Nina Burleigh, Virus

Nina Burleigh, Virus: Vaccinations, the CDC, and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic.

Oh Look! Medical Schools Join the Crazy Train!

It's Katie Herzog, writing at Bari Weiss's Substack, "Med Schools Are Now Denying Biological Sex: Professors are apologizing for saying ‘male’ and ‘female.’ Students are policing teachers. This is what it looks like when activism takes over medicine."

It turns out Ms. Herzog's doing a series of essays on this:

During a recent endocrinology course at a top medical school in the University of California system, a professor stopped mid-lecture to apologize for something he’d said at the beginning of class.

“I don’t want you to think that I am in any way trying to imply anything, and if you can summon some generosity to forgive me, I would really appreciate it,” the physician says in a recording provided by a student in the class (whom I’ll call Lauren). “Again, I’m very sorry for that. It was certainly not my intention to offend anyone. The worst thing that I can do as a human being is be offensive.”

His offense: using the term “pregnant women.”

“I said ‘when a woman is pregnant,’ which implies that only women can get pregnant and I most sincerely apologize to all of you.”

It wasn’t the first time Lauren had heard an instructor apologize for using language that, to most Americans, would seem utterly inoffensive. Words like “male” and “female.”

Why would medical school professors apologize for referring to a patient’s biological sex? Because, Lauren explains, in the context of her medical school “acknowledging biological sex can be considered transphobic.”

When sex is acknowledged by her instructors, it’s sometimes portrayed as a social construct, not a biological reality, she says. In a lecture on transgender health, an instructor declared: “Biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender are all constructs. These are all constructs that we have created.”...

Ms. Herzog's great, and Ms. Weiss is a national treasure.

Still more.

I Can't Leave My Spouse — I'll Lose My Healthcare

It's Jessa Crispin, at the Guardian U.K., "Like millions of Americans, I can never leave my spouse. I’ll lose my healthcare":

It was around the second dose of fentanyl going into my IV bag that I stopped trying to control how much all of this was going to cost. I had been arguing with every decision the caregivers at the emergency room were making – “Is this Cat scan actually necessary or is there another diagnostic tool?” “Is there a cheaper version of this drug you’re giving me?” – and reminding them repeatedly that I was uninsured, but either the opioids in my bloodstream, or the exhaustion of trying to rest in a room next to a woman who, given the sounds she was making, was clearly transforming into a werewolf, forced me to surrender.

I walked out of there four years ago alive, yes. And, as the doctors and nurses kept reminding me, if I had waited another 48 hours to discover I didn’t actually have the magical ability to self-diagnose and self-treat serious problems with Google and herbs, I might have gone septic. But all said and done, I was also walking home to a $12,000 bill, which was approximately half of my annual income as a single woman.

It took me several years of hardship, contributions from my friends and the assistance of the hospital’s charity program to pay off the $12,000.

Then, last month, it started again. I was at home. I turned my head a little, the whole world started sliding away from me, and I crashed to the floor. I tried to crawl back into bed, insisting, “It’ll pass, it’ll pass.” My husband, on the other hand, was raised in a country with compulsory public health coverage, so his first instinct upon something weird happening isn’t to lie down for 48 hours and see if it goes away. He immediately started plotting the route to a hospital on his phone.

I was back, but this time I was married. The whole hospital visit cost us $30, including the prescription. Everything was covered by his insurance. That’s when I realized I can never divorce my husband.

The first emergency room visit might have been an anomaly – a freak health problem that the nurse explained as “sometimes these things happen”. The intense vertigo was the result of the deterioration of the condition of my ears. It has been a problem since childhood, one left in “let’s wait and see what happens” condition until a weird virus last year – yes, I was the big idiot who caught a debilitating non-coronavirus virus during a coronavirus pandemic – forced me to a doctor, who discovered significant hearing loss and structural damage that will require lifelong treatment and intervention.

