Iatrogenic

Share |

What a beautiful word, iatrogenic. How better to characterize the origins of the COVID19 Pandemic.

Understatement

Share |April 25, 1953 Nature Magazine #4356 page 737, probably the greatest British/English understatements of all time. In publishing the structure of deoxyribose nuclei acid, James Watson defined the formula for life.  “It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.”

Public Health Failure

Share |

Once upon a time, Public Health kept the water safe and enforced quarantine for highly contagious diseases. Physicians were highly educated, judgmental and organizationally disciplined.

Since the HIV epidemic, liberal planing introduced two changes. 1. Liberals passed legislation forbidding routine testing for HIV and tightened the rules insuring patient’s medical confidentiality to the point of stiffening both continuity of care and medical education. 2. An overgrown medical bureaucracy introduced rules based medical care based on guidelines with disciplinary measures against physicians not following those guidelines. 

If nothing else, the CoV2 pandemic exposed these failures. Firstly, the inertia of Public Health in reacting to the pandemic lead to a faster and broader spread of the disease. Rules based guidelines became obsolete by the time they are published. Contact tracing and quarantine was overwhelmed. Secondly, guidelines denied the use of treatments not supported by as yet incomplete double blind studies. 

Universal rules forgo regional variability and the magic of multiple trial and error, an end of the scientific method. Medical bureaucracy insisted on a negative interpretation of the relevance and validity of many published clinical trials, not completed and interpreted by themselves. These acronymous agencies, CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS and a plethora of others placed greater value on population wide studies, statistics and completion of years long studies. The inertia of time alone rendered their judgments irrelevant. This egregious denial of care from government entities resulted in many unnecessary deaths and continues to do so today. 

Traditionally, the consideration of multiple clinical trials and clinical judgment was the prerogative of individual clinicians viewing multiple variables. Any clinical physician knows that treatment is highly individual and enhanced by the presence of a trusted physician, and that most clinical studies contain a bias of one sort or another: independent variables, clinical bias, incompetence, statistical or just plain inertia. Then enters political bias. Hospital employers even licensing agencies got into the act threatening  consequences for any deviation from their negative guidelines.

The generations long history of treating Influenza included off label drugs with antiviral efficacy and support with multiple strategies including optimal treatment of underlying conditions and support of the immunize system. The same could apply to COVID19. With a death rate over 20% for patients over 70, physicians needed to be free to treat early and try options.

In the heat of the pandemic, with rigid guidelines, other serious conditions were neglected. Guidelines, algorithms and artificial intelligence fell far short of adequate management of the multiple problems and fast changing threats.

Protocalized Medicine

Share A new term from NEJM Hospital Medicine, promises wider hospital gross profit margins, decreased continuously of care and frequent disregard for coexisting conditions. 

Early Treatment COVID19

Share | I’m disappointed in ID coverage of early treatment of COVID 19.

Physicians have been marginalized or fired for attempting early treatment. Various treatment modalities were discounted and later revised. Early treatment might have saved many lives. I don’t think the journal gave adequate clinical coverage of either the controversy or the lost opportunity for early treatment. Never mind the damage done to physicians attempting to practice traditional medicine. Even the laying on pod hands and the reassuring presence of a trusted physician has a positive neurohumeral strengthening of the immune system. 

Was this failure of early treatment not a shortcoming of overly rigid evidence base, standardization and protocols?

Authoritarian Medicine

Share |

It was three am in Nandi International Airport in Fiji. All of the passengers had cleared customs and left the terminal. Only three of us remained. It was not hard to spot the other doctor, an ENT from Homberg, Germany. The third gentleman was a British Health Service bureaucrat from England in Fiji to share the English version of central management of healthcare with the emerging Fijian Healthcare system. We were all waiting for rides which may not have anticipated our early arrival.

Wolfgang and I immediately hit it off. We were both volunteers with Rotary International, in Fiji to participate in a Health Fair throughout many of the underserved villages. After a few minutes, the Englishman came over and introduced himself enthusiastically presenting his views on standardized healthcare. Wolfgang and I spent the next two hours arguing that standardization negated the scientific nature of clinical practice, where in trial and error takes place massively throughout the profession resulting advancements in care for the patient, communicated almost by word of mouth on a realtime basis. We argued that statistics and scientific studies were a necessary reference but not a certain conclusion. Many studies were selected for or conflicted by those conducting the studies and many studies proved wrong by subsequent trial but with substantial time lag.  Neither side won the argument back then, and our rides soon arrived.  This airport debate was twenty years ago, and the evolution of  authoritarian medicine dominated English medicine and now distorts healthcare in the US. 

