With Obama's Health care summit less than a week away, many of us are anxious to see whether the original bill is scrapped and a new bipartisan one is forged. Personally, I agree some reform needs to happen. But $848 billion worth, or the $2.5 trillion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, is that really necessary?
Look, there are major injustices within the current health care system that need to be addressed. Some of these include being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or stopping benefits that cover life-saving treatments. Also, it's imperative to deflate the ballooning malpractice premiums for doctors, that in turn, drive up insurance premiums. Up until here, I am in total agreement with the Democrats.
Where the Democrats go astray and lose my support is with their logic that in order to fix these legitimate problems, then we need to spend nearly $850 billion and create a government health care system. One obvious flaw in this logic that leaps out at me is that the government could simply pass legislation to ban insurance companies from denying coverage or benefits. Oh wait, the current bill does this. Then why does this bill have such a huge price tag?
One reason is this push to get everyone insured. For people that can't afford private insurance, this bill would establish an alternative government health care program. But once again the Democrats lose me. Why is it necessary to spend billions to create a new government program, when people on both sides of the isle have proposed more economical solutions like creating a national cooperative. A coop would solve the woes of many buy allowing citizens to obtain portable private health care insurance that would not be dependent on their employment status. In addition, it would lower premiums because of the huge pool of customers enrolling in such a coop. I just don't get it, this seems like such a rational solution to the average American's health care complaint and at the same time doesn't break the bank. In addition, a coop could go into effect almost immediately without the need to establish a large government agency, thus providing immediate and affordable coverage to the average American.
If time is a factor in delivering relief to the American people, then why is Congress pushing a health care bill that does not go into effect until 2014? Although we'd start paying for this bill now, people wouldn't have affordable health care until 2014. To me, it seems like the policy makers backing this bill are disconnected from the people who are pleading for immediate reform.
While the federal government appears to be out of ear's range, the local state governments hear the disapproval from their constituents and have decided to act. Both Idaho and Virginia have approved state constitutional amendments to reassert their ability to ignore any federally mandated health care bill not supported by their residents. Another 32 states have proposed similar amendments to assert their state rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the Unites States.
If Obama truly wants a health care bill that delivers real change, then he has to scrap the original bill before next week's summit. Such an act would be widely perceived as a good-will gesture, while indicating that he is truly committed to a bipartisan health care reform bill. Otherwise, all hope of real health care reform will be dead for some time.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Bring back the safety coffin!
As of today I was not aware of the Lazarus Syndrome. But once you hear this story, I bet you will not forget it either. I stumbled across the following report on the FOX News Health page:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586302,00.html
It describes a female patient in Colombia who was declared legally dead after medical equipment failed to detect her heart rate or blood pressure. She was then sent to a funeral home to be prepared for burial. As the morticians were about to apply the embalming fluid to the body, "the patient began to breathe again and make movements." Apparently, she was not dead!
The Lazarus Syndrome is a phenomenon in which a patient can not be resuscitated, but unexpectedly has a miraculous restoration of circulation. This syndrome is extremely rare. Since 1982, there have been only 25 documented cases of Lazarus Syndrome.
Fear of being buried alive was rampant during the 18-19th centuries. As a result, some were interested in being buried in a safety coffin. Basically, the idea was to incorporate a way for an interred person to signal to the outside world in the event that he came back to life after being buried. One version of the safety coffin was to have a string or rope in the coffin that would connect to a bell above ground.
In reality, I don't think we have to worry about being incorrectly declared dead or buried alive. So, I don't envision that safety coffins will fly off the shelves anytime soon. But, I must say, it makes one wonder when one is truly dead, especially if you're like me and you are a registered organ donor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586302,00.html
It describes a female patient in Colombia who was declared legally dead after medical equipment failed to detect her heart rate or blood pressure. She was then sent to a funeral home to be prepared for burial. As the morticians were about to apply the embalming fluid to the body, "the patient began to breathe again and make movements." Apparently, she was not dead!
The Lazarus Syndrome is a phenomenon in which a patient can not be resuscitated, but unexpectedly has a miraculous restoration of circulation. This syndrome is extremely rare. Since 1982, there have been only 25 documented cases of Lazarus Syndrome.
Fear of being buried alive was rampant during the 18-19th centuries. As a result, some were interested in being buried in a safety coffin. Basically, the idea was to incorporate a way for an interred person to signal to the outside world in the event that he came back to life after being buried. One version of the safety coffin was to have a string or rope in the coffin that would connect to a bell above ground.