As a freelance writer who has tried and failed for years now to get a real job with real benefits, the costs of the surgeries and hearing aids and other treatments the doctor sketched out as part of my future would be suffocating. But almost all of it is covered by my husband’s insurance, making my health and ability to access healthcare dependent on his presence in my life.

While I convalesced from the virus last year, I watched the discussion about health insurance take over the Democratic primary debates. I had little hope that the bright, sparkly Medicare for All plan championed by candidates like Bernie Sanders would be made reality. But still I despaired of the excuses other candidates made for why they did not support guaranteed coverage for all. It angered me to see Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and the eventual winner, Joe Biden, defend their plans to largely maintain the status quo – a system in which employment and marriage determine access to healthcare – as though they were protecting our “freedom” to “choose” coverage that was right for us.

The coercions built into American social welfare programs limit freedom, not preserve it. People who are not financially independent are forced to maintain ties with family members who might be abusive or violent unless they want to relinquish their housing, healthcare or other forms of support. And as outlined by Melinda Cooper’s Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism, the dismantling of protections like food and financial aid in the 80s and 90s had the express purpose of increasing familial obligations in the name of “duty” and “responsibility”. Single parents seeking public support for their children’s well-being now had to first seek assistance through their partners, no matter how fraught or harmful those relationships might be. While politicians spoke of “strengthening families” and repairing the social fabric, one of the consequences of these policy changes was to limit the ability for people to make the basic decisions required to live the lives of their choosing, unless they had the money that in this country is our substitute for freedom...

Still more.

 

Large Protests in France Over Covid Restrictions (VIDEO)

This is the second weekend in a row for these protests.

At NYT, "Large Covid-related protests hit France, Italy and Australia":

Over 160,000 demonstrators took to the streets in France on Saturday to protest the government’s Covid-19 health pass policy, with brief clashes between largely unmasked protesters and police officers in Paris followed by wafts of tear gas that were reminiscent of the Yellow Vest turmoil of several years ago....

In France, presenting the health pass — paper or digital proof of being fully vaccinated, a recent negative test or recent Covid-19 recovery — is mandatory to attend large events in stadiums and concert halls, and to enter the country’s cultural venues, including cinemas, museums and theaters...

Health passes?

Gawd, what a nightmare.

Still more.

All-Out Attacks on the Vaccinated

It's not just this Leana Wen (former head of Planned Parenthood) who's demonizing vaccinating folks, making them pay for the sins of the unvaccinated. I'm seeing all kind of idiots make this same argument. 

Pfft. No doubt Dr. Wen is perhaps the biggest stooge on CNN.

Via Melissa Mackenzie, who is a medical doctor: 

You're either vaccinated and safe or you're not. Which is it?

Otherwise, people can decide what level of risk they're willing to live with. https://t.co/oJMeQw110I

— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) July 22, 2021

Africa's Covid Crisis

Well, maybe they're waiting for Bill Gates or Bono to come to the rescue? *Shrug.*

At the New York Times, "Africa’s Covid Crisis Deepens, but Vaccines Are Still Far Off."

The Delta variant is sweeping across Africa, but only about 1 percent of Africans have been fully vaccinated.

Rich nations have bought up vaccine doses and hundreds of millions of shots from a global vaccine-sharing effort have failed to materialize. https://t.co/0svi9wnYnG

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) July 16, 2021

Critical Race Theory Rapidly Destroying American Health Care

A great, great piece from Katie Herzog, at Bari Weiss's Substack, "What Happens When Doctors Can't Tell the Truth?":

‘People Are Afraid to Speak Honestly’

They meet once a month on Zoom: a dozen doctors from around the country with distinguished careers in different specialities. They vary in ethnicity, age and sexual orientation. Some work for the best hospitals in the U.S. or teach at top medical schools. Others are dedicated to serving the most vulnerable populations in their communities.

