Second opinions and innovative thinking

COVID-19: a 2nd Opinion – “...Senator Johnson...laid out the history of inconsistencies that led to the ‘goal posts’ continually being moved and how at the same time, differing viewpoints were being suppressed.”

This past Monday, Republican U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin held a panel discussion titled, COVID 19: A Second Opinion. He was joined by a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts that presented a different perspective on the global pandemic response. They shared their thoughts concerning the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be considered in the long term.

I recommend your listening to this is informative discussion regarding the Covid-19 virus.

In medical terms, a “second opinion” is asking another doctor to review your case. Kathy Katella, writing at YaleMedicine.org, notes the wisdom and importance of getting a second opinion – especially for a major medical decision, “go to a couple of places to be sure you know what you're getting and why.” She cites two studies that affirm the prudence of second opinions.

In 2017, a study showed that 21% of patients who sought a second opinion at the Mayo Clinic left with a completely new diagnosis, and 66% were deemed partly correct, but refined or redefined by the second doctor.

...a 2018 study published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology that found that a second review by a multidisciplinary tumor board at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center changed the diagnosis for 43% of the 70 patients in the study.

Over two years into the Covid-19 pandemic, we see that leading politicians and top medical advisors, possibly backed by pharmaceutical companies, labor consistently and insistently to shut down this common medical practice when it comes to Covid-19. “Believe what I say,” they say. “Can I get a second opinion?” “No way!” they say. “We hold all the keys of knowledge.”

Often those who seem to control the conversation are the “ivory tower” doctors and scientists who deal in theories. Often those trying to get a word in edgewise are the doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals working in the trenches, actually treating people with Covid-19 and having success doing so. Why not include their “second opinions” in the conversations? Unless, perhaps, it is not about solving the problem? If not, why not?

In addition to shutting down second opinions, there are misgivings about “thinking outside the box” regarding a situation that often must answered, if answered honestly, “We don’t know.” Ingenuity, resourcefulness, and the ability to rethink what is and is not working are our friends at such a time as this – not our enemies.

Ultimately, the leaders of the pack have not only sought to squelch freedom of speech, but also fought the freedom of medical second opinions, while striving to restrict innovative thought.

So, take a listen at the linked discussion. See what you think. Let me know what you think.

COVID-19: A 2nd Opinion (Part 1)
COVID-19: A 2nd Opinion (Part 2)
The Truth Behind COVID-19 and the Shot

Vaccines and your conscience

Both Robert Jeffress and Pope Francis want you to get vaccinated, says Mark Wingfield in the liberal Baptist News Global. Wingfield quotes Jeffress – pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas – as saying, “There is no credible religious argument against the vaccines,” and “There is no legitimate faith-based reason for refusing to take the vaccine.” What Pope Francis says may create difficultly for Catholics with conscientious objections. Because of local church autonomy, what Robert Jeffress says should carry little weight beyond his local congregation.

Apparently, Jeffress is referring to the concerns of some about the ties to fetal cell lines derived from aborted babies. Various religious leaders have expressed concerns about this, though it seems the view of the most hi-profile leaders is that the time line is so far removed from the actual abortions (1970s-1980s) that there is no moral issue – or some express it that the good of the vaccine outweighs the evil of the abortions.

Some have expressed objections in terms that make it sound like baby parts have been taken from current abortions to use in these vaccines. That is not correct. Here are some facts.

• Janssen Research/Johnson & Johnson used abortion-derived fetal cell lines in the development, confirmation, and production of its vaccine.
• Moderna, Inc./National Institutes of Health and Pfizer/BioNTech performed confirmation tests using abortion-derived fetal cell lines, but did not use them in production.
• AstraZeneca/University of Oxford used abortion-derived fetal cell lines in confirmation tests, design & development, and production.

The difference between fetal cell lines and fetal tissue. Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since been grown in the lab for 30 to 40 years, creating fetal cell lines.

Consider the position of Robert Jeffress and others. If you find it compelling, make it part of your conscience. However, if you conscientiously object to the vaccine, do not feel compelled to kowtow to the views of some hi-profile religious leader (or some combination of them). Each Christian believer needs to decide whether he or she feels OK with the way these vaccines were produced. Follow your own conscience!

(Information source, the Charlotte Lozier Institute)

Heroes and Pariahs

The same “front line” health care workers hailed as heroes by the media for treating COVID patients before vaccines were available, including the Plaintiffs herein, are now vilified by the same media as pariahs who must be excluded from society until they are vaccinated against their will.

