Welfare for health insurance companies
Dec/16/09 22:09 Filed in: Healthcare Policy | Politics
Up until last night, I supported the healthcare reform plans of President Obama. I did so, despite the evisceration of important parts of the proposed law, including the public option, stricter controls on insurance companies, and broader coverage for more people. What we are going to have is a law that is no more than a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to rich health insurance companies. Sure, those companies have to accept customers with pre-existing conditions, but they get to charge more. Sure, they have to accept older individuals, but they get to charge them more.
Moreover, this bill will charge people who do not have insurance so that they might be covered. If they don’t have the money, the government will give it to you, and it will go to the insurance companies. Senators Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu, bought and paid for by the health insurance industry have sold out their values for these companies. Neither of them, supposed Democrats, have shown any conviction, any morals or any beliefs that are not bought in cash. The health insurance companies must be popping corks from bottles of Dom Perignon.
Some people say that it’s better to have a plan than none. I disagree. I think this plan will bankrupt the country, but in a wholly different way that the Republicans are saying. Without real reform, the cost to the citizens will be tremendous. Read More...
Moreover, this bill will charge people who do not have insurance so that they might be covered. If they don’t have the money, the government will give it to you, and it will go to the insurance companies. Senators Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu, bought and paid for by the health insurance industry have sold out their values for these companies. Neither of them, supposed Democrats, have shown any conviction, any morals or any beliefs that are not bought in cash. The health insurance companies must be popping corks from bottles of Dom Perignon.
Some people say that it’s better to have a plan than none. I disagree. I think this plan will bankrupt the country, but in a wholly different way that the Republicans are saying. Without real reform, the cost to the citizens will be tremendous. Read More...
Book review–Don't Swallow Your Gum!: Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health
I just finished reading Don't Swallow Your Gum!: Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health (ISBN:031253387X, 2009) written by Aaron Carroll MD and Rachel Vreeman MD, both pediatricians and researchers at the University of Indiana School of Medicine.
First of all, the book is an amusing, easy read, using terms like “snot” and “poo” to describe bodily secretions. At some 200 pages, it was a quick read, not requiring a lot of time. Obviously, the book was written for a wide audience, debunking many pseudoscientific myths about health. For those of us who demand supporting research, it has a vast list of primary and secondary research citations for further reading. In fact, for me, those citations are going to be invaluable in future articles.
The book goes about debunking silly myths such as “don’t swallow your gum because it will get stuck in your intestine for 5 (10, 20, whatever) years” or the old “five second rule” which we all suspected wasn’t wise. There was one chapter on “double dipping”, which was popularized on a Seinfeld episode many years ago, in which the authors discussed research that showed that double dipping does in fact transfer a lot of germs from the chip to the dip. Not that I would confess to being a double dipper, but I may not be a single-dipper at a party after reading this book! Read More...
First of all, the book is an amusing, easy read, using terms like “snot” and “poo” to describe bodily secretions. At some 200 pages, it was a quick read, not requiring a lot of time. Obviously, the book was written for a wide audience, debunking many pseudoscientific myths about health. For those of us who demand supporting research, it has a vast list of primary and secondary research citations for further reading. In fact, for me, those citations are going to be invaluable in future articles.
The book goes about debunking silly myths such as “don’t swallow your gum because it will get stuck in your intestine for 5 (10, 20, whatever) years” or the old “five second rule” which we all suspected wasn’t wise. There was one chapter on “double dipping”, which was popularized on a Seinfeld episode many years ago, in which the authors discussed research that showed that double dipping does in fact transfer a lot of germs from the chip to the dip. Not that I would confess to being a double dipper, but I may not be a single-dipper at a party after reading this book! Read More...
Science, lies, and stolen emails
As this is a blog about medicine, I haven’t written much about global warming. Moreover, until a few months ago, I was a bit of a skeptic about the science behind global warming. My skepticism was centered on a few key points that I didn’t feel had been adequately addressed:
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked. Read More...
- First, I was unconvinced that current temperatures exceeded that of the Medieval Warm Period, a period of warm climate in the North Atlantic from about 800 to 1300. During this time, the weather was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize Greenland and to support a settlement in Newfoundland.