The meetings are largely a support group. The members share their concerns about what’s going on in their hospitals and universities, and strategize about what to do. What is happening, they say, is the rapid spread of a deeply illiberal ideology in the country’s most important medical institutions.

This dogma goes by many imperfect names — wokeness, social justice, critical race theory, anti-racism — but whatever it’s called, the doctors say this ideology is stifling critical thinking and dissent in the name of progress. They say that it’s turning students against their teachers and patients and racializing even the smallest interpersonal interactions. Most concerning, they insist that it is threatening the foundations of patient care, of research, and of medicine itself.

These aren’t secret bigots who long for the “good old days” that were bad for so many. They are largely politically progressive, and they are the first to say that there are inequities in medicine that must be addressed. Sometimes it’s overt racism from colleagues or patients, but more often the problem is deeper, baked into the very systems clinicians use to determine treatment.

“There’s a calculator that people have used for decades that predicts the likelihood of having a successful vaginal delivery after you've had a cesarean,” one obstetrician in the Northeast told me. “You put in the age of the person, how much they weigh, and their race. And if they’re black, it calculates that they are less likely to have successful vaginal delivery. That means clinicians are more likely to counsel black patients to get c-sections, a surgery they might not actually need.”

There’s no biological reason for race to be a factor here, which is why the calculator just changed this year. But this is an example of how system-wide bias can harm black mothers, who are two to three times more likely to die in childbirth than white women even when you control for factors like income and education, which often make racial disparities disappear.

But while this obstetrician and others see the problems endemic in their field, they’re also alarmed by the dogma currently spreading throughout medical schools and hospitals.

I’ve heard from doctors who’ve been reported to their departments for criticizing residents for being late. (It was seen by their trainees as an act of racism.) I’ve heard from doctors who’ve stopped giving trainees honest feedback for fear of retaliation. I’ve spoken to those who have seen clinicians and residents refuse to treat patients based on their race or their perceived conservative politics.

Some of these doctors say that there is a “purge” underway in the world of American medicine: question the current orthodoxy and you will be pushed out. They are so worried about the dangers of speaking out about their concerns that they will not let me identify them except by the region of the country where they work.

“People are afraid to speak honestly,” said a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. “It’s like back to the USSR, where you could only speak to the ones you trust.” If the authorities found out, you could lose your job, your status, you could go to jail or worse. The fear here is not dissimilar.

When doctors do speak out, shared another, “the reaction is savage. And you better be tenured and you better have very thick skin.”

“We’re afraid of what's happening to other people happening to us,” a doctor on the West Coast told me. “We are seeing people being fired. We are seeing people's reputations being sullied. There are members of our group who say, ‘I will be asked to leave a board. I will endanger the work of the nonprofit that I lead if this comes out.’ People are at risk of being totally marginalized and having to leave their institutions.”

While the hyper focus on identity is seen by many proponents of social justice ideology as a necessary corrective to America’s past sins, some people working in medicine are deeply concerned by what “justice” and “equity” actually look like in practice.

“The intellectual foundation for this movement is the Marxist view of the world, but stripped of economics and replaced with race determinism,” one psychologist explained. “Because you have a huge group of people, mostly people of color, who have been underserved, it was inevitable that this model was going to be applied to the world of medicine. And it has been.”

‘Whole Areas of Research Are Off-Limits’

“Wokeness feels like an existential threat,” a doctor from the Northwest said. “In health care, innovation depends on open, objective inquiry into complex problems, but that’s now undermined by this simplistic and racialized worldview where racism is seen as the cause of all disparities, despite robust data showing it’s not that simple.”

“Whole research areas are off-limits,” he said, adding that some of what is being published in the nation’s top journals is “shoddy as hell.”

Here, he was referring in part to a study published last year in the Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences. The study was covered all over the news, with headlines like “Black Newborns More Likely to Die When Looked After by White Doctors” (CNN), “The Lack of Black Doctors is Killing Black Babies” (Fortune), and “Black Babies More Likely to Survive when Cared for by Black Doctors” (The Guardian).