In reality, I don't think we have to worry about being incorrectly declared dead or buried alive. So, I don't envision that safety coffins will fly off the shelves anytime soon. But, I must say, it makes one wonder when one is truly dead, especially if you're like me and you are a registered organ donor.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Doctors are human, aka...they don't know everything!
Anyone close to me knows that I am a staunch advocate of patient activism in one's own personal health care. I, and many friends and family, have had doctors blow off legitimate concerns only to be proven wrong months down the road.
I heard this story last night on FOX News, and found the following link describing one woman's frustrating battle with her doctor:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/16/czech-surgery-tool-abdomen.html
As reported in this news article, a Czech patient underwent surgery for some gynecological issues. Then, for five months after the surgery, she complained to her doctor that she was suffering from major abdominal pain. For months, the doctor dismissed her and recommended pain medications. Finally, and I mean finally, the doctor requested an abdominal X-ray. What did they find? A foot long surgical tool in left inside her abdominal cavity since the surgery 5 months earlier!
What's the take home message? You should speak up and move-on! If your doctor doesn't listen to your concerns, dump him! If he wont incorporate your intuition and symptom reporting, or he makes you feel like it's all a figment of your imagination, dump him! If he doesn't make you feel that your health and well-being are his number one priority, then the fact of the matter is that you are not his priority.
Look, it's not just the doctor's fault. They're often overworked. But there are plenty of other doctors out there that will make the time for you and who will give you the kind of doctor-patient relationship that's right for you.
Finally, at the end of the day, doctors are human and make mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes you can't afford the delay. I would strongly recommend that you don't simply trust your one doctor's opinion. You've probably heard it before, but get a second opinion and find a doctor that will listen and help you.
I heard this story last night on FOX News, and found the following link describing one woman's frustrating battle with her doctor:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/16/czech-surgery-tool-abdomen.html
As reported in this news article, a Czech patient underwent surgery for some gynecological issues. Then, for five months after the surgery, she complained to her doctor that she was suffering from major abdominal pain. For months, the doctor dismissed her and recommended pain medications. Finally, and I mean finally, the doctor requested an abdominal X-ray. What did they find? A foot long surgical tool in left inside her abdominal cavity since the surgery 5 months earlier!
What's the take home message? You should speak up and move-on! If your doctor doesn't listen to your concerns, dump him! If he wont incorporate your intuition and symptom reporting, or he makes you feel like it's all a figment of your imagination, dump him! If he doesn't make you feel that your health and well-being are his number one priority, then the fact of the matter is that you are not his priority.
Look, it's not just the doctor's fault. They're often overworked. But there are plenty of other doctors out there that will make the time for you and who will give you the kind of doctor-patient relationship that's right for you.
Finally, at the end of the day, doctors are human and make mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes you can't afford the delay. I would strongly recommend that you don't simply trust your one doctor's opinion. You've probably heard it before, but get a second opinion and find a doctor that will listen and help you.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Climategate continued...
In continuation of yesterday's post, I thought it was timely to discuss the recent BBC interview with Phil Jones. Jones resigned from his position as head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) after his scandalous emails leaked to the media.
The full Q&A from the Jones interview is accessible at the following link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
The most pertinent data presented in this feature story are the following warming trends for four different periods since 1860:
Period______Length___Trend (Degree C/decade)__Significance
1860-1880_____21_____0.163____________________Yes
1910-1940_____31_____0.15 ____________________Yes
1975-1998_____24_____0.166____________________Yes
1975-2009_____35_____0.161____________________Yes
Clearly, there have been four statistically significant periods of warming since the pre-industrial 1860-1880 time frame.
Jones also acknowledged that the rate of warming from 1995 to the current day (a 15 year period) was 0.12C. Although the trend is smaller by 0.3-0.4C, Jones says the short length of this time period means that this reduced trend does not yet meet the 95% significance level. But, it will be interesting to see what happens to this rate in 5 years time.
In conclusion, Jones's interpretation of the data is that the observed warming is man-made because volcanic and solar activity records can not explain the temperature increases in these 4 periods. However, I wonder what contribution heat transfer from within the earth's core could do this system and what those measurements look like. Alternatively, there could simply be other factors that have not been discovered yet that could account for these warming periods.
My feeling, as a scientist, is that you should never over-interpret your data and make statements that the data don't support. Therefore, I personally would not stake my professional reputation on a claim that these trends are man-made merely because we currently don't know yet what the real force driving the system is. Even I, in my 10 years of research experience, have learned that good science is well controlled and that interpretation of the data should be used to make narrow claims clearly substantiated by the data. To date, there has been no irrefutable evidence that man has acted and the global temperature has responded to that action.
