. And remember to actually listen. Then when the media’s anesthesia finally wears off, listen to how you really feel. Aha, made you think!

The LOVE POLICE are making me think and their tightrope act of art, philosophy, and activism makes a compelling argument to use the next time you are hanging out at the water cooler: Choose Love, Not Fear.

Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.
~ Henry David Thoreau

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Don't worry about a thing

I got this through the post this morning:

A flyer on screening for cardiovascular disease, where you can turn up and have scans done for “peace of mind” and all that bollocks.

I’ve no idea where they got my name from or why they think a 28 year old is at significant risk of stroke (must be all that cocaine use…)

It got me in a bit of a rage. These things do.

They use unproven, emotional driven language to make money out of people’s anxiety. Surely the fact that they “can see inside your arteries” impresses you?

Yes it is true that being over 55 increases you risk of stroke – as does obesity, smoking and lack of exercise. But wait they’re all entirely modifiable risk factors, something you don’t have to pay 140 pound for the privilege of.

My favourite bit of that photo is the fact that i don’t have to remove my clothes. Phew…

These tests are not accurate. Let me emphasise that. All tests have limitations. Some more significant than others. Lots of these tests find false positives. In other words they tell you have the disease when you don’t. When you screen a population with no symptoms (which is what screening does) then by nature you screen a population with a very low prevalence of the disease you are looking for. If you screen the whole population for pneumonia with a chest x-ray only a very small number will have the disease. If you only take a chest x-ray on people with symptoms of pneumonia then you will pick up far more.

When you screen asymptomatic patients then often the number of false positives outweighs the people actually found to have disease.

Which is why screening in the NHS is so controversial.

Some are now well-established – like breast screening for ladies of a certain age and cervical cancer screening for presumed sexually active women (incidentally they presume everyone is sexually active and therefore screen all women over 18, they just don’t phrase it that way).

Screening for prostate cancer has been less successful – all the men complained that just because they don’t have cervices and boobs that they shouldn’t be left out…

The problem with the PSA test for prostate cancer is that it leads to far too many false positives – it leads people to have prostate biopsies that confirm either no cancer or such low-grade cancer that it’s not actually going to be significant (ie you often die with prostate cancer, not because of prostate cancer).

Ask all the people who get false positive PSA tests if it gave them peace of mind.

Tests are not benign things – one trial (and i can’t find the damn reference) looked at the use of x-rays to assess low back pain. People were randomised (ie both groups were the same) to receive either x-ray or nothing. Those who received the x-ray had worse symptoms at 6 weeks. And of course the x-ray revealed nothing useful to help them. Simply by doing the x-ray these patients were worse.

That is a plain old fib. Most tests are only worth ordering if you have symptoms but there are other tests that are often ordered in populations at risk – for example the screening programmes already mentioned or simple blood pressure measurement.

The goal to identify patients with significant disease before a problem occurs is very noble (even though their real goal is of course to make money) but unfortunately not possible with what they offer. Every now and again a patient or two will benefit – but over all people will not benefit and some even come to harm.

This one was my favourite – it’s not entirely clear if the Will had carotid dopplers done or not but at least they’re happy together…

And just to finish: Read this if you’re interested and see what you think about peace of mind for the people found to have aneurysms in their brain.

Vernooij, M.W., et al, N Engl J Med 357(18):1821, November 1, 2007

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of MRI of the brain in clinical practice may be associated with increased detection of incidental cerebral findings of uncertain clinical significance.

METHODS: This Dutch study reports on incidental findings on high-resolution noncontrast- enhanced MRI studies of the brain performed in 2000 asymptomatic subjects aged 45-97 (mean, 63.3 years) (52.4% female) participating in a population-based cohort study.

RESULTS: Incidental findings were common, and most often included asymptomatic cerebral infarcts (7.2%), aneurysms (1.8%), and benign primary tumors (1.6%). The most urgent finding was a large chronic but asymptomatic subdural hematoma in a patient with a history of minor head trauma one month prior to participation. A possibly malignant primary tumor was identified in one subject and cerebral metastases in another. Of the 35 aneurysms, 33 were located in the anterior circulation and 32 were smaller than 7mm in diameter (believed to have a low likelihood of rupture). Operative intervention was considered to be indicated in two patients (the patient with the subdural hematoma and a patient with a 12mm aneurysm). Increasing age was associated with an increasing incidence of asymptomatic cerebral infarcts and meningiomas, and a greater median volume of white matter lesions, but not an increasing prevalence of cerebral aneurysms.

“The Queen is the only person who can put on a tiara with one hand, while walking down stairs.”

