Category: General Discussion

  • Welcome ERV

    No time for blogging today but make sure to welcome ERV, on of my favorite bloggers, to the network.

    Welcome ERV!

  • Open letter to Douglas M. Steenland, president and CEO, Northwest Airlines

    Dear Mr. Steenland,
    I would contact you using more conventional means, but getting through to even a minor lackey at your company is next to impossible. Thank you in advance for reading this.

    I hate your company. They are perhaps the most difficult company I have ever dealt with as a consumer, and I won’t be sorry to see them go, although I doubt it will change anything.

    Let me give you a little background.

    In December, my in-laws planned a family trip for their 50th anniversary. I’ll spare you some of the details, but let me give you the basics—an elderly couple, and two young couples with children show up early for their flight to meet the cruise ship. Airplane breaks, new airplane is called in, with time to spare to meet ship. Once on new plane, NW realizes that the cabin crew has “timed out” and we need a new one. They finally arrive, and then NW realizes that flight crew has timed out. After waiting for new flight crew, we get in line for de-icing. We arrive in San Juan just in time to see our boat leave without us. Northwest’s response was as expected—horrible. They did try to put us up in a hotel, but it didn’t accept kids, so we couldn’t stay there. There are more details, but I’ll spare you. The level of incompetence to allow such a thing to happen is hard to fathom. If I sent a patient to surgery, and after getting on the table, the nurses found they were off the clock, and then after finding new ones, the surgeons had to leave, until the surgery was finally postponed…well, you can follow the analogy.

    So, my wife and I decided to take a vacation alone together—no children. Just before we were to leave, my daughter got a terribly contagious respiratory illness and was hospitalized. I called Northwest and I was informed that we cannot have a refund. I tried to explain that given our situation and the amount of planning for work and child care, we are unlikely to be able to use the tickets in the next year. I was passed to a supervisor twice, and chided like a child for being annoyed that I was asked to listen to the same script multiple times. I was given the direct number for customer care, which isn’t accepting calls. I was told I have to email, and when the supervisor gave me the email address, it started with “www.”. When I explained that that is a web address, not an email address, she discontinued the conversation with this angry doctor-blogger.

    Clearly, Northwest doesn’t care a bit about their customers. I’m shocked, shocked to find a large American company only cares about taking customers’ money, and not about pleasing and retaining them. Shocked.

    I would appreciate, but of couse do not expect, a response.

    Sincerely, but angrily,

    Peter A. Lipson, M.D.

    P.S. Please buy something nice with my 2000 bucks. I hope it looks good on you.

  • Update—kiddo heading home

    We’re heading home from the hospital soon.We’ve gone from, “Daddy, I don’t want to cough anymore…it’s too boring,” to, “Daddy, do pirates have convertibles?”

    But infectious diseases have lots of consequences. I’m starting to get a tickle in my throat and a bit of a cough. I have asthma, and this could really set it off. My father has a type of immunity problem, so he can’t come around her for a while.

    My wife and I planned our first vacation alone together since we were married. Unfortunately, that vacation starts at the end of the week. The kiddo can’t stay with my folks while she’s shedding RSV, so I guess we’ll enjoy springtime in the Midwest.

    But at least I have my curious, funny, adorable daughter back.

    BTW, thanks for all the kind comments. While I don’t believe anyone’s prayers will help my kid, it helps me to know that folks care. Damn, I guess I’m an evil atheist who hates children and puppies (but likes veal).

  • I don't like this at all

    Yesterday my daughter (the one in my picture, but older now) started sneezing—a lot. Allergy season in this part of the country is brutal. We keep a box of kleenex on every flat surface in the house. But this morning she started coughing, and had a low-grade fever, so we knew she was sick, not just allergic. My wife stayed home with her while I represented us at our family’s Passover Seder. When I got home, she was still coughing—a lot. I grabbed a stethoscope and listened to her chest. It wasn’t perfectly clear, but she was coughing and crying so it was hard to hear (also, I’m not a pediatrician). I stepped back for a minute and looked at her. She was miserable. She was using her neck and chest muscles to help her breathe, and her stomach was moving in and out in what’s called a paradoxical pattern. She was clearly not doing well. We grabbed a few things and jumped in the car, heading for my hospital.

    When we got there, she was really struggling. Thankfully, lots of people I knew were working, and we got plugged in pretty fast. After a breathing treatment, she was a little more cheerful, but still breathing about 40 times per minute.

    Any parent knows what it’s like to see your child ill. When I look at her as a patient, I can see how sick she really is, but I try to keep a calm demeanor for her and for my wife—inside I’m screaming, tearing at my clothing, shaking. Her oxygen saturation is in the high 80s to low 90s, but she’s improved since we came in. My wife sends me home to get some rest (like hell!), and the plan is for me to pick them both up in the morning when I come in to round—assuming the little one is well enough.