From a lawsuit by health care workers against the state of New York

Health care, not iPhone

With the repeal and replacement of Obamacare looming near, House Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah says to low-income Americans: Buy health care, not iPhones

Chaffetz said, “Americans have choices, and they’ve got to make a choice, so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone they just love and spending hundreds of dollars on that they should invest in their own health care.”

Some are offended by what Chaffetz said, and have raised one item that appears to be a legitimate complaint: “As a member of Congress, Chaffetz is eligible to receive health care and a smartphone from the government.”

So, as one who receives neither health care nor a smartphone from the government -- and has chosen to have neither -- I say that Chaffetz is right that we make choices and many times we make the flashy choice because we are depending on someone else to make the dependable choice.

Based on PBS reporting of poor and low-income in April 2015, I am low-income -- so I am not talking out of some rich side of my mouth.

Not my Boss's Business

Yesterday on the news I saw a protester holding a sign that read:

Birth Control -- Not My Boss's Business

That sounds logical, but...

My thought is that you are making it their business by asking them to pay for it. Perhaps it would be better to get back to the simplicity of "the boss" paying the salary and then the employee doing what he or she wants with their money.

"Breaking News"

The Supreme Court has handed down a 5-4 decision in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood Products cases. Read breaking news about it here:

* Justices: Can't Make Employers Cover Contraception -- "The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners."

A fine example

of government-run health care:

* VA says more than 57,000 patients are waiting for first visit

"...more than 57,000 new patients have waited at least 90 days for their first appointments and that about 13 percent of VA schedulers indicated they were told to falsify appointment-request dates to give the impression that wait times were shorter than they really were."

"Employees at 24 sites said they felt “threatened or coerced” to enter incorrect information..."

Halloween scare -- "Obamacare" in the news (and opinion)

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

* Democrats beginning to support Obamacare delays -- "The pressure is acute in the Senate where Democrats in conservative or competitive states are lining up behind proposals to delay Obamacare"
* Have you seen the viral Obamacare girl? -- "The search is on to identify the anonymous model whose image has been scrubbed from the Healthcare.gov website after she became the face of frustration regarding the site's well-publicized glitches."
* HealthCare.gov suffers outage as Sebelius testifies that it's never crashed -- "Poor timing was redefined in Washington on Wednesday."
* How Obamacare was fooled by high-tech glamour -- "The health care law, the White House argues, "isn't just a website." True enough. But the software problems are representative of a larger rhetorical choice."
* Is Obamacare’s legality still in doubt? -- "My jaw dropped when I first saw this. This has the potential to sink Obamacare. It could make the current website problems seem minor by comparison."
* ‘I was all for Obamacare’ until I got the bill -- "California residents are rebelling a bit against Obamacare, with thousands shocked by the sticker price and rethinking their support, saying that what seemed wonderful in principle is not translating so well into reality."
* More than 2 million people getting booted from existing health insurance plans -- "CBS News has learned more than two million Americans have been told they cannot renew their current insurance policies..."
* Obama administration knew millions wouldn't be able to keep insurance -- "While campaigning for health care reform in 2009, Obama went out of his way to make one thing perfectly clear: if you like your current health care plan, you will be able to keep it."
* Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System -- "...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system. His answer? “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”"
* Obamacare Fiasco Isn't a Single-Payer Conspiracy -- "There’s a pretty popular conspiracy theory running around to the effect that this was the Barack Obama administration’s intent all along: Design this big Rube Goldberg apparatus that couldn’t possibly work, and when it fails, sweep in and “fix” things by enacting the single-payer scheme you wanted all along."
* White House OKs limited waiver on health penalty  "...the Obama administration Monday granted a six-week extension until March 31 for Americans to sign up for coverage next year and avoid new tax penalties under the president's health care overhaul law."

"If Americans really wanted Obamacare, you wouldn't need a law to make them buy it." -- (credited to) Ted Cruz

"Whatever." -- Kathleen Sebelius

Outrageous 2, the sequel

I'm not particularly tech savvy, but I have enough common sense to understand that the Health and Human Services Healthcare.gov website is a disaster -- not only in the fact that it doesn't work, but also in the fact of how much American taxpayers paid for a website that doesn't work! Charitably calling it a mess, Business Week writer Paul Ford says, "But it’s not just that the kitchen’s on fire. The alarm system doesn’t work either. The waiters can’t hear the screams of the cooks." And from the tech point-of-view he writes, "...the debacle makes clear that it’s time for the government to change the way it ships code—namely, by embracing the approach to software development that has revolutionized the technology industry."

According to a Newsmax article, "figures released Thursday say the total cost of the deeply flawed website and healthcare exchange has topped $1 billion." This figure comes from Bloomberg Government analyst Peter Gosselin, who is widely respected in his field.

Outrageous! Bizarre.