Despite these breathless headlines, the study was so methodologically flawed that, according to several of the doctors I spoke with, it’s impossible to extrapolate any conclusions about how the race of the treating doctor impacts patient outcomes at all. And yet very few people were willing to publicly criticize it. As Vinay Prasad, a clinician and a professor at the University of California San Francisco, put it on Twitter: “I am aware of dozens of people who agree with my assessment of this paper and are scared to comment.”

“It’s some of the most shoddy, methodologically flawed research we’ve ever seen published in these journals,” the doctor in the Zoom meeting said, “with sensational conclusions that seem totally unjustified from the results of the study.”

“It’s frustrating because we all know how hard it is to get good, sound research published,” he added. “So do those rules and quality standards no longer apply to this topic, or to these authors, or for a certain time period?”

At the same time that the bar appears to be lower for articles and studies that push an anti-racist agenda, the consequences for questioning or criticizing that agenda can be high.

Just ask Norman Wang. Last year, the University of Pittsburgh cardiologist was demoted by his department after he published a paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) analyzing and criticizing diversity initiatives in cardiology. Looking at 50 years of data, Wang argued that affirmative action and other diversity initiatives have failed to both meaningfully increase the percentage of black and Hispanic clinicians in his field or to improve patient outcomes. Rather than admitting, hiring and promoting clinicians based on their race, he argued for race-neutral policies in medicine.

“Long-term academic solutions and excellence should not be sacrificed for short-term demographic optics,” Wang wrote. “Ultimately, all who aspire to a profession in medicine and cardiology must be assessed as individuals on the basis of their personal merits, not their racial and ethnic identities.”

At first, there was little response. But four months after it was published, screenshots of the paper began circulating on Twitter and others in the field began accusing Wang of racism. Sharonne Hayes, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, implored colleagues to “rise up.” “The fact that this is published in ‘our’ journal should both enrage & activate all of us,” she wrote, adding the hashtag #RetractRacists.

Soon after, Barry London, the editor in chief of JAHA, issued an apology and the journal retracted the work over Wang’s objection. London cited no specific errors in Wang’s paper in his statement, just that publishing it was antithetical to his and the journal’s values. Retraction, in a case like this, is exceedingly rare: When papers are retracted, it’s generally because of the data or the study has been discredited. A search of the journal’s website and the Retraction Database found records of just two retractions in JAHA: Wang’s paper and a 2019 paper that erroneously linked heart attacks to vaping.

After the outcry, the American Heart Association (AHA), which publishes the journal, issued a statement denouncing Wang’s paper and promising an investigation. In a tweet, the organization said it “does NOT represent AHA values. JAHA is editorially independent but that’s no excuse. We’ll investigate. We’ll do better. We’re invested in helping to build a diverse health care and research community.”

As the criticism mounted, Wang was removed from his position as the director of a fellowship program in clinical cardiac electrophysiology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and was prohibited from making any contact with students. His boss reportedly told him that his classroom was “inherently unsafe” due to the views he expressed.

Wang is now suing both the AHA and the University of Pittsburgh for defamation and violating his First Amendment rights. To the doctors on the Zoom call, his case was a stark warning of what can happen when one questions policies like affirmative action, which, according to recent polling, is opposed by nearly two-thirds of Americans, including majorities of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

“I’m into efforts to make medicine more diverse,” a doctor from the Zoom group said. “But what’s gone off the rails here is that there is an intolerance of people that have another point of view. And that's going to hurt us all.”

JAHA isn’t the only journal issuing apologies. In February, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) released a podcast hosted by surgeon and then-deputy journal editor Edward Livingston, who questioned the value of the hyper focus on race in medicine as well as the idea that medicine is systemically racist.

“Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help,” Livingston said at one point. “Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

It’s possible Livingston’s comments would have gone unnoticed but JAMA promoted the podcast on Twitter with the tone-deaf text: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Even more than in the case of Norman Wang, this tweet, and the podcast it promoted, led to a massive uproar. A number of researchers vowed to boycott the journal, and a petition condemning JAMA has received over 9,000 signatures. In response to the backlash, JAMA quickly deleted the episode, promised to investigate, and asked Livingston to resign from his job. He did.

If you try to access the podcast today, you find an apology in its place from JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, who called Livingston’s statements, “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.” Bauchner was also suspended by JAMA pending an independent investigation. This Tuesday, JAMA announced that Bauchner officially stepped down. In a statement, he said he is “profoundly disappointed in myself for the lapses that led to the publishing of the tweet and podcast. Although I did not write or even see the tweet, or create the podcast, as editor in chief, I am ultimately responsible for them.”

Shortly after this announcement, the New York Times reported that “JAMA’s reckoning” led to a backlash from some JAMA members, who wrote in a letter to the organization that “there is a general feeling that the firing of the editors involved in the podcast was perhaps precipitous, possibly a blot on free speech and also possibly an example of reverse discrimination.” Bauchner’s last day at JAMA is June 30...

Keep reading.

 

U.S. Government Scientists Skeptical of One-Shot Regimen for Pfizer, Moderna Covid Vaccines

I'm skeptical, not just of a "one-shot regimen," but any regimen with these freakin' brand new vaccines.

As far as my work goes, the college can't require employees to be vaccinated, but airlines can, and while I'm not planning on flying anytime soon, who knows? Sometimes things come up. My older sister's in Boise, and she just lost her son in January, and perhaps I'd want to fly up there to see her. I don't know? Maybe I'll just want to visit Florida sometime soon, which sounds like a fantastic sojourn to get me out of this hellhole of a state where I currently reside, even if just for a few days.

In any case, at WSJ, "Some members of Congress have urged to allow for just one dose to speed up vaccinations":

WASHINGTON—U.S. government scientists are pushing back against calls for one-dose regimens for two Covid-19 vaccines designed to be administered with two shots, saying there isn’t enough evidence that a single dose provides long-term protection.

“It is essential that these vaccines be used as authorized by FDA in order to prevent Covid-19 and related hospitalizations and death,” Peter Marks, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s center that oversees vaccines, told The Wall Street Journal.

The FDA late last year approved a two-dose regimen for vaccines from Moderna Inc. and from a partnership of Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE. More recently it approved use of a one-dose regimen for a vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.

Some scientists and lawmakers have called for shifting to a one-dose regimen for all the vaccines, citing preliminary studies showing one shot can be effective. They contend shifting to one shot will allow the U.S. to accelerate the pace of vaccinations.

In a March 2 letter to acting Health and Human Services Secretary Norris Cochran, seven physician members of Congress urged the department “to consider issuing a revised emergency use authorization as soon as possible” that might lead to single-dose use of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“Last week, the U.S. passed a sobering milestone of over 500,000 deaths related to COVID-19,” said the letter, signed by lawmakers including Rep. Andy Harris (R, Md.) and Rep. Gregory F. Murphy, (R., N.C.). “These are staggering statistics, and anything we can do to help prevent further tragedy—to further protect the public health and safety of the American people—should be fully employed.”

In interviews, senior government scientists at the FDA and the National Institutes of Health said such a shift isn’t warranted, saying the evidence used to approve the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines was based on two doses.

These scientists said one dose may offer short-term protection, but the longer-term protection is a question mark.

“You would be flying blind to just use one dose,” said one senior scientist and adviser to President Biden. “If you’re going to do something else other than follow the studies shown to the FDA, show me that this one-shot effect is durable.”

Another senior U.S. government doctor said the durability of the vaccination is especially important when more-resistant strains of Covid-19, including those from the U.K. and South Africa, are appearing in the U.S.

“We think it’s best to get people to as high a level of immunity as possible,” the doctor said.

The doctor added that the pace of vaccinations is accelerating with the recent decision by Merck & Co. to help produce the J&J vaccine.