    I feel horrible leaving them there without me, but one of my residents is taking care of them and I know he’ll call me if anything is going on. Still, it’s laughable to think I can just come home and sleep.

    It turns out she has respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a nasty little respiratory virus that makes little ones miserable. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for this one. We’re stuck with chance, and I don’t like chance very much tonight. In fact, I don’t like anything very much tonight except my daughter and her big, brown eyes that shine when she laughs, which is most of the time. When she coughs so hard that she can’t speak, I want to vomit.

    But instead, I’m sitting at home next to the phone, typing, and hoping and waiting.

    Addendum:

    So, as soon as I settled in at home, I got called back to the hospital. She’s doing a little better, but not well enough to go home. More later.

    More under the fold—>
    (more…)

  • National poetry month

    It’s all the buzz around here, so it’s my turn to share some interesting verse with you. Death and dying is a common topic of discussion with my patients and colleagues.

    Some of these are well-known to all, some of them aren’t, but I enjoy all of them.
    (more…)

  • Bill Maher is a crank

    I must admit I have a love-hate relationship with Bill Maher. He is a funny guy, he is good at mocking some of the more ludicrous aspects of politics, and he has been an effective critic of this administration and some of its more egregious policies.

    However, I’ve also long held the position that both liberals and conservatives alike must own up to their own extremists. Liberals must own up to the fact that they don’t have a universally-solid grasp on scientific truth, and just like the right wingers, we have people and movements within the left wing that are cranky and denialist. I would say left wing crankery includes animal rights extremism, altie/new age woo, and anti-technology Luddites.

    Bill Maher is one of these cranks (he scores 3/3), and if the liberals want to represent themselves as truly pro-science we must make a concerted effort to reject the unscientific beliefs of these crackpots. We must call out Bill Maher on his BS (we have before as has Orac), and call him a crank for his unscientific, and frankly insane beliefs about medicine, disease, “toxins” and health.

    As PAL has already pointed out and I wholeheartedly agree, Bill Maher made an outrageous statement Friday night on his show Real Time. In an interview with Arlen Specter, who’s life was saved by medical science, he said:

    Because President Bush actually brings up a good point, because you can’t catch cancer, but people in this country treat it like you can. What you do is you hatch cancer by human behavior. Most cancer, there is of course some genetic cancer, but most of it is by behavior…

    But doesn’t that tell you something about our system, why do you have so much faith in Western medicine when they get it so wrong, when the third-leading cause of death in this country the health care system itself. Isn’t the paradigm wrong?

    Where to begin with such a pair of despicable statements? For one, this is a classic crank attack on medicine, using the IOM report, as PAL mentioned, to attack medicine ironically in the midst of one of its attempts to be self-correcting. The misunderstanding that anti-medicine cranks are exploiting in this report are that the overwhelming majority of “mistakes” in that report were things like failure to rescue (failing to recognize when a patient starts circling the drain) and hospital acquired problems like decubitus ulcers and nosocomial infection. What does that mean? That means the failure of medicine that the IOM is being critical of reflect failures to save the lives of people that are critically, critically ill. These are failures in saving people from death. These are mistakes in a population that are actively dying (failure to rescue), or so sick that they are unable to even move under their own power (decubitus ulcer), or immune compromised enough that they can’t defend against infections (nosocomial infections). These mistakes are a problem, and I don’t seek to diminish the importance of finding ways to avoid them. The IOM report represents the efforts of medicine to correct preventable failures in medical care that are very serious, and we’ve spent the last decade trying to resolve (we will likely spend many more). For example the recent War Games video I posted was an example of attempts to train medstudents and interns how to recognize and deal with rescue situations more quickly and effectively.

    But Bill Maher makes it sound like doctors are stalking healthy people in the streets and beating them to death with ball-peen hammers. You don’t go into your doctor’s office for a routine visit and acquire a c. difficile infection or MRSA or decubitus ulcers or a “failure to rescue” mistake. We’re talking about very sick people who often wouldn’t be alive in the first place without medical intervention, who doctors, albeit for some preventable reason, are failing to keep alive or inadvertently make worse. That doesn’t stop Maher from making it sound like we’re running people down in the parking lot, and I don’t appreciate the implication that doctors who sacrifice so much time and effort saving lives are heedlessly killing people.

    Further it is exceptionally ignorant for ignoring the incredible net contribution of medicine to extending and improving life. Why do we live longer on average than any generation in human history? Childbirth no longer represents a major threat to a woman’s life. Children don’t die from ordinary illnesses and infections. Major traumas like gunshots, fractures and massive blood loss no longer are an instant death sentence – we often can put people right back together after amazing injuries. How have we managed to cure diseases like polio, or cure Senator Specter’s Hodgkin’s lymphoma? Evidence-based medicine and the applied science of modern medical care is the answer to all those questions. No magic crystal, acupuncturists needle, or diluted tincture has accomplished these feats.