The American version of authoritarian medicine features additional elements of greed and politics, along with massive bureaucracy. Starting with the theory of "Evidence based Medicine," medical science became the purview of the growing medical bureaucracy, then hospital administrators, corporate medicine, politicians and big pharmacology. The burdens today's physicians face, match or exceed the burdens of various religious dictates during the Dark Ages. No longer medical science and patient care, doctors now practice with political correctness, censorship and manipulated evidence. Today, I read that the AMA has come out in support of Critical Racial Theory. Politics and greed have no business in medical practice and patient care. Patient care, patient satisfaction, current science, treatment outcome, the physicians judgment and local medical societies should be the only authority in medical practice. Authoritarian-guidelines negate the scientific method and inductive reasoning. Evidence is good. guidelines can help, but bureaucratic regulation or administrative regulation cannot. Now the AMA wants to replace merit based medical school admission standards with social standards. Such a move favors corporate medicine and social medicine producing young obedient feldshers who will not question the authoritarian mandates or the political and economic motives -- over clinical judgment, medical science and patient care. We desperately need to reaffirm the Aesculapian mandates of Western medicine and resist the Marxist authoritarianism, greed and politicalization of medicine.

Ivermectin

Share |

"YouTube videos mentioning ivermectin in treatment of Covid-19 were removed or demonetized, as well as Twitter pages locked. Further, in Big Media, even the most credentialed independent and expert groups who recommend ivermectin based on a large body of irrefutable evidence are labeled as “controversial” and purveyors of “medical misinformation.” (My own Face Book and Twitter posts as well -- arguing for early physician treatment of COVID19, even if only holding hands.)

A health system structured to function in this manner is clearly vulnerable to and overly influenced by entities with financial interests. Further, in Covid, such systems have evolved into rigidly operating via top-down edicts and widespread censoring. This allows little ability for emerging scientific developments not funded by Big Pharma to be disseminated from within the system or through media or social media until years later when, and if, a Big RCT is completed. This barrier has presented as an enduring horror throughout the pandemic given the widespread loss of life caused by the systematic withholding of numerous rapidly identified, safe and effective, repurposed medicines for fear of using “unproven therapies” without “sufficient evidence” for use. Alternatively, and for the first time in many physicians’ careers, those who seek to treat their patients with such therapies, based on their professional interpretation of the existing evidence are restricted by their employers issuing edicts “from above.” They are then forced to follow protocols that rely predominantly on pharmaceutically engineered therapeutics." From the FLCCC, https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/

Starting with the theory of "Evidence based Medicine," medical science became the purview of the growing medical bureaucracy, then hospital administrators, politicians and big pharma. The burden todays physicians face matches or exceeds the burden of various religions in the Dark Ages. No longer medical science and patient care, but now political correctness, censorship and manipulated evidence. Today, I read that the AMA has come out in support of Critical Racial Theory. Politics and greed have no business in medical practice and patient care.

Democracy to Globalism to Oligarchy to Communism to Orwellian Dystopia

Share | https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M1XBXFZ

Existentialism

Share |

I think truth, fact and meaning are three distinct things. I think some of the willingness of journalists to engage in fake news comes from projecting and confusing meaning with truth or actual fact. I read statements such as, “It is an existential threat.” From my interpretation of existential, that would mean only a threat the journalist’s mind.

Listening to Jordan Peterson at the Oxford Union, I would ask him his interpretation of the above and his definition of existential. Think I’ll check out his book on meaning. Peterson has an interesting suggested book list.

Mexican Border Crisis

Share |Is this the masked image of American Communism?

Globalization or Democracy

Share |

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M1XBXFZ

HIV the Hidden Pandemic

Share | https://www.jwatch.org/fw117539/2021/02/21/lancet-series-tackles-us-hiv-epidemic?query=pfwTOC&jwd=000020094311&jspc=GP

The Lancet takes aim at the US HIV burden, the highest of any of the G7 nations. In dramatic contrast to the quarantine, contact tracing, social isolation, distancing and masks demanded by Public Health for the COVID19 pandemic; HIV patients and those living an alternative lifestyle demand and receive the exact opposite. Hospitals, clinics and physicians can not test for HIV without written permission. While hospital admitting lab tests still include a routine test for Syphilis, routine testing for HIV is not included. Only a difficult strategy of universal precautions affords protection for other patients and hospital personnel. Surgical and obstetric cases must be carried out with the assumption of risk, requiring extensive shielding against the inevitable spattering of blood. The risky behavior, personal privacy and confidentiality if not silence demanded by the HIV community was political from the start. If testing, quarantine, contact tracing and isolation had been required from the first case of HIV, there would have been no epidemic in the US, or if HIV did spread by undiagnosed immigration, it would have been contained. Indeed, COVID19 would have been contained too if China had not deliberately denied its threat and encouraged its spread.

As a nation, we were more than willing to suffer quarantine and contact tracing for Syphilis, Tuberculosis, Poliomyelitis and even Mumps. The contrast between the protocols for HIV and COVID19, however, illustrate the compromise needed between Constitutional freedoms of choice and the suspension of that freedom in the face of a highly communicable and highly fatal disease. The choices needed to balance a fair compromise might better be made by medical judgements than by politicians. Even so, there will be an inevitable difference between clinical opinion and that of public health. It becomes even more problematic when public health becomes politicized or politicians intervene.