“We’re going to have a good supply of vaccines very soon,” the doctor said...

Still more.

 

'The old dear was compos mentis, and she agreed that she did not want a speculative treatment for which I had no qualification nor experience of initiating...'

This piece will blow your mind.

At the Critic, "The Covid Physician’s true coronavirus timeline."

Drug Prices Leave Even Insured, Affluent Struggling

I'm counting my blessings, I guess. So far most of my meds have been covered. And my family's too.

At WSJ, "Patients Struggle With High Drug Prices":

BELLEVILLE, Ill.— Jacqueline Racener ’s doctor prescribed a new leukemia drug for her last winter that promised to roll back the cancer in her blood with only moderate side effects.

Then she found out how much it would cost her: nearly $8,000 for a full year, even after Medicare picked up most of the tab.

“There’s no way I could do that,” Ms. Racener says. “It was just prohibitive.” Worried about depleting her limited savings, Ms. Racener, a 76-year-old legal secretary, decided to take the risk and not fill her prescription.

The pharmaceutical industry, after a long drought, has begun to produce more innovative treatments for serious diseases that can extend life and often have fewer side effects than older treatments. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved 41 new drugs, the most in nearly two decades.

The catch is their cost. Recent treatments for hepatitis C, cancer and multiple sclerosis that cost from $50,000 annually to well over $100,000 helped drive up total U.S. prescription-drug spending 12.2% in 2014, five times the prior year’s growth rate, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. High drug prices can translate to patient costs of thousands of dollars a year. Out-of-pocket prescription-drug costs rose 2.7% in 2014, according to CMS.

For many of the poorest Americans, medicines are covered by government programs or financial-assistance funds paid for by drug companies.

For those in the middle class, it is a different story. Though many patients can get their out-of-pocket costs paid by drug companies or drug-company-funded foundations, some patients make too much money to qualify for assistance. Others are unaware the programs exist. Medicare patients, who represent nearly a third of U.S. retail drug spending, can’t receive direct aid from drug companies.

The upshot is even patients with insurance and comfortable incomes are sometimes forced to make hard choices—tapping savings, taking on new debt or even forgoing treatment.

“Drugs are so expensive that once they flow through our ragtag insurance system, we have patients who can’t afford them, or they can barely afford them, so they’re not getting therapies,” said Peter Bach, a physician and health-policy researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

A quarter of U.S. prescription-drug users said it was difficult to afford them, in an August survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. In another survey, published in the journal Lancet Haematology in September, 10% of insured U.S. patients with the blood cancer multiple myeloma said they had stopped taking a cancer drug because of its cost.

A look at how patients are coping with the cost of the medicine prescribed for Ms. Racener, called Imbruvica, illustrates the issues...

Not sure how to solve this problem, but it's obviously lame that Medicare prohibits recipients from receiving prescription help from drug manufacturers. Seems like government always makes these problems worse.

Continue reading.

Shkreli, CEO Reviled for Drug Price Gouging, Arrested on Securities Fraud Charges

Heh.

I just love that headline, at Bloomberg, via Memeorandum.

Martin Shkreli's a real asshole.

Cellphone Photo Saves Little Boy's Life

At ABC 7 San Francisco, "PPHOTO SAVES TODDLER'S LIFE AFTER REVEALING RARE FORM OF CANCER."

#ICYMI: A photo saved a toddler's life by helping to reveal a rare form of cancer: http://t.co/hYu7wyxhBj pic.twitter.com/lNU2NONmOc

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsBayArea) May 12, 2015

UC Davis Researchers Develop Nanoparticle Cancer-Fighting Treatment

As Professor Glenn Reynolds always says, "faster please."

Via CBS Sacramento:

#WorldCup Player Álvaro Pereira Kept Playing After Being Knocked Out Cold During Uruguay's Game with England

He was out cold on the grass.

