RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/08/30/control-versus-choice-n1723088

COVID cases are up. Hospitalizations climbed 24% last week.

But the media make everything seem scarier than it is. The headline “Up 24%!” comes after dramatic lows. Hospitalizations are still less than half what they were when President Joe Biden said, “The pandemic is over.”  

Yet the shallow media keep pounding away: “It may be time to break out the masks” headlined CNN.

Frightened people believe. The movie studio Lionsgate reinstated an office mask mandate. Atlanta’s Morris Brown College mandated masks and even banned parties.

This month, several school districts in Kentucky and Texas closed. “The safety and wellbeing of our students, staff, and community is a top priority,” said the school superintendent in Texas.

But kids rarely get very sick from COVID, and schools aren’t COVID hotspots. Studies on tens of thousands of people found “no consistent relationship between in-person K-12 schooling and the spread of the coronavirus.” 

A Lancet study found Florida had the 12th-fewest excess COVID deaths in the country, even though Florida students went back to school without masks relatively soon. 

At least Texas’ and Kentucky’s closures were isolated and brief. Long-term closures during the pandemic brought America’s lowest math and reading scores in decades. Florida’s kids suffered less learning loss than kids in other states. 

Sweden, which never closed its schools, suffered no learning loss. Sweden’s education minister wrote that children were “at much lower risk of serious illness” and that “keeping children learning was vital.” 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-price-controls-on-eliquis-and-other-drugs-ira-biden-71b45751?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

For years when I visited my father in Italy, he would ask me about a drug that my company,Bristol Myers Squibb, was developing. It was an anticlotting medication, and my father’s interest was personal, even though he was a physician.

He was at risk of a stroke because he had atrial fibrillation, a kind of irregular heartbeat. To contain that risk, he took warfarin to prevent the blood clots that lead to stroke.

Warfarin, which was developed more than a half-century ago, isn’t a perfect medicine. Too little, and it won’t work. Too much, and the risk of bleeding complications becomes untenable. Weekly blood work and frequent physician monitoring are required.

For decades, researchers sought a better solution. Then, 1995 brought a breakthrough. Researchers at BMS developed a new type of blood thinner, which targets a protein involved in blood clotting called Factor Xa. The new approach didn’t require warfarin’s monitoring and dose adjustments.

Early on, my father quizzed me about the clinical trials for our compound, later named Eliquis. After the FDA approved the medicine in 2012, he asked when it would be available in Italy, where—because of strict price controls—it wasn’t reimbursed as quickly as in the U.S. It became available for reimbursement in Italy for atrial fibrillation in late 2013. Over the past 11 years, Eliquis has benefited an estimated 40 million patients worldwide.

Eliquis is now in the news again. It is among the first 10 medicines subject to “negotiations” under the Inflation Reduction Act to determine what Medicare will pay for it.

Contrary to how it has been framed, the Inflation Reduction Act’s drug-pricing program doesn’t involve negotiation in any ordinary sense of the word. If drug developers disagree with the dictated price, our only options are to pay impossibly high penalties or withdraw our medicines from Medicare and Medicaid.

Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t that surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported. The Cochrane Collaboration, which purveys “trusted information,” has now taken a step in that direction.

As he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannitol halved death from head injury was based on trials that had never happened. He didn’t, but he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all had a lead author who purported to come from an institution that didn’t exist and who killed himself a few years later. The trials were all published in prestigious neurosurgery journals and had multiple co-authors. None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn’t know that they were co-authors until after the trials were published. When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” Why, Roberts wondered, did he publish the trial? None of the trials have been retracted.

Later Roberts, who headed one of the Cochrane groups, did a systematic review of colloids versus crystalloids only to discover again that many of the trials that were included in the review could not be trusted. He is now sceptical about all systematic reviews, particularly those that are mostly reviews of multiple small trials. He compared the original idea of systematic reviews as searching for diamonds, knowledge that was available if brought together in systematic reviews; now he thinks of systematic reviewing as searching through rubbish. He proposed that small, single centre trials should be discarded, not combined in systematic reviews.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4172467-biden-to-request-funds-for-another-covid-vaccine-amid-rising-cases/

President Joe Biden on Friday said he plans to ask for more funding from Congress for the development of a new coronavirus vaccine.

“I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress a request for additional funding for a new vaccine that is necessary, that works,” Biden, who is vacationing in the Lake Tahoe area, told reporters.

“It will likely be recommended that everybody get it no matter whether they’ve gotten it before or not,” he added.

The announcement comes as a recent rise in COVID-19 cases in some regions has resulted in the return of mask mandates by some entities in the U.S. Hospitalizations due to COVID-19 have also risen in the past few weeks as well, according to data.

New vaccines containing the version of the omicron strain XBB.1.5 are already being developed by Pfizer, Novavax and Moderna. However, the virus’s continuing mutation will likely necessitate updated vaccines.