Online Articles

* As Obamacare tech woes mounted, contractor payments soared -- "A Reuters review of government documents shows that the contract to build the federal Healthcare.gov online insurance website - key to President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform - tripled in potential total value to nearly $292 million as new money was assigned to the work beginning in April this year."
* Final Cost of Obamacare Website Tops $1 Billion -- "Obama says he's as frustrated as anyone and has promised a 'tech surge' to fix the uncooperative website."
* Healthcare.gov contractors point fingers back at Obama administration in House testimony -- "The same contractors, testifying before the same committee on Sept. 10, assured lawmakers that they were ready to handle a surge of users when the federal exchange opened on Oct. 1."
* Obama: Health care website problems inexcusable -- "There's no excuse for the problems' on the website," (the President said, though he continues to make excuses)
* Obamacare’s Rollout Is a Disaster That Didn’t Have to Happen -- "...the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov represents everything that President Obama promised would be different about his administration—but isn’t."
* Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are -- "...Obamacare...was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions. But the laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that..."

Are you ready?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires all Americans to either have qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty. Passed in 2010, it is being implemented in stages. A "biggie" is approaching soon. Beginning January 1, 2014, any person without qualifying health coverage must pay a tax penalty -- either a stipulated flat rate or a certain percentage of the household income, whichever of these two is greater. The flat-rate penalty will be implemented in stages as well. Starting in 2014 it will be $95 per year. It increases to $325 in 2015. In 2016 it will be $695. After 2016, the flat-rate tax penalty will increase annually with a cost-of-living adjustment.

If they do not have access to "affordable" coverage from an employer, low and middle income folks can get tax credits to help them pay premiums. Employer-sponsored insurance is deemed not "affordable" if an employee’s share of the premium (i.e., excluding what is paid by the employer) is more than 9.5% of the employee’s household income. When looking at this percentage, the IRS will only consider the cost of coverage for the individual employee. In other words, the cost to insure your family could be 10%, 20%, or 30%, but as long as the cost for the individual employee isn't over 9.5% it is "affordable". If the cost of coverage for the entire family is over 8% of household income, at least uninsured children and/or an uninsured spouse would be exempted from the penalties mentioned above.

In getting ready for what is coming, you might wish to look at this Timeline of What’s Changing and When. If you're a real glutton for punishment, read the full text of the Affordable Care Act. If you do, you'll have done more than the Congress that foisted it on the American people!

Are you ready?

There's a sad day coming, a sad day coming,
There's a sad day coming by and by,
When the citizen shall hear his gloom, "Insurance or pay up."
Are you ready for that day to come?

CHORUS
Are you ready, are you ready,
Are you ready for tax judgment day?
(With apologies to Will Thompson)

One more and I'm through

I generally write on musical and religious topics and not much on politics. But I got charged up hoping we would throw out the representative who a few years chose to run to Ardmore, Oklahoma rather than actually represent us (novel idea, what we elected him to do!). We didn't even get a pinch runner. Here's one final at bat for now and I'll move on to more salient less depressing topics.

Strike one
I'm no political analyst (no shock there), but I was very surprised by two things in yesterday's Republican primary. First, that Rick Perry took the governor's race with not even a run-off. About a year ago the prevailing notion was that Kay Bailout Hutchison would knock him out of the ballpark. But it was Perry who got the home run. Second, that Chuck Hopson won House District 11 without a run-off. A Democrat up until a few months ago, this RINO not only exceeded the 50 percent necessary to stave off a run-off but hammered the two long-time Republican challengers by garnering about 62% of the vote. I think he did it the old-fashioned way -- like George Steinbrenner bought, I mean won, all his World Series for the Yankees. (follow the money)

Strike two
"The Health Care Bill has raised apprehensions in many areas (e.g., the economic costs, the politics of socialism, the growth of governmental powers, etc.); however, very little has been presented of the numerous ways in which the bill is actually unconstitutional. In fact, should the bill eventually pass, several lawsuits are pending over its various unconstitutional aspects," writes David Barton. David has posted on his web site “Potential Constitutional Problems With H.R. 3590” by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Strike three
"Polls showing 74% of Americans think airport body scans will make us more secure are either incorrect or else we have become a thoroughly brainwashed and ideologically lobotomized assemblage of slaves who are happy to chant 'Thank you sir, may I please have another?' with each violation against our Bill of Rights and natural law.

"The fourth amendment guarantees:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"Full Body Scanning is unreasonable as it presupposes guilt and ignores the aspect of our law that requires a warrant for searches." -- By Mary Starrett in "Keep America Safe - Get Naked." January 20, 2010

OK, I'm outta here.