If you didn't see Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver on Sunday, his Main Story was about mental health care. It was a very good report, thoughtful and disturbing, without really any solutions for the problem, but the team was able to keep it very interesting and even funny through all the challenges.
0 Comments
Gov. Gavin Newsom has been on a bit of a roll lately. First, there was his TV ad that aired in Florida, taking on the restrictive laws that Gov. DeSantis has had passed, and welcoming those in the state to the protections of freedom in California. Then there were the full page ads he took out in Texas papers, taking on the restrictive abortion laws in the state pushed by Gov. Abbott, by touting the new, tough gun laws in California by noting, in one of the ads – “If Texas can ban abortion and endanger lives, California can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives. If Governor Abbott truly wants to protect the right to life, we urge him to follow California's lead.” This came at the time two weeks ago Newsom helped push through new gun laws in the state, which I wrote about here. And then last week, Gov. Newsom announced perhaps his most fascinating project – dealing with a problem he’s talked about taking office, but only finally brought to fruition. What’s surprising is that is truly major, hugely so, yet it’s gotten very little national attention. I only found out about it when I got a text message from Newsom. And while it has been covered in California, it hasn’t gotten much anywhere else. Which is boggling when you realize that this is the story -- Newsom announced that because the cost of insulin, the critical drug in dealing with diabetes, is so incredibly high, the state of California was going to develop its own insulin, manufacture it and distribution close to cost. Yes, really. The state has approved $100 million for the project. That includes $50 million for the development of insulin products, and another $50 million to manufacture and distribute it, creating new jobs at the same time. How high is the cost of insulin in the U.S.? The nonprofit Rand Corporation studied 34 countries, and the second-highest country was Chile where the price per unit is $25. Again, that’s the second most expensive in the world. In the U.S., which has the highest cost, it’s $100 per unit, on average, four time as much – as the second highest. The health care organization CharityRx recently commission a survey and found that among Americans who need insulin, four out of five have taken on an average credit card debit of $9,000 to pay for the medication. So, it’s not like California’s project came out of the blue. In fact, this past March, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would cap insulin costs at $35 for people with private health insurance and the Medicare drug benefit. It will not shock you to learn that the Senate has not yet passed the bill. Whether other states create their own projects, or whether insulin manufacturers in the U.S. will be lowering their costs -- and whether the Senate will pass the House bill, remains to be seen. Including whether, if the program is successful, California will eventually begin selling its insulin to other states. So, as Gov. Newsom said, “California is now taking matters into our own hands. Because in California, we know people should not go into debt to receive life-saving medication.” Here’s a brief news report on it, with a little bit of Newsom’s video announcement. Today we take a detour onto Health News Lane.
Over time we all see a lot of news stories about all sorts of medical “studies,” though many, if not most of them are not peer reviewed and really don’t amount to much. And on my end, amid the wide range of such issues, the one I personally pay the most attention to is lowering my cholesterol. So, when I see a headline about a new study on the topic, I read it hopefully but with a skeptical eye since most tend not to have much gravitas behind them. Or are about something that particularly interests me. Last week, I saw such a headline. And it was very substantive. And for something that interests me. It’s not only study reported in Journal of the American Heart Association, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Heart Association – but the study is comprised of 30 years of research. Even more impressive, this is a 30-year study! Once which followed over 110,000 men and women. So – that covers the gravitas check-list. (Side note: I don’t know if the study was released last week. It looks like it may have been published a few months ago. But for some reason it started to get a lot of coverage last week.) And making the study even better, it related to a food that I actually like, but have been avoiding as much as possible because what the study found is the very opposite of what I, and probably most people, have always assumed. What the study found is that eating two or more servings of avocado a week was lowered the risk of cardiovascular disease. And further, if you substitute avocado for certain foods like butter, cheese or processed meats, that also showed a lower risk of “cardiovascular disease events,” Two weekly servings of avocado is just one avocado a week. (A serving is considered half an avocado). During the study, people who ate this one avocado weekly had a 16 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 21 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease. And no, I’m not quite sure what the difference is between “cardiovascular disease” and “coronary heart disease.” But they do, which is what counts. (Perhaps is the difference between the arteries and specifically the heart, but that’s just a total guess.) I don’t mention this for anyone to start eating more avocados (other than me…), but just because I find the result utterly fascinating and, as I said, the opposite of what I’ve assumed. I’ve known that avocados were high in fat – and I knew that some tropical fats (which I soft of figured avocados might be), like coconuts and palm oil, were high in saturated fats and bad for you. But it turns out that avocados contain dietary fiber, unsaturated fats – and especially monounsaturated fat (which are the healthier fats) and “other favorable components that have been associated with good cardiovascular health,” according to an article from Science Daily. For those interested in ready more, you can read about it here. As for me – waiter, can you please make that order of guacamole a double.