I am the queen of worry. If worry was a sport I would get gold medals at the Olympics. If it was a subject, I would get all “A”s and go to the worrier equivalent of Harvard. As previously established I worry about the future, but I worry about the present too (I avoid worrying about the past, it seems a little pointless). I have the other two bases covered damn well. Case in point- I can not go for a day without talking to Nate. Not because I’m oh-so-madly in love and sit pining for hours on end thinking about what he’s wearing or eating or smelling or whatever (insert vomit here), but because if he doesn’t confirm that he is in fact breathing I will begin to worry that he isn’t. I will begin to think that he has been hit by a bus (that was today’s fear of choice) while riding his bike, and because he doesn’t wear a helmet, no longer has a face. Maybe he’s still breathing, but not without the help of  a long plastic tube.

I know, logically, he is probably fine and out to drinks with friends (as he was tonight) but I still can’t shake the minute possibility  that he COULD be dead. So I spend the evening distracting myself. I can’t watch things or read things because my mind wanders and then I think about dead Nathan (keep in mind this is not simply confined to worrying about Nathan, I also worry about my parents/brother while at home).  So I am left to clean and work on school. Nothing like repatriation and reburial controversy to take your mind off dead boyfriends!

I don’t like it when people are unpredictable and break the normal order of things. It freaks me out. Maybe the root of my perfection of the art of worrying is my disdain for disorder and unpredictability. I like to know what is going to happen. I like facts and I like to know whats coming next. I like surprises, but I don’t like waiting for them. I think this is different from not being spontaneous, because I have my spontaneous moments- walks at all hours of the night, drives to weird places, ect. I take risks- I spelunk and rock climb and white water raft. However, I am in semi control of all those things, I am in complete control of me. I am not in control of other people or buses going at fast speeds around corners.

I try SO hard not to be so neurotic, but I can’t help the twisty feeling that accumulates in my stomach every time I look at the clock and see that another minute has passed by and I haven’t heard from him. Then when I do finally hear, I feel SO stupid. I sit silently, don’t reply immediatly, breathe very deeply several times as this horrible feeling sweeps through my stomach as it swells upward in relief, and feel really stupid. I wish I could renounce my title as the worry queen. I really really wish I could renounce my title as the worry queen.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Land of the puppets and home of the slaves

I want to get something officially out there.

I am furious. I am angry at my country, outraged at the people who run it, and appalled at some of the citizens there who have voting power. The country is disgusting. There, I said it. Every new thing I hear about, every new policy—whether it’s lowering the age that a child can be tried as an adult (and therefore executed) to fourteen; or continuing our pathetic excuse for a health system that kills, yes MURDERS, thousands of people a year—everything makes me sick to my stomach, everything lowers my opinion of humanity, everything makes me homicidal and burning with rage. When I have my bad days—when I think maybe the consequences of our destruction of the environment are completely deserved, or when I wish that some asteroid would come down and wipe out humanity—the United States of America is why. No, I don’t have to go look at some third world country with a despotic government. Why should I, when I can look at my own country and watch it rotting in the cesspools of shit that are our ignorant, greedy, whiny masses of right-wing psychos…who care more about their money than ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD, to the point where they refuse to listen to reason, even if listening to reason means they would save money?!!!

Let me explain: The United States has one of the worst health care systems in the first world. It has THE MOST EXPENSIVE health care system in the entire world. And, shockingly, the most privatized health care system in the first world…wow, what a coincidence! Here’s some painful logic for you: Give multi-billion dollar corporations free reign over people’s health and they will reap an unimaginable profit while not providing what they’re supposed to provide: you know, HEALTH. Give the government control over health care and…denial of care? NOPE. Death panels? NOPE. Fewer deaths from lack of coverage? YES!

I moved from the US to New Zealand, a country with universal health care, and that’s one of the reasons. Every day, especially now, I thank the sweet fucking mother of holy Christ that I am not in that sorry-ass, world’s-most-powerful-third-world-nation-pretending-to-be-an-industrialised country. I no longer have to pay $700 for a pregnancy test (as I once did in New Jersey). I no longer have to pay $2000 for a blood and urine test (as I once did because my doctor was a paranoid prick who was covering his ass). I no longer have to worry about getting a job that has health care, in an economy where the ratio of job-seekers to job positions is 6 to 1!

Any time I have a fever, or break a limb, or anything else, I call up my doctor, get an appointment usually the next day, and pay $16. If I get a blood test, it’s free. Urine test, free. X-ray, free. Gyno exam, surgery, FREE. If I’m dying of a horrible infection, I can rest assured that I will be given proper treatment regardless of my insurance or lack thereof, and will not be charged a cent for it.