At the New York Times, "‘Lights Went Out,’ but He Kept Playing: Uruguayan Player’s Return After Head Injury Stirs Debate."

And watch it at the Sydney Morning Herald, "Alvaro Pereira, knocked out then raring to go."

Pereira was clearly - clearly - out cold on his back needing to be revived. Now he's playing. That is just insane.

— Sam Borden (@SamBorden) June 19, 2014

Hate seeing doctors overruled with Pereira coming back on. World soccer clueless on concussions.

— Grant Wahl (@GrantWahl) June 19, 2014

Back From the Colonoscopy

I mentioned my procedure this morning.

The test itself is a cakewalk. It's the bowel-cleansing preparations that were a pain. But I'm clean, no polyps, and I won't have to have it done again for ten years.

I'm reading Instapundit, who's blogged about his colonoscopies quite a bit. Here's the search link, but see especially, "I'M HOME FROM HAVING A COLONOSCOPY":

A colonoscopy isn't just a diagnostic test — if they find polyps, they can remove them, making it virtually certain that you won't get colon cancer. If you skip that because of squeamishness, well, you're just an idiot. Luckily, I was clean and don't have to go back for five years. By then, they may have replaced them with swallowable cameras, with actual scoping only when there’s something that needs fixing. At any rate, though, there aren't many simple safe procedures that can absolutely prevent cancer, and this is one. Don't forego it because you're squeamish.

I'm not sure why folks would be squeamish with the procedure; it was easy. After I was taken into the pre-op area, the nurses had me sign the final forms, hooked up my blood pressure monitor and chest nodes, and inserted the IV. The test itself took 10 minutes at most. The nurses gave me mild drug which was like a relaxant. I had no side effects and went out for a nice breakfast with my wife immediately after.

As noted, the preparation is unpleasant, and from reading around yesterday, avoiding the prep is one of the reasons people have skipped this screening. Perhaps the newer procedures will be coming available soon, like the miniature camera pill that takes images while traveling through your bowel. Until then, I'd do this again tomorrow if I needed to screen against colon cancer.

'Severe Internet Addiction'

Well, speaking of addictions, I've gotta throw Mandy Nagy some linkage, at Legal Insurrection, "Severe Internet Addiction” – Is there any other type?"

RTWT.

Ima embed this video, with Mandy's comments:

If this video below is indicative of anything you’ve ever experienced (I know I’ve been there), maybe forcing ourselves to think about how much time we spend with the internet and our gadgets really isn’t such a bad idea.

Deaf Three-Year-Old Grayson Clamp Hears for First Time

I love this story.

I tweeted it here, here, and here.

Saw it this morning at CBS News, "Deaf boy with auditory brain stem implant stunned after hearing dad for first time."

UPDATE: At NBC News, "Deaf boy, 3, hears father's voice for the first time":

Grayson was born without cochlear nerves, the “bridge” that carries auditory information from the inner ear to the brain. He’s now the among the first children in the U.S. to receive an auditory brainstem implant in a surgery done at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, N.C., led by UNC head and neck surgeon Dr. Craig Buchman.

The device is already being used in adults, but is now being tested in children at UNC as part of an FDA-approved trial. It’s similar to a cochlear implant, but instead of sending electrical stimulation to the cochlea, the electrodes are placed on the brainstem itself. Brain surgery is required to implant the device.

"Our hope is, because we're putting it into a young child, that their brain is plastic enough that they'll be able to take the information and run with it," Buchman told NBCNews.com.

Buchman says Grayson was a great candidate for the implant because other than his hearing, he's a healthy kid. Plus, Buchman adds, "he has great parents who were completely committed to the process -- the entire surgical process, the educational process. We really wanted to provide it to a child who had all the potential to do great."

And so far, Grayson really is doing great, his father says.

“Never one time did he show any fear about that new sensation,” says Clamp. He and his wife, Nicole, adopted Grayson in 2010; the couple also has a biological son, Ethan, who is 2. “It was a lot more excitement. And he’s really curious to begin with.” And he’s discovered a new love: music.

