Category Archives: Healthcare

UPDATED: Medics WRONG, As They Often Are, On One-Size-Fits-All Mammography

Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intelligence, Science, Technology

Years back, paleo warrior Karen De Coster was fired by her doctor for questioning the wisdom of the prescribed annual mammogram and refusing to submit to it. Uncoordinated, and in the same month, I was given my marching orders by my medic for a related infraction.

Just the other day, at the (new) doctor’s office, I was treated as an alien for suggesting that an ultrasound be performed for an additional data point, to alternate with the mammogram the provider kept pressing for. Be a daredevil, I suggested (not in those words, of course); get a different angle on the breast tissue! The providers’ response–from doctor to radiographer: “OMG! Nooooo … there’s a heretic among us. Reach for the smelling salts. Should we call security????!!! This could escalate.”

Pretty much.

Now the data suggest that mammography belongs not as an annual rule, but, rather, in the context of a personalized, individualized healthcare strategy, tailored to a woman’s genetic and general risk profile—the kind of holistic healthcare less likely under the trillion-dollar burden of ObamaCare.

From “American Cancer Society eases mammogram recommendations”:

In a major shift, the American Cancer Society is recommending that women at average risk of breast cancer get annual mammograms starting at age 45 rather than at age 40, and that women 55 and older scale back screening to every other year.

The new guidelines, published on Tuesday in JAMA, fall more closely in line with guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel of experts that recommend biennial breast cancer screening starting at age 50 for most women.

The Task Force’s 2009 recommendations to reduce the frequency and delay the start of mammogram screening were based on studies suggesting the benefits of detecting cancers earlier did not outweigh the risk of false positive results, which needlessly expose women to additional testing, including a possible biopsy. …

… The differences between the two sets of guidelines shows there is no single or correct answer for when and how often women should be screened for breast cancer, said Dr. Nancy Keating of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Keating, who co-wrote a commentary accompanying the new guidelines, said the differences between the two groups emphasize the need to talk to patients and understand their preferences about breast cancer screening. …

UPDATE: There are risk in radiation and in the exploration of false positives (biopsies or further interventions that cause disease). Overall, the data show that the annual mammogram doesn’t reduce mortality from breast cancer.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Deborah Nucatola & Mary Gatter Ugly Through-And-Through

Ethics, Feminism, Healthcare, Left-Liberalism, Morality

When they’re base, crass, cruel and grotesque, left-liberal females are especially base, crass, cruel and grotesque. Is there an abomination uglier than Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood, holding forth about the harvesting of fetal body parts, all the while gorging on salad and gulping down wine?

Yes, there is an entity, a blob, to compete with Nucatola. It’s Mary Gatter, aka Less-Crunchy-Technique, I-Want-A-Lamborghini Mary, the Medical director at Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley in California.

The affectatious tart tones the first creature makes! And the way Mary swooshes her gums with her tongue. These women are ugly in and out.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Justice John Roberts Cements Position … On The DC Party Circuit

Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, The Courts

Did you expect anything different from Justice John G. Roberts Jr.? Why? This is the chief of the country’s legal politburo of proctologists, who had previously rewritten Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and then proceeded to provide the fifth vote to uphold the individual mandate undergirding the law, thereby undeniably and obscenely extending Congress’s taxing power.

What did this “conservative” jurist do NOW? Reports Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS Blog:

… a divided Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that subsidies to help lower-income Americans buy health insurance will remain available in all fifty states.

That, the Court concluded by a six-to-three vote, was what Congress intended when it passed the sweeping overhaul of the health insurance market five years ago. If the subsidies are not available across the nation, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority, that would bring about “the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

Had the ruling in King v. Burwell gone the other way, to eliminate subsidies in thirty-four states, at least 6.4 million Americans likely would have almost immediately lost the insurance coverage that many of them have for the first time. And, given the way Congress wrote an interlocking law, the cascading effect of the loss of subsidies for so many probably would have collapsed the whole arrangement — a point that Roberts embraced in foreseeing the potential for a “death spiral” for the ACA.

The Chief Justice’s twenty-one-page opinion was an often technical interpretation of many arcane provisions of the ACA, but it was clear that the outcome had been driven in considerable part because the majority had accepted the centrality of the subsidy scheme to the law as a whole, and had found persuasive the dire predictions of the impact of sharply paring down that scheme.

The decision closely tracked most of the arguments that the Obama administration had made in defending the nationwide availability of subsidies, in the form of tax credits. …


“A Romp Down Memory Lane With Justice Roberts” will show that Roberts has always been about the moves. With his affirmation of the right of the state to compel the individual into a purchase, Justice Roberts moved into the DC party circuit. Roberts’ smooth moves, today, on behalf of The Powers will cement his position on this circuit.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Dr. Mehmet Oz Vs. Mainstream Medicine

Ethics, Free Markets, Healthcare

So he often advocates what a writer terms derisively “simple tricks and natural remedies.” (Come to think about it, isn’t good health about some very simple things?) But has Dr. Mehmet Oz ever killed anyone with his friendly advice or during cardiac and thoracic surgery? Members of the medical establishment certainly have with their Food and Drug Administration approved remedies and interventions, their phony food pyramid, not to mention the many bans and shortages the FDA creates.