The Biden administration’s supplemental funding request for Congress for the start of the new fiscal year did not include COVID-19 vaccinations. Instead, the White House asked for roughly $40 billion to fund short-term key priorities such as more aide for Ukraine, federal disaster funds, climate change and border priorities.

Last fall, Biden asked for over $9 billion from Congress to combat the virus, but the request was denied.

https://rufo.substack.com/p/barbarism-in-the-name-of-equality?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The debate about transgender medicine is shifting. Legislators in 20 states have recently passed bills to restrict transgender medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgeries, for minors. And the tide of public opinion appears to be moving against “gender-affirming care,” a euphemism for child sex-change procedures not supported by the evidence and that often cause devastating consequences. Preventing such procedures for patients under age 18 has to be the baseline.

But opponents of gender medicine should not celebrate prematurely—the battle is far from won. And while restrictions on such procedures for minors are essential, more scrutiny should be focused on a lesser-known practice: “non-binary” surgeries for adults.

Curtis Crane is one of the doctors leading this movement. Crane is a University of Iowa and Dartmouth College-trained urologist and plastic surgeon who specializes in transgender medical interventions, including experimental non-binary surgeries. 

In 2015, Crane received a flurry of publicity as an innovator in vaginoplasty, which involves castrating and creating an artificial vagina for “male-to-female” patients, and phalloplasty, which involves creating and installing an artificial penis for “female-to-male” patients. He boasted of a one- to two-year waitlist and claimed to have one of the highest volumes of transgender surgeries in the United States.

Since then, business has boomed. Crane operates clinics in San Francisco, California, and Austin, Texas, employs a team of five doctors, and conducts procedures on more than 1,000 patients per year. As part of this caseload, his practice has veered into the disturbing new territory of non-binary surgery, which includes castration, eunuch, and nullification procedures, which Crane describes as the process of “removing all external genitalia to create a smooth transition from the abdomen to the groin.” Crane has also designed and performed hundreds of non-binary surgeries in which he fashions together both male and female genitalia for a single individual. That is, he creates an artificial penis for a woman, while retaining her vagina; or creates an artificial vagina for a man, while retaining his penis.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/catherinesalgado/2023/08/21/is-wokeness-taking-over-and-worsening-the-medical-industry-n1720871

A lot of people started to notice during COVID-19 that some doctors seemed more interested in government policies and narratives than in excellence in healthcare. But with recent stories on radical leftism in hospitals and medical education, it seems necessary to ask just how much woke has permeated the medical field and whether it will bring down the quality of healthcare in the U.S. Could individuals eventually even be denied medical care based on political affiliation?

Two recent stories illustrate the infiltration of leftist politics in the medical field. I already reported on the Mayo Clinic offering a course that examines “racial equity,” “structural racism,” and alleged “anti-Blackness.” It appears to be a course for doctors, nurses, and medical staff to be indoctrinated in critical race theory (CRT).

Robin DiAngelo, one of the guest lecturers, wrote the New York Times bestseller “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.” If that isn’t bad enough, her “area of research is in Whiteness Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis, tracing how whiteness is reproduced in everyday narratives.” Whatever that means. And what does any of this have to do with providing excellent medical care?

Now Campus Reform is reporting on San Diego State University (SDSU) using Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) standards to judge potential applicants for a professor of cancer biology. “Candidates must satisfy two or more of the eight Building on Inclusive Excellence (BIE) criteria,” the job listing states. What are those criteria? SDSU thoughtfully provides them—here are a few:

Candidates that meet BIE criteria: (a) are committed to engaging in service with underrepresented populations within the discipline, (b) have demonstrated knowledge of barriers for underrepresented students and faculty within the discipline…(d) have experience or have demonstrated commitment to integrating understanding of underrepresented populations and communities into research…(f) have experience in or have demonstrated commitment to research that engages underrepresented communities…and/or (h) have research interests that contribute to diversity and equal opportunity in higher education.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/23/we-wont-be-masked-again/

A summer surge of COVID-19 has some wondering aloud if we should return to mask mandates. For now, the official line, despite the media effort to rekindle coronavirus hysteria, is that it’s unlikely. But we heard that before, in 2020, right before public health officials dropped their mask tyranny on us. If they do it again, we have an obligation to say no.

Are we calling for civil disobedience? Are we suggesting that Americans resist orders that are not laws but are instead decrees issued by despots? Absolutely, and without reservation.

Masks are dehumanizing. When we cover our faces, we no longer look like people. We look like monsters, freaks from bad science fiction movies. Half-blank faces stare back at us as our ability to communicate is skewed. A masked society is a hideous society.

When we wear masks because we are told to, we subjugate ourselves, surrender our agency to others. We symbolically kneel before abusive authorities that should have no authority over us. Are we free people or are we subordinates to politicians and an administrative structure that has accrued illegitimate power?