Furthermore, there are clearly periods between the four warming periods mentioned in the BBC interview. I wonder what happened to the trends in these periods. Was there cooling or steady warming but at a lesser rate?
Speaking of cooling, Jones admits in the interview that from 2002 to the present, we have not been warming. In reality, we have been cooling for the last 8 years. Yes, the data have shown a cooling rate of -0.12C/decade. But once again, this period is too short to reach a 95% significance level. But, this SHOCKED me given that all anyone hears is that we're warming, warming and warming.
I think my final words on this issue are that 1) we have times of warming and cooling and 2) we have not yet identified the precise factors that have caused each warming trend.
The full Q&A from the Jones interview is accessible at the following link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
The most pertinent data presented in this feature story are the following warming trends for four different periods since 1860:
Period______Length___Trend (Degree C/decade)__Significance
1860-1880_____21_____0.163____________________Yes
1910-1940_____31_____0.15 ____________________Yes
1975-1998_____24_____0.166____________________Yes
1975-2009_____35_____0.161____________________Yes
Clearly, there have been four statistically significant periods of warming since the pre-industrial 1860-1880 time frame.
Jones also acknowledged that the rate of warming from 1995 to the current day (a 15 year period) was 0.12C. Although the trend is smaller by 0.3-0.4C, Jones says the short length of this time period means that this reduced trend does not yet meet the 95% significance level. But, it will be interesting to see what happens to this rate in 5 years time.
In conclusion, Jones's interpretation of the data is that the observed warming is man-made because volcanic and solar activity records can not explain the temperature increases in these 4 periods. However, I wonder what contribution heat transfer from within the earth's core could do this system and what those measurements look like. Alternatively, there could simply be other factors that have not been discovered yet that could account for these warming periods.
My feeling, as a scientist, is that you should never over-interpret your data and make statements that the data don't support. Therefore, I personally would not stake my professional reputation on a claim that these trends are man-made merely because we currently don't know yet what the real force driving the system is. Even I, in my 10 years of research experience, have learned that good science is well controlled and that interpretation of the data should be used to make narrow claims clearly substantiated by the data. To date, there has been no irrefutable evidence that man has acted and the global temperature has responded to that action.
Furthermore, there are clearly periods between the four warming periods mentioned in the BBC interview. I wonder what happened to the trends in these periods. Was there cooling or steady warming but at a lesser rate?
Speaking of cooling, Jones admits in the interview that from 2002 to the present, we have not been warming. In reality, we have been cooling for the last 8 years. Yes, the data have shown a cooling rate of -0.12C/decade. But once again, this period is too short to reach a 95% significance level. But, this SHOCKED me given that all anyone hears is that we're warming, warming and warming.
I think my final words on this issue are that 1) we have times of warming and cooling and 2) we have not yet identified the precise factors that have caused each warming trend.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Snowmageddon or Climategate?
If you watch major news networks, likely you will have heard about the recent Snowmageddon that's descended upon the Mid-Atlantic. The recent weather has caused the global warming debate to heat up once more. If you're like me, that leaves you wondering whom do you believe on this issue?
My recommendation would be to investigate on your own and look at the 1) raw data, 2) data collection methods and 3) validity of the conclusions drawn from the data. As a scientist, that's the way I've been trained to approach experimental problems and this approach is universally applicable. So, I decided to scratch the surface and actually track down some of the data that lies at the heart of this political storm.
At first glance, I found widely cited current and pre-industrial greenhouse gas CO2 levels. In fact the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has published a document online that covers global warming that can be found at:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E03.pdf
Within this document, Table 3.1 cites that pre-industrial greenhouse gas CO2 levels were 280 parts per million (ppm) c1750, with current levels reported to be around 382ppm. Clearly man must be causing higher CO2 levels if time point A is lower than time point B, right?
Well, my first concern was to examine the accuracy of the low pre-industrial CO2 level measurements. Secondly, I wanted to examine the CO2 levels between 1750 and today. After scouring the internet, I found numerous sites describing what amounts to flawed and at times unethical science. Some of the claims are that scientists selectively averaged only the lower pre-industrial CO2 data points and corrected non-overlapping CO2 sampling data sets (from Siple ice core samples and Mauna Loa direct atmospheric sample) to create a smooth curve that showed the desired CO2 trends over time. However, without knowing the source of these data I couldn't possibly endorse the validity of them.
