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

What Passes for Journalism

journalism, noun. The activity, occupation, or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast.

Houston doctor Stella Immanuel rapidly became an internet sensation, defending the use of hydroxychloroquine to combat COVID-19. Almost as rapidly she because the brunt of jokes, mocking her weird ideas about reptilians and demon sperm. The latter mockery was not just a fun outing, but designed to invalidate what she said about hydroxychloroquine. What Dr. Immanuel said about hydroxychloroquine is that it works, that all 350 patients she had treated with hydroxychloroquine have survived.

Here’s what I noticed. Anybody with a computer can search and find something strange someone has said. Almost everyone will agree that Dr. Immanuel has said some strange things about various subjects. What a real reporter could do, though, is actually research the actual statement Dr. Immanuel made about the actual subject. In two “demon sperm” articles I read, the authors attacked some weird ideas Dr. Immanuel holds – but DID NOT debunk her claim of helping people with hydroxychloroquine. That is the relevant question to COVID-19. That is what a journalist ought to research and report on. Is that claim valid? Did it work? What has happened with her 350 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine? It is  telling that the authors could not or would not address it.

Why? Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health says, “It’s a political drug now, not a medical drug.” This is largely due to the fact it has been touted by President Donald Trump. I don’t want political reports about medical issues. In real time and real life, what matters me is the accuracy of the doctor’s claim that all 350 patients she had treated with hydroxychloroquine have survived. A mechanic may have some weird ideas about the moon, but can he fix a car? A chef may think chickens are aliens, but can she whip up an excellent chicken cordon bleu?

What passes for journalism in 2021 seems to be political opinion parading as fact.

Outlaw Healers

The new Texas Coop Power magazine has a nice brief article on Outlaw Healers, brothers Roscoe G. Milling and George R. Milling. "The Milling brothers, unlicensed medical men, claimed mysterious power over disease," says Gene Fowler, an Austin writer who specializes in history. The Milling brothers practiced what was sometimes called "magnetic healing", which Fowler says was "a combination of massage, faith healing, hypnotism and showmanship." There were numerous success stories in which patients testified to the efficacy of their work. These brothers did not have medical licenses, and seem to have often run afoul of the law. R. G., at least, was convicted for practicing medicine without a license. This may have been part of the incentive for his running a sanitarium at which he charged for room and board, but offered his services for free. G. R. ran a sanitarium in Glen Rose, Texas. He not only ran afoul of the law, but also of the spouse of one of his patients. While he may have rubbed the patient right, G. R.'s medical practice apparently rubbed the husband the wrong way. He shot G. R. Milling on the Glen Rose town square with a double-barreled shotgun.*

* In contrast, The Atlanta Constitution for Friday September 11, 1914 (page 5) included a notice that "...Dr. G. R. Milling...was accidentally shot and killed..."

See also Medicine Shows in The Handbook of Texas Online

Tribute to the Civil War Surgeons

From 2011-2015 the 150th anniversary of the "Civil War" is being recognized. At the beginning of the Twenty-First Annual Conference on Civil War Medicine I thought I would post this "Tribute to the Civil War Surgeons." This quote specifically addresses Southern surgeons, but it was doubtless true of all faithful surgeons who served during these tragic times.

"The Southern surgeons were the first to succor the wounded and the sick, and their ears recorded the last words of love and affection for country and kindred, and their hands closed the eyes of the dying Confederate soldiers." -- "Formation of the Medical Corps of the Confederate Army and Navy," Joseph Jones, M.D., The Medical History Of The Confederate States Army And Navy, Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XX., Richmond, VA, January-December, 1892.