    Bill Maher is a Luddite, who has tried to blame the death of bees on cell phones has engaged in anti-vaccine wingnuttery, routinely complains of mysterious “toxins”, supports animal rights extremists, and generally has a disgusting “blame-the-victim” mentality towards health. Lung cancer may be a largely self-inflicted illness, but the other big cancer killers? Breast cancer? Prostate cancer? Pancreatic and colorectal cancers? Each may have a small environmental component, but most cancers aside from those caused by cigarettes have much more minor contributions from lifestyle and environment. That is not to say these contributions do not exist, but compared to cigarettes the relative risks of misbehavior are astronomically smaller. Most of these cancers have overwhelmingly genetic risk factors and the number one risk factor is almost always family history. Maher’s statement that cancers are “hatched” or that there is only “some” genetic component is typical of his ignorance of medicine, his blame-the-victim mentality towards disease, and is just as despicable as his depiction of medicine as a killer.

    Liberals have to own up to the fact that they have cranks in their midst as well. Bill Maher is the left-wing version of Dinesh D’Souza or Jerry Falwell. His views on science are no more elevated, and when in conflict with his ideology, no less hateful towards science, or the people he disagrees with.

  • How to deliver a message

    Bloggers are an odd bunch. Some are “serious journalists”, some glorified editorialists, but most are just folks with access to a computer. This was the genesis of the blogosphere—individuals writing whatever they wanted, not knowing (but hoping) that maybe a few others might read their work.

    As it turns out, there are some excellent writers out there that we might never have read were it not for the internet. But most still maintain an independence of spirit and of thought. Yes, there are “corporate” bloggers out there. For instance, one of the local hospitals has an internal blog by some corporate type. It’s very different from the blogs most of us are used to reading. It’s, um, very positive. And commenting requires entry of an employee ID number. It’s not exactly designed for the free flow of ideas.

    But most of the blogosphere isn’t designed for anything. It’s an emergent phenomenon, fueled by individuality.

    If your purpose as a writer is to influence large numbers of people, blogging probably isn’t your best choice. Op-ed columns, books, almost any medium gets a larger readership.

    And since bloggers are individuals, beholden to no one, they have no duties as such. They can write whatever they wish.

    Rarely, a blogger is read nearly as widely as a journalist, and PZ Myers is one of the few. Dr. Myers is a professor, and teaches at a University. In this capacity, his duties to transmit information are a bit more clear, and he has made it known on many occasions that his classroom is not a bully pulpit for atheism.

    A biologist can use the classroom to teach biology, but as a blogger, he can deliver any message he wishes.

    In my work, I have to frame messages in a certain way. I am communicating to individual patients, and I need to persuade them on the most intimate level that what I am telling them is the course they should follow. If they are futzing around with altie remedies, I can’t be overtly dismissive, or I’ll lose them immediately.

    But in delivering a message to a somewhat larger audience, I use a different tone, one of compassionate snarkiness, for example. I do this not only because it suits me, but because I feel that on some level it is effective.

    Scientists always have a duty to deliver the truth about their fields. The tone in which it is delivered depends greatly upon the medium and the audience. But most of all, it depends on the writer. Most bloggers of science have a fierce attachment to the truth which cannot be compromised for any reason, and if it happens to piss people off, so be it.

    I’m sure that a creationist student in a biology class might be uncomfortable, but since it is a classroom, they must learn the material to succeed. Our readers have no such obligation. Therefore, we have no obligation to kiss anyone’s tukhes.

  • Science—the only way to view reality

    Science is the investigation of reality. Reality is, by definition, everything. It is all we can see, all we can measure. It is, for all practical purposes, a god; it is omnipresent, omnipotent. The only tool that successfully measures and describes reality is science (including mathematics).

    So why the desire to placate theologians and theocrats in scientific discussions? What can religion offer the exploration of reality?

    The only thing it has to offer is a potentially consistent moral code; and that isn’t unique to religion. Religion can offer beauty, song, art, poetry, fellowship, but it cannot offer insight into physical reality. Those who say it can are either deceiving themselves, or deceiving others.

    That isn’t to say religion is inherently at odds with science. Human beings are very capable of simultaneously holding mutually contradictory thoughts—it is indeed possible to be a religious scientist, but not if the carefully constructed wall between these magisteria falls. As soon as religious thought starts to influence scientific investigation (outside, perhaps, the realm of ethics), science is destroyed.

    There is no way to “deal” with Creationism and other cults; there is no way to make the message of science more palatable to them. They don’t buy it. Telling them that six days could mean 3 billion years or that God isn’t susceptible to empiric investigation is lying to them and lying to ourselves. Anything humans can conceive of is open to scientific investigation, including God. Nothing is “outside science”. Some Creationists are susceptible to deprogramming—and that is the “wedge” for rational people to exploit.