- Second, California glaciers (yes California has numerous glaciers), like Palisade Glaciers in the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges were only about 700 years old, so obviously (to me), it’s colder today than it was before these glaciers formed.
- Third, the earth is just so complicated, it might take hundreds if not thousands of years of data to see any real trends.
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked. Read More...
Our place in the cosmos
Nov/23/09 21:27 Filed in: Science
As I’ve posted before, I really enjoy the auto-tuned videos from the Symphony of Science. They have a new one posted that includes Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins (one of the great evolutionary biologists), Michio Kaku (an American theoretical physicist who has made that field of science more understandable), and Robert Jastrow (a NASA astronomer who spent way to much time debunking the moon landing hoax conspiracy). Read More...
The 124th Meeting Of The Skeptics’ Circle
Nov/21/09 08:19 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Evidence based medicine | Quackery | Alternative medicine
One of my favorite bloggers on debunking medical quackery and pseudoscience is hosting a little party. Visit, and read some of the best articles on debunking myths, pseudoscience, quacks and anti-science. Read More...
How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 3
Nov/19/09 09:12 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
This is part of my ongoing discussion on how quacks use pseudoscience to push their myths and potions on the world. Part 1 discussed the scientific method, which allows us to objectively analyze the natural world. Part 2 discussed the best way for us to examine the difference between science and pseudoscience.
I just read an outstanding analysis, by Steven Novella, MD, a clinical neurologist at Yale University, of how pseudoscience (those who pretend to praise the scientific method, yet do it in a way that is not actually science) and anti-science (those who repudiate science outright, or even undermine science, with subjective analysis and untestable spirituality) to reject evidence-based medicine.
Dr. Novella clearly states how science in medicine works:
I just read an outstanding analysis, by Steven Novella, MD, a clinical neurologist at Yale University, of how pseudoscience (those who pretend to praise the scientific method, yet do it in a way that is not actually science) and anti-science (those who repudiate science outright, or even undermine science, with subjective analysis and untestable spirituality) to reject evidence-based medicine.
Dr. Novella clearly states how science in medicine works:
This leads us to the final continuum – the consensus of expert opinion based upon systematic reviews can either result in a solid and confident unanimous opinion, a reliable opinion with serious minority objections, a genuine controversy with no objective resolution, or simply the conclusion that we currently lack sufficient evidence and do not know the answer. It can also lead, of course, to a solid consensus of expert opinion combined with a fake controversy manufactured by a group driven by ideology or greed and not science. The tobacco industry’s campaign of doubt against the conclusion that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer is one example.The anti-vaccine movement’s fear-mongering about vaccines and autism is another. Read More...
Flu vaccination locations
Nov/17/09 09:26 Filed in: Vaccines | Healthcare Policy
Google maps has an interesting application that shows locations and availability of seasonal flu and H1N1 vaccinations. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but you should give it a try. Read More...
Bill Maher is a science denialist
Bill Maher, a rather liberal talk show host, has recently been joining the anti-vaccination crowd, adding his voice to the Hollywood centered vaccination denialists. He is a typical science denialist, ignoring the vast wealth of science, research and publications, to make statements, in this case about promoting pseudoscience in his dismissal of the value of vaccines. Moreover, Mr. Maher spends time denying he is a denialist, which usually is an indicator that one is a denialist.
Interestingly, Maher is usually in sync with my feelings about global warming and evolution denialists, who use pseudoscience and outright denial to "prove" that there is no global warming or evolution. Usually, skeptics or anti-denialists (one day we need to get this terminology right) are consistent, we dismiss pseudoscience outright. I have no clue why he has chosen this particular pseudoscience and quackery to support, but maybe he just thinks Jenny McCarthy knows more than real scientists. Read More...
Interestingly, Maher is usually in sync with my feelings about global warming and evolution denialists, who use pseudoscience and outright denial to "prove" that there is no global warming or evolution. Usually, skeptics or anti-denialists (one day we need to get this terminology right) are consistent, we dismiss pseudoscience outright. I have no clue why he has chosen this particular pseudoscience and quackery to support, but maybe he just thinks Jenny McCarthy knows more than real scientists. Read More...