I did discover an interesting study published in Energy and Environment that was written by scientist Ernst-Georg Beck. In this published journal article titled "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" that can be found online at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
Beck reports on numerous, well-controlled CO2 data sets from mainly European sampling stations spanning the 19-20th centuries. When looking within these controlled data sets, Beck reports that there is considerable fluctuation in CO2 levels over this 180 year period, with several atmospheric CO2 spikes as high as the current CO2 levels. Strikingly, some of these data directly refute the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ice core data from which the IPCC bases it's claim for man-made increases in CO2 levels. Specifically, Beck shows that atmospheric CO2 levels were sometimes as high as ~350ppm when IPCC ice core data claim the levels at that time were as low as 290ppm. Beck's analysis of various large atmospheric CO2 data sets suggest considerable fluctuation that is cyclical and does not match commonly cited trends that CO2 has steadily increased since the pre-industrial era.
So, if data exist to discredit the great global warming hype, how come we never hear about them? The nonprofit organization called The Friends of Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) offers an alternative analysis of the climate change data, but their perspective is not well publicized.
To fuel the skepticism, the recent "Climategate" scandal has rocked the world. As discussed on CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html) and FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/11/21/climate-skeptics-smoking-gun-researchers-leaked-e-mails/), leaked emails from a British university have revealed possible scientific misconduct. Allegedly, these emails suggest that prominent climatologists were cooking the books and hiding new data that would argue against global warming in order to keep funding and grant money flowing into their research projects. In addition, as described in a story covered by Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece), the United Nations climate chief has apologized publicly for allowing scientifically unsubstantiated predictions regarding the rate of melting for the Himalayan glaciers to be publicized as fact.
Because global warming has become political, with calls for government mandated emission caps and other future government imposed energy restrictions imminent, I think the citizens of America deserve to hear a Congressional review of the climate data before potentially unnecessary and intrusive legislation is imposed. I think scientists on both sides of the argument should present their cases and point out the validity or weakness of the data and interpretations of the data. Such a forum would finally allow the American public to decide for themselves what is fact or fiction.
I would urge you to contact your local representatives and call for a televised Congressional review. Regardless of your persepctive on this debate, getting to the truth is essential to moving forward with intelligent policies! If you agree, please share this blog.
My recommendation would be to investigate on your own and look at the 1) raw data, 2) data collection methods and 3) validity of the conclusions drawn from the data. As a scientist, that's the way I've been trained to approach experimental problems and this approach is universally applicable. So, I decided to scratch the surface and actually track down some of the data that lies at the heart of this political storm.
At first glance, I found widely cited current and pre-industrial greenhouse gas CO2 levels. In fact the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has published a document online that covers global warming that can be found at:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E03.pdf
Within this document, Table 3.1 cites that pre-industrial greenhouse gas CO2 levels were 280 parts per million (ppm) c1750, with current levels reported to be around 382ppm. Clearly man must be causing higher CO2 levels if time point A is lower than time point B, right?
Well, my first concern was to examine the accuracy of the low pre-industrial CO2 level measurements. Secondly, I wanted to examine the CO2 levels between 1750 and today. After scouring the internet, I found numerous sites describing what amounts to flawed and at times unethical science. Some of the claims are that scientists selectively averaged only the lower pre-industrial CO2 data points and corrected non-overlapping CO2 sampling data sets (from Siple ice core samples and Mauna Loa direct atmospheric sample) to create a smooth curve that showed the desired CO2 trends over time. However, without knowing the source of these data I couldn't possibly endorse the validity of them.
I did discover an interesting study published in Energy and Environment that was written by scientist Ernst-Georg Beck. In this published journal article titled "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" that can be found online at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
Beck reports on numerous, well-controlled CO2 data sets from mainly European sampling stations spanning the 19-20th centuries. When looking within these controlled data sets, Beck reports that there is considerable fluctuation in CO2 levels over this 180 year period, with several atmospheric CO2 spikes as high as the current CO2 levels. Strikingly, some of these data directly refute the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ice core data from which the IPCC bases it's claim for man-made increases in CO2 levels. Specifically, Beck shows that atmospheric CO2 levels were sometimes as high as ~350ppm when IPCC ice core data claim the levels at that time were as low as 290ppm. Beck's analysis of various large atmospheric CO2 data sets suggest considerable fluctuation that is cyclical and does not match commonly cited trends that CO2 has steadily increased since the pre-industrial era.
So, if data exist to discredit the great global warming hype, how come we never hear about them? The nonprofit organization called The Friends of Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) offers an alternative analysis of the climate change data, but their perspective is not well publicized.
To fuel the skepticism, the recent "Climategate" scandal has rocked the world. As discussed on CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html) and FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/11/21/climate-skeptics-smoking-gun-researchers-leaked-e-mails/), leaked emails from a British university have revealed possible scientific misconduct. Allegedly, these emails suggest that prominent climatologists were cooking the books and hiding new data that would argue against global warming in order to keep funding and grant money flowing into their research projects. In addition, as described in a story covered by Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece), the United Nations climate chief has apologized publicly for allowing scientifically unsubstantiated predictions regarding the rate of melting for the Himalayan glaciers to be publicized as fact.