“He claps his hands, he bobs his head. At his daycare, they have a stereo, and he loves to run over and turn it on,” Clamp says.

Grayson is now working with a speech therapist, and has started babbling. He also tries to mimic the mouth movements of people when they’re talking to him. But he still has a "massive amount" of work ahead of him, Buchman cautions. "He needs intensive speech therapy -- in his mind, he has to convert this new signal into something he current knows as, basically, signs," Buchman says.

ObamaCare Medical Device Tax Will Deal Crushing Blow to Orange County Businesses

My previous report is here, "Democrats Seek Delay of ObamaCare Medical Device Tax."

And here's this at the Orange County Register, "A prescription that kills innovation":

No state will be more adversely effected than California by the 2.3 percent tax increase on medical devices, which the Obama administration expects to raise nearly $3 billion over the next decade.

Indeed, while the United States is the world leader in medical devices and diagnostics, the Golden State is by far the nation's leader, accounting for a fifth of total U.S. sales and employment.

The threat of the federal tax hike on medical devices will be especially damaging to Orange County, which is the hub of California's medical device and diagnostics sector. The sector accounts for more than $11 billion in economic activity within the county, according to life-science association BIOCOM Southern California. The average O.C. salary for those employed in the sector is $108,799.

The Medical Device Manufacturing Association points out that the Obamacare tax hike will be levied on a company's total revenues, regardless of whether it makes a profit.

That means that many companies will owe more in taxes than they generate from their operations.

As MDMA President and CEO Mark Leahy recently told lawmakers in the Nation's Capital, "We are already seeing the negative impact this onerous policy is having on jobs and innovation, and America's med-tech innovators can't afford to find out what implementation of the device tax would bring."

That's why we urge senators Feinstein and Boxer to add their voices to those of their fellow Democratic senators to delay, if not repeal altogether, the scheduled implementation of the innovation-killing tax hike on life-saving medical devices.

Clueless freakin' progs.

Democrats Seek Delay of ObamaCare Medical Device Tax

Hey, suck it up idiot progs.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Senate Democrats Seek Delay in Medical-Device Tax":

A group of 17 Democratic U.S. senators and senators-elect have signed a letter urging for a delay in implementing a tax on the medical-device industry that is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, said two people familiar with the matter.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, was addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and said the “the medical device industry has received little guidance about how to comply with the tax–causing significant uncertainty and confusion for businesses.” It requested a delay be included in the bill Congress is negotiating to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

The Democrats’ support could give new momentum to the industry’s intense lobbying campaign to repeal or delay the 2.3% tax on device sales, which companies say will hurt profits and lead to U.S. job losses. However, they face a battle because other Democrats, as well as the White House, oppose any postponement.

And see Geoffrey Norman, at the Weekly Standard, "Special Treatment."

A Breakthrough Against Leukemia Using Altered T-Cells

I love this story, at the New York Times, "In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia":

PHILIPSBURG, Pa. — Emma Whitehead has been bounding around the house lately, practicing somersaults and rugby-style tumbles that make her parents wince.

It is hard to believe, but last spring Emma, then 6, was near death from leukemia. She had relapsed twice after chemotherapy, and doctors had run out of options.

Desperate to save her, her parents sought an experimental treatment at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, one that had never before been tried in a child, or in anyone with the type of leukemia Emma had. The experiment, in April, used a disabled form of the virus that causes AIDS to reprogram Emma’s immune system genetically to kill cancer cells.

The treatment very nearly killed her. But she emerged from it cancer-free, and about seven months later is still in complete remission. She is the first child and one of the first humans ever in whom new techniques have achieved a long-sought goal — giving a patient’s own immune system the lasting ability to fight cancer.

My god that is so wonderful. Research is closing in on a cure, or so it seems. And that's in American hospitals, it should be noted.

RTWT.