Masks project fear. Who wants to live in a world that is frightened, driven by panic, hiding behind a facade of protection? It was demoralizing to see the extremes that people went to to cover their faces during the pandemic. (Some of those in the video referenced here were clearly using caricatures to spoof the mandates, but we don’t need those again, either.)

https://pjmedia.com/culture/catherinesalgado/2023/08/16/mayo-clinic-offers-course-in-racial-equity-structural-racism-and-anti-blackness-n1719778

Your doctor might not know how to make you feel healthy, but he can make you feel guilty… for having “white fragility.” The Mayo Clinic, which has a high medical reputation, is offering a course on “racial equity” to healthcare professionals, with race-obsessed Robin DiAngelo as a guest lecturer.

For a mere $495 for doctors, or $265 for nurses, retirees, and staff (I guess racial equity isn’t related to financial equity), Mayo Clinic’s employees can learn critical race theory (CRT) — which is, somehow, a super important skill for doctors and nurses?

The course, “Developing Anti-Racism Leadership Competencies to Achieve Inclusive Practices and Health Equity 2023,” will run from September 12 to October 4 through Mayo Clinic’s School of Continuous Professional Development. “This course is an essential starting point for anyone seeking to expand their knowledge on the complexities of race, gender, and class,” the website brags.

Below are the course’s learning objectives.

Develop foundational knowledge of the historical and societal foundations of structural racism and anti-Blackness in America.
Identify modern-day impacts of the historical, cultural, legal, and social foundations of structural racism and anti-Blackness in America.
Describe tools and resources to operationalize knowledge through analysis of present day health, wellness, and economic outcomes.
Examine the impact subjective bias has on all systems, decisions, and outcomes.
Review the roles each of us play in upholding or disrupting systems of inequity and exclusion.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-hospital-deaths-bacterial-pneumonia/

Hospitals sticking to the strict hand-me-down, highly profitable “COVID protocol” may have doomed a majority of admitted COVID-19 patients to death due to a perfect storm of institutional failure, a new study shows.

Hospital protocolists sticking to the strict hand-me-down highly profitable “COVID protocol” may have doomed a majority of admitted COVID-19 patients to death due to a perfect storm of institutional failure.

I first warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 that because the commercial kits did not use internal negative controls there would be arbitrarily high COVID-19 false positive rates due to the abuse of non-quantitative PCR.

The majority of “cases,” I pointed out, would be false because the test was to be used as a screening device — and when you screen with an imperfect test when prevalence is low, you end up with more false positives than negatives in the set of positives.

Knowing that people who were symptomatic for respiratory infections would be among the most tested population and that Dr. Anthony Fauci’s medical approach to COVID-19 was to tell people to go home and get as sick as possible, it was readily clear that people would be dying due to lack of treatment for treatable conditions, like bacterial pneumonia and fungal infections in the lung.

Now a study from the National Institutes of Health-funded researchers in Chicago has found that unresolved respiratory infections — not necessarily those involved in SARS-CoV-2 — were present in people who failed to “respond” to mechanical ventilation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/second-thoughts-on-gender-affirming-care-american-academy-pediatrics-doctors-review-medicine-a7173276?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

The American Academy of Pediatrics said last week that it will commission a systematic review of the evidence for pediatric sex-trait modification, known euphemistically as “gender-affirming care.” This marks a turning point in the battle over the controversial medical protocol. To those who favor evidence-based rather than eminence-based medicine, it is a step in the right direction.

But it is a small step. Two key questions: Will the systematic review follow a transparent, impartial scientific process? And what should the AAP do in the meantime?

In explaining the decision to commission a systematic review, the AAP’s CEO, Mark Del Monte, said that the academy’s board “has confidence that the existing evidence is such that the current policy is appropriate. At the same time, the board recognized that additional detail would be helpful here.”

If the AAP’s position is that it is “confident” the systematic review will vindicate its position and merely add “additional detail,” that raises suspicions about the honesty and independence of the process and shows the need for strong guardrails against AAP influence over the inquiry.

The AAP is, first and foremost, a trade union. “Professional medical association” is a less apt description than “association of medical professionals.” Teachers unions care about education but give their own and their members’ interests priority over those of students. So too the AAP has strong incentives to defend its own interests and those of member doctors—especially those who have publicly endorsed or facilitated sex-trait modification—even when that is harmful to patients.

The AAP and prominent members have consistently assured policy makers and judges that sex-trait modification is safe and effective and based on strong science. Insurance companies have based their coverage decisions on these claims. Democrats have used them to cast opponents as bigots. The Biden administration regularly cites the AAP in its efforts to guarantee minors unfettered access to hormonal drugs and life-altering surgery. Parents have accepted AAP claims and agreed to allow doctors to disrupt their children’s natural puberty, flood their bodies with synthetic hormones, and amputate their healthy breasts.