Because global warming has become political, with calls for government mandated emission caps and other future government imposed energy restrictions imminent, I think the citizens of America deserve to hear a Congressional review of the climate data before potentially unnecessary and intrusive legislation is imposed. I think scientists on both sides of the argument should present their cases and point out the validity or weakness of the data and interpretations of the data. Such a forum would finally allow the American public to decide for themselves what is fact or fiction.
I would urge you to contact your local representatives and call for a televised Congressional review. Regardless of your persepctive on this debate, getting to the truth is essential to moving forward with intelligent policies! If you agree, please share this blog.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Cows and pigs are responsible for global warming
Doctors often recommend lowering red meat consumption to minimize the risk of obesity, cancer and coronary disease. In a 2007 Lancet Medical Journal article titled "Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health", McMichael and colleagues argue that cutting red meat consumption could also help combat global warming. The little data that the paper shows has been adapted from the FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, an organization that proposes that livestock production is responsible for 18% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.
Other online websites from National Geographic have reiterated the sentiments of the McMichael article, and expand the recommended ban of meat to include both beef and pork. This article can be found at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html
Apparently, this new scientific theory has found a following in Cambridge Massachusetts where a recent city Congressional panel convened to brainstorm new city legislation aimed at combating the "climate emergency". The public notes from this meeting, which was held December 12th 2009, can be found online at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/Climate_Congress_Notes_12-12-09.pdf
The controversy sparked by this meeting has been featured on many major news stations for its numerous proposed taxes on the use of both plastic and paper bags, as well as the disruptive elimination of all street curb-side parking within the city. Most alarming of all, these Cambridge meeting notes propose ways to change behavior by mandating "diet changes like eating no (or less) meat" because people don't know the "connection between red meat and methane gas emissions." Explicit recommendations to "try not eating meat for 1-2 days" were made.
These Cambridge Congressional meeting notes also mention public reactions to these proposed policies because people are not "ready to make sacrifices. However, extreme actions may be necessary."
I don't know about you, but I'm a bit scared of what these "necessary" and "extreme actions" may entail. It's quite alarming that governments in America are trying to regulate our daily diets. Can anyone say Big Brother? Are we going to one day have red meat and pork banned from the grocery stores and only be able to consume it illegally in underground hideouts reminiscent of speakeasies during the prohibition era?
It also seems ludicrous to me that Massachusetts is willing to push an agenda to make meat a controlled substance because it harms the environment, when it pushed to decriminalize marijuana through question 2 of the 2008 election ballot. Apparently Massachusetts didn't get the memo about all the health problems from marijuana use, let alone the crime associated with drug-trafficking. But that discussion is for another day.
Other online websites from National Geographic have reiterated the sentiments of the McMichael article, and expand the recommended ban of meat to include both beef and pork. This article can be found at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html
Apparently, this new scientific theory has found a following in Cambridge Massachusetts where a recent city Congressional panel convened to brainstorm new city legislation aimed at combating the "climate emergency". The public notes from this meeting, which was held December 12th 2009, can be found online at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/Climate_Congress_Notes_12-12-09.pdf
The controversy sparked by this meeting has been featured on many major news stations for its numerous proposed taxes on the use of both plastic and paper bags, as well as the disruptive elimination of all street curb-side parking within the city. Most alarming of all, these Cambridge meeting notes propose ways to change behavior by mandating "diet changes like eating no (or less) meat" because people don't know the "connection between red meat and methane gas emissions." Explicit recommendations to "try not eating meat for 1-2 days" were made.
These Cambridge Congressional meeting notes also mention public reactions to these proposed policies because people are not "ready to make sacrifices. However, extreme actions may be necessary."
I don't know about you, but I'm a bit scared of what these "necessary" and "extreme actions" may entail. It's quite alarming that governments in America are trying to regulate our daily diets. Can anyone say Big Brother? Are we going to one day have red meat and pork banned from the grocery stores and only be able to consume it illegally in underground hideouts reminiscent of speakeasies during the prohibition era?
It also seems ludicrous to me that Massachusetts is willing to push an agenda to make meat a controlled substance because it harms the environment, when it pushed to decriminalize marijuana through question 2 of the 2008 election ballot. Apparently Massachusetts didn't get the memo about all the health problems from marijuana use, let alone the crime associated with drug-trafficking. But that discussion is for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