I don’t watch Dr. Oz’s show, but in the odd segment I’ve seen, he appears genuine, humble, likeable; someone who loves people (especially the ladies) and does his best to make them happier and healthier. He also makes a bundle in the process. Wicked, I know. At least so the medical establishment thinks. Via CNN:

Earlier this week, a group of 10 physicians from across the country emailed a letter to Columbia University expressing disapproval that Oz is on the faculty. The email sent to Columbia’s faculty dean for Health Sciences and Medicine, Dr. Lee Goldman, said the group is “surprised and dismayed” that Oz is on faculty and that he holds a senior administrative position. Oz is vice chair of the Department of Surgery, at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The email was sent by Dr. Henry Miller, a fellow in scientific philosophy and public policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute. It was signed by nine other physicians from across the country, none of whom are affiliated with Columbia. They accuse Oz of, what they call, “manifesting an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.”

Dr. Richard Green, the associate chief of cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center disagrees:

Oz has achieved some of the greatest scientific accomplishments of his career at Columbia. While a resident there, he was the four-time winner of the prestigious Blakemore research prize, which goes to the most outstanding surgery resident. He now holds 11 patents for inventing methods and devices involved in heart surgeries and transplants. This includes helping to research and develop the left ventricular assist device, or LVAD, which helps keep people alive while they’re awaiting a heart transplant. Oz had a hand in turning the hospital’s LVAD program into one of the biggest and most active in the world.

Dr. Green greeted me in a beige hospital hallway, a compact man with worn skin and white hair, dressed in blue scrubs. In his office, which was decorated with family pictures, diplomas, and medical textbooks, he alternately praised and defended his colleague. He said the following things about Oz: “He’s a brilliant mind.” “He’s a very charming person.” “He has great energy.” “He’s uniformly respected and admired here.” “Maybe he should be president. I would vote for him.” “He’s a talent. He’s multidirectional.” “As for the other doctors who are on TV, I don’t put them in [Oz’s] league. Not even close.”

Green also suggested that the leveling off we’re seeing in obesity rates in the US may be thanks to the awareness Oz has raised about the importance of eating more healthfully and exercising.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Britain’s Best Bitch Flouts ‘The Tyranny Of Nice’*

Britain, Celebrity, Feminism, Healthcare, Political Correctness, Pop-Culture

Katie Hopkins: “I’m a woman of my convictions, I’ll say what I like and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to listen.” “I went to a convent. The sisters there said to never use the word nice, because it’s the worst word in the English language. I tend to agree.”

So do I.

Britain’s best bitch has gotten into trouble with the PC brigade in the US, too, for quipping that singer “Kelly Clarkson does look a bit like she ate her backing singers,” and that, during pregnancy, when “she took [up] eating for two … she decided to eat for 10.” And, “If you can’t find the fun in that, then more pity on you.”

“That’s not bullying,” laughed Hopkins at the Access Hollywood dumbfounded (and dumb) duo,”That’s a great line.”

Agreed (maybe not great, but certainly funny).

Hopkins added that “it’s her responsibility as a woman to tell others to get off their [vast] asses and stop costing her money (through the UK’s NHS, the socialized healthcare system, where, as with Obamacare, the healthy subsidize the unhealthy).

Viva Katie Hopkins for flouting “the tyranny of nice” (also a book by Kathy Shaidle).

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

The Congressional Budget Oafs SOP

Debt, Economy, Healthcare

“Obamacare’s A Marketplace In The Same Way The Knockout Game Is A Game” offered this assessment of the modus operandi of the CBOafs (The Congressional Budget Oafs):

[Like] the pundits who bestow them with the “non-partisan” adjectival, the CBOafs (The Congressional Budget Oafs), protect the status-quo. This federal agency is as “independent” as the country’s columnists, who might as well register as lobbyists for the RNC or DNC respectively.
Typically, the CBO will first confirm government predictions of the great savings that will accrue due to this or the other wastrel, welfare program. Later, when it’s safer, they adjust their statistical sleight of hand.
Yes, getting reliable data out of the CBO is like frisking a wet seal.

Zero Care will impose $1 trillion in tax increases and $2 trillion in subsidies. Yet, the CBOafs initially scored the program positively. Only a day ago, not untypically, the CBOafs were touting the increasing (alleged) affordability of the Affordable Care Act (not for me). Right away, the CBOafs then pivot to warn of the “Heightening Risk of Fiscal Crisis.” Via

CBO Director Douglas Elmdorf testified that debt will exceed 100% of GDP within 25 years and continue to rise, a “trend that could not be sustained” and would eventually heighten “the risk of a fiscal crisis” before the House Budget Committee on Tuesday.

“Although the deficits in our baseline projections remain roughly stable as a percentage of GDP through 2018, as I noted, they rise after that. The deficit in 2025 is projected to be $1.1 trillion, or 4% of GDP, and cumulative deficits over the 2016 to 2025 period are projected to total $7.6 trillion. We expect that federal debt held by the public will amount to 74% of GDP at the end of this fiscal year, more than twice what it was at the end of 2007, and higher than in any year since 1950. By 2025, in our baseline projections, federal debt rises to nearly 79% of GDP. When CBO last issued long-term budget projections in the summer, we projected that, under current law, debt would exceed 100 percent of GDP 25 years from now, and would continue on an upward trajectory thereafter. That trend that could not be sustained. Such large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences, including increasing federal spending for interest payments, restraining economic growth in the long term, giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges, and eventually heightening the risk of a fiscal crisis” he stated.

According to a copy of his prepared remarks released by the CBO, the revised economic projections “do not materially change” predictions that debt will exceed 100% of GDP in 25 years and “CBO’s current projection of debt as a percentage of GDP in 2024 is quite close to that used as the starting point for the projections in The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook [where the CBO also predicted that debt will be 100% of GDP in 25 years.]”

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint