Science journals’ editorials against Trump

These science journals promote an amazing misuse of a world tragedy. Since I regularly read medical and science journals, especially JAMA and NEJM, let me assure you they have all been way left in their editorial coverage since I began reading them in the 1980s. Also, in clinical trials, they are quick to demand all sorts of fair, unbiased and diverse controls, sex, age, weight, culture, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, marital status, health history, but in this pandemic, they only look at Trump.

I think they are angry that his leadership in cutting red tape and "making deals" has uncovered the stultifying "science" culture which has its own deep state and swamp. This isn't China, David Foster, or even Sweden. In a country where we have a Constitution to protect us from the state, "scientists" see this as a lost opportunity for the federal government to take the same grab for power that the states have with mandates, lockdowns and petty local demands.

The "scientists" (I think Obama had one advisor on this one) have loved the EMR installed by fiat at a cost in the billions (which is why medical costs soared during Obama's reign) with no known benefit to health or reduced cost because it's plan was data diving and not to get you quickly admitted or treated. Now they are called on to do actual research, find new drugs, figure out the mutations, think outside the box--as a businessman would do. We already have many new drugs ready to be on the market--it's called competition--and you can see how the popular and science media have reacted. Why can't everyone get this drug, why compassionate use for a guy we hate, why should he speculate or dream when that's a scientist's job, why does he listen to a virologist or an epidemiologist and not a cell biologist (or someone on our board); and most importantly, why didn't he die!

Trump has shown in 4 years that our bloated government, our stagnant universities, our rigid peer review publication system, our technology sector with embedded lobbyists in Washington to make sure start ups get squashed with new laws needs a shake up. I don't believe the pandemic was a plot (many do), but leftists in every field, every corporation, every university, every church, realize that if they don't act very quickly and get rid of this man, their days of fancy awards, fat grants at our expense, flying to conferences to wine and dine, and living in their self designed bubbles, just might be threatened. Bring him down and get rid of him, no matter the cost. We all know the next Democrat elected whether this year or in 4 years will return things to "normal" crony capitalism, but they are are afraid of the fall out.

Politics and healthcare

At the coffee shop today I was reading the Oct. 9, JAMA and noticed an editorial on "Politics and Healthcare." JAMA's left of center, but I thought I'd take a look. Praise for Lyndon Johnson and Medicare in 1965, praise for Barack Obama and PPACA (Obamacare) in 2010 and then 3-4 paragraphs lambasting President Trump who, but for McCain, would have been able to undo Obama's disastrous grab of the private sector and 1/5 of the economy. It's one of the reasons Trump was elected--the people hated it, especially those who lost good coverage or lost their doctor or were forced to buy coverage for contraception and abortion. Obamacare was the only significant piece of social legislation that got zero support from Republicans, who had supported FDR and social security, and LBJ and Medicare. In fact, it's doubtful those programs would have passed without Republican support. It is the Obama administration that created the extreme partisanship we see today, not President Trump.

Yes indeed. Politics and healthcare in black and white in JAMA. So I looked up the author, Donald M Berwick--he's retired, but has been on just about every government board and committee to give us socialized medicine, was part of the Clinton administration, and even worked with the British National Health Service and was knighted by the Queen! I would not have expected anything else from him.

What's behind the closed doors?

While I head for the coffee shop, Murray will give you his ideas on what Harry Reid was trying to do this week with the healthcare bill.

This week Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) tried taking 250 billion of expenses out of the healthcare Bill in an attempt to lower the overall cost. $250 Billion! How ? By simply eliminating it from the healthcare Bill and paying the 250 billion out to doctors over a 10 year period of time. This would be unfunded and simply be added to the national debt!

It appears there were two problems he was trying to solve. Lower the cost of the health plan to make it look better and still appease the doctors who aren't supporting the plan. You see, even though the AMA claims to be for the plan, the majority of the doctors in this country are not. That's why Obama held that little fiasco handing out white coats to a select few who were supposed to be doctors in an attempt to fake us out one more time. Obama is good at that.

Fortunately 12 Democrats plus the Republicans defeated the move which proved to be a miscalculation by Reid. I'm sure there will be other attempts to make this "dog" bill look better before it's over. This attempt to extract 250 billion of costs out of the healthcare bill has NOT CAUSED A RIPPLE in the mainstream media. With all the attention and focus on this bill, wouldn't you think NBC, CBS, ABC and the major newspapers would jump all over this? No, no, no! They'd rather give us another report on the Swine Flu.