But socialism is bad, right? First of all, universal health care is not socialism, not even close, so get your head out of your ass, pull all the other stuff you stuck up there out as well, and embrace the shocking world of REALITY. Second of all, Cuba (you know, a socialist country?) is considered a third world nation for the simple fact that it is not capitalist and its GDP is not high enough, but when it comes to the Human Deveopment Index, the index used by the UN to rate human welfare, Cuba is better than us.

They have lower infant mortality rates, higher literacy, lower death rate, higher %GDP education expenditures (cause they DON’T thrive on ignorance), almost NONEXISTENT unemployment (that’s right, that means that the people there aren’t lazy at all, they’re working despite the fact that they get free food, housing, education, and healthcare), and MUCH lower public debt %GDP.

So, perhaps we should start changing our priorities with regards to socialist/not-socialist policies considering that socialist policies are better for people and their countries hands-down. If you have any thought whatsoever that I’m referring to the USSR, get off my blog right now, the USSR was not socialist and certainly didn’t illustrate what socialist policies could do.

People are so worried that healthcare reform will be socialist, that they don’t care that people are dying during this debate, that insurance companies are raking in record profits that a government couldn’t possibly make (not to mention governments, as we see right now, are actually responsive to their constituents), and, most importantly, that right-wing lunatics are suckers and perfect puppets of the corporate elite.

Add to that the fact that we have one of the highest prison populations in the world, we are the only industrialised nation that still practices capital punishment, and our ignorance regarding science and evolution are second only to TURKEY, and anyone with a brain should be shitting their pants right now trying to leave the country. Try to find a system with better health care.

Hey, I hear Mexico is taking immigrants.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Parasite turns honor roll student into class idiot

Billy Compton began exhibiting bizzare behavior after he returned from Florida


The National Reporter
Billy Compton, an honor roll student who attends school at Beverly high school in Beverly Massachusetts, went to Florida for spring break last year like thousands of other students from around the country.
One his third night in Florida, he enjoyed a meal of fried craw daddys at a local eatery with a group of his friends.
The next night he began to feel a strange sensation in the front of his head.
“It felt like something was moving around in my head.” He said.
By the time he returned home his behavior had changed radically.
The former honor roll student was starting to have sudden uncontrolable impusles to behave erratically.
The National Reporter interviewed some of his school mates to find out more.
“He got out of his seat in history class and started waddling around the room flapping his arms wildly saying, “I am a cheese cake, look at me go!” Sally Moore said.
Sophmore Ricky Flanigan said, “This guy came into the gym while we were playing basketball and told us to stop sending ghosts to his house. Then he started crying, it really weirded us out.”
School officials finally advised his parents to send him to the hospital to find out what was wrong with him after he sneaked into the principals office and used his telephone to call the police to report a disturbance at the school.
He told them that a tractor trailor was parked illegally in his seat and the driver wouldn’t stop blasting the air horn.
When the doctors examined him they were agast at what they found.
A catscan revealed a large foriegn object in his brain and it was alive.
They performed immediate emergency surgery to remove the object.
“When we opened up the front of his skull I almost jumped out of my skin.” Doctor Barnhiem told us.
“There was this,..thing,..staring out at us from the incision and it was trying to bury itself deeper into his brain to get away from us. It was absolutley hidious, like something you would see in a horror film.”

This,..thing, was staring out at us from his incision. It was like something out of a horror movie.

The surgical team removed the parasite as carefully as they could so they would not cause any further injury to Billy.
“It put up quite a struggle, it was pretty strong and it was hanging onto him like a tick, but we eventually managed to pry the bastard loose and get it out of his head.” Head trauma specialist Francine Worthrite told us.

Surgical team member, Francine Worthrite holding up the enormous parasite seconds after it was removed from Billy Comptons brain.


The parasite was squirming and struggling to free itself as it was placed into a specimen container which was sent to the department of agriculture for species identification.
“We don’t know what that thing was, I never saw anything like in all my years as a doctor. Maybe the scientists in DC can figure out what it is.” Doctor Barnhiem said.
The National Reporter Went to Florida to investigate the food that was being served at the diner where Billy Compton and his friends ate that night, but the building was vacant and up for rent.
The landlord didn’t know where the former tenants went.
“They removed all their equipment and cleared out without saying anything to me.” He told us.
The National Reporter is happy to inform our readers that Billy Compton is doing well and is expected to make a complete recovery.
He will be returning to school in a month and the students at Beverly High school are eager to welcome him back.