    Sure, we should be polite to people of (almost) all beliefs. Politeness does not include allowing them to destroy our school cirricula, compromise science, or change our secular Constitution.

    God will not educate our children, cure disease, or fuel our society. It’s all up to us, and making nice with those who vehemently believe otherwise will only slow progress.

    Scientists shouldn’t look to God for answers; God should look to science for answers.

  • 4000 means nothing

    It means nothing to those who have lost someone. One is the only number that matters. The one brother my friend lost. The one son my patient lost. The one child a nameless Iraqi mother lost.

    People say they find solace in God. Bullshit. People say they find solace in heroism and valor. Bull-fucking-shit. Those left behind are still devastated. Lives are left unfinished. Valor could have taken place on a street corner or in a factory.

    I’m not going to make friends with this post. I don’t know the answers. I don’t even know if we should be leaving Iraq soon. What I do know is that puppet-masters in Washington committed an unforgivable sin. They didn’t know what they didn’t know, and acted on their arrogant ignorance sending kids to kill and die and break. There was ignorance, there was deception. There will be undeserved forgiveness given by people looking for a way, any way, to gain meaning from loss.

    4000 means nothing. Each 1 means something. The larger the number, the harder it is for someone to understand, a face lost in a crowd. Each person has a name, and whether it’s carved into a tombstone or scribbled onto a waiting list at a VA clinic, someone knows that person, someone is left behind. The ripples spread from each broken body and broken mind.

    I’m forgiving no one, for the dead, the living, the broken, the deserted, for the fact that people will hate me for writing these words.

    Wars break people.

  • A history of denialism – the ancients

    This week I think I’m going to spend some time discussing denialism throughout history. In part inspired by the recent attacks on some of the most effective scientific communicators we have by by Mooney and Matthew Nisbet, and PalMD’s post on some modern thinking by “ancients” I feel like it’s time to provide some more historical context to debunking bullshit, and the long and honorable tradition of debunking by the world’s greatest thinkers and communicators. We’re going to start a little bit light with my nomination of Plato as history’s first debunker.

    You see, Plato had to deal with some BS artists in his day. They were known as the sophists, traveling teachers of the youth who purported to teach the sons of the wealthy knowledge and virtue. However there was a problem. The sophists weren’t so much interested in teaching the kiddies philosophy, or how to find truth and improve human understanding of the world, they were only interested in winning arguments at any costs. In other words, they would teach the children of the wealthy how to use any dirty rhetorical trick they could think of to win people over and gain power. Charming group really.

    So along comes Plato, student of Socrates, and he’s not happy. He believed that people should be interested in seeking truth and understanding of the world. In his eyes the sloppy rhetoric and moral relativism of the sophists was ultimately corrupt and unworthy. His criticisms of the sophists are therefore a source of joy for any student of denialism. In particular, I believe that we should single out Plato’s dialogue Gorgias for an early discussion of denialist BS, and perhaps the earliest refutation of quackery that I’ve seen.

    Socrates: You were saying, in fact, that the rhetorician will have, greater powers of persuasion than the physician even in a matter of health?

    Gorgias: Yes, with the multitude-that is.

    Soc. You mean to say, with the ignorant; for with those who know he cannot be supposed to have greater powers of persuasion.

    Gor. Very true.

    Soc. But if he is to have more power of persuasion than the physician, he will have greater power than he who knows?

    Gor. Certainly.

    Soc. Although he is not a physician:-is he?

    Gor. No.

    Soc. And he who is not a physician must, obviously, be ignorant of what the physician knows.

    Gor. Clearly.

    Soc. Then, when the rhetorician is more persuasive than the physician, the ignorant is more persuasive with the ignorant than he who has knowledge?-is not that the inference?

    Gor. In the case supposed:-Yes.

    Soc. And the same holds of the relation of rhetoric to all the other arts; the rhetorician need not know the truth about things; he has only to discover some way of persuading the ignorant that he has more knowledge than those who know?

    Gor. Yes, Socrates, and is not this a great comfort?-not to have learned the other arts, but the art of rhetoric only, and yet to be in no way inferior to the professors of them?

    Ha! What does that sound like?

    The debunkers of the world are part of a long and noble history of those who wouldn’t tolerate BS and were willing to stand up against it in any form. Plato certainly won the historical fight. Today sophist is used as an epithet, and to say someone is just using rhetoric (although unfair to the legitimate study of rhetoric) is the same as calling someone a bullshitter. Therefore today I recognize Plato as a founding father of debunking denialism.

    GORGIAS by Plato translated by Benjamin Jowett, available at GreekTexts.com.