Well the only people that have so far [Thursday] is Fox News. You know Fox. That's the News station that the Obama administration keeps trying to shut down. They have all the others cooperating but so far they haven't been able to quiet Fox but that doesn't mean they haven't been trying! They put political pressure on Fox's advertisers and claim that Fox IS NOT a news station.

There probably is another reason for sneaking out some of the costs of the healthcare bill. These are my own thoughts. You see, Tuesday the Democrats were behind closed doors ( no Republicans allowed in spite of the fact that Obama calls this a bi-partisan effort) to merge two of these bills into one. Now in order to do this there had to be some arm twisting to get everyone in the room to agree. So how do they do this? PORK! Yes folks, it's PORK time again. Since the CBO has already come up with a number, they can't come out of that room with a bigger one. So I think ol' Harry figured if he gets the 250 billion out of the Bill then there's room for $250 billion of negotiable PORK. Pork is always a tool that is used to pass a dog bill. Regardless, whether that was the plan or not, you can count on the fact that if there isn't any PORK in the current Bills , there certainly will be!
Murray

If you can find another reason for the closed doors, the campaign to isolate and then close down Fox, and the sneaky $250 billion move, write me!

Medical news Obama can use to ration or change health care

Nearly 50,000 older adults are treated for injuries related to falls involving a walker or cane each year in the USA.

Cancer drugs that produce only a marginal survival benefit are much too expensive. The NIH and the NCI are urging limits on the use and pricing of such drugs.

There have been reports of impaired renal function in people taking a once-yearly infusion of zoledronic acid for the treatment of osteoporosis and Paget disease.

Removal of organs from the dead donor is the norm in the West, but internationally, that's not the case.

Diet and exercise intervention in older, long-term survivors of colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer can reduce functional decline.

"Obama has to provide strong reasons for the average individual in our society for wanting to embrace health reform," said MSU Medical Ethics Professor Dr. Leonard M. Fleck. Fleck advocates in his writings the theories of John Rawls (Karl Marx lite).

Every year in the USA tens of millions of prescriptions are dispensed and billions are spent for antithrombotic medications and acid-suppressing drugs. Elderly patients can be at risk from prolonged use.

Past use of hormone therapy with estrogen plus progestin increases the risk of dying from non-small cell lung cancer for women who develop the disease. Especially for smokers.

Thousands of veterans may have been exposed to contaminated endoscopic equipment (hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV).

Three health insurance companies CEOs were grilled by Congress about rescission if the information supplied at application is inaccurate or misleading (cancelling coverage of policyholders). The committee noted it is legal, but unfair, so they smacked them anyway.

Bottled water and tap water are regulated by 2 different government entities. Requirements for bottled water (FDA) are less stringent than tap (EPA).

There are 2.8 million new cases of chlamydia each year, about half in females aged 15-25. The solution seems to be more screening, not responsible behavior or education. Certainly not chastity pledges!

The Mediterranean-type diet has been associated with healthful outcomes including reduced risk of cariovascular disease, cancer, and mortality, and more recently with cognition. Mid-life obesity, diabetes and hypertension are risk factors for late-life dementia and influenced by diet.

The most common reason for referral to adult protective services by "first responders" required through Title XX of the Social Security Act, is self-neglect, not abuse by a care giver (4 to 1). Society and the health care system have failed the most vulnerable older adults. While we look for evidence and solutions, we must act NOW!

Women physicians who travelled to Chad (Africa) heard stories of women living in Farchana Camp (UN) of rape, torture, beatings and stigma after fleeing genocide in Darfur at the hands of the Sudanese Army and Janjaweed militiamen (Arab Muslim against black Muslim). The American researchers themselves were in great danger during their time in Africa.

The increase in drug-related homicides in Mexico (400 a month) is a result of the Mexican government's crackdown on drug trafficking organizations, but it's really the fault of the demand in the US, not the supply in Mexico.

Although they can't find any evidence of health benefits for "intimate partner violence" screening, it should be implemented and rigorously tested anyway. It's the thought that counts. And the grant money.

All stories taken from JAMA August 2009 issues.