This is a remarkable Q&A from Eric Swalwell during a House hearing (perhaps earlier today?) on abortion. Despite clearly being stunned by the bizarre answer from a witness, he handles it beautifully. And it again shows impactfully the trouble that conservatives have in dealing with their wish to get rid of all abortions, which sounds great in stump speeches but proving difficult in reality.
The New York Times reports on a small study where all rectal cancer patients given a certain pill were cancer-free. Though the sample size was tiny (just 18 patients), the study was significant enough to be presented in the New England Journal of Medicine (one of my dad’s two favorite publications he read.)
In the Times article, they said that despite the small sample “the results were unbelievable”. “I believe this is the first time this has happened in the history of cancer,” said Dr. Luis A. Diaz Jr. of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Alan P. Venook, who studies colorectal cancer at the UC, San Francisco, worked on the study. He said he was certain it was the first time ever this had happened, that total remission in every patient is "unheard-of." One woman has been cancer free for two years. The report says the treatment unmasks cancer cells, allowing the immune system to identify and destroy them. The larger point is that it shows what researchers are dealing with and what they’ve discovered today. So, clearly it’s something that they are working for building towards other cancers. Side Note: I know this is *NOT* because of Joe Biden -- but it's worth noting that he has made curing cancer his major issue since he was VP...and has been ridiculed for it by conservatives. But science & research -- and support -- is A Good Thing. Here's the full article. Several weeks back, the Washington Post had an article titled, “Covid deaths no longer overwhelmingly among unvaccinated as toll on elderly grows.” It certainly was an attention-getting thing to see and somewhat concerning. I had made notes to write about it, though as has been happening a lot lately, other stories took precedence. However, yesterday it got mentioned on MSNBC so I figured it was a good time to revisit it.
For those who want to read along, you can find the full article here. Needless-to-say, it was surprising news. However, if one reads it closely, the story is different than the headline. Not that the headline itself was inaccurate to what the story is reporting – it’s not. It’s just that a headline doesn’t allow for the details of a full article to put perspective on the facts. For me, the most-telling passage in the article was “The bulk of vaccinated deaths are among people who did not get a booster shot, according to state data provided to The Post.” “Did not get a booster shot.” Let alone the second booster shot. But not even one! A story to put this in context -- About a month ago, I was invited to a party at someone’s home, and one of the people hadn’t gotten a booster, only the initial J&J vaccination. I did some research and a little “back-dating” and determined – this person likely got his shot around when it was first available. That was 13 months ago. The efficacy of the J&J vaccine after 6-8 months went down to just 13%. And as I said, he didn’t get a booster. So, now, to bring us up to today, add 5-7 more months since its efficacy plummeted to 13%, and that means the guy was essentially unvaccinated. Even though he could tell himself – and tell others (and tell researchers if asked) – that, oh, yes, he most definitely was vaccinated. And he was – but that’s like getting the flu shot in 2020 and telling people (and telling yourself) that all’s well, you’re covered, you didn’t need a flu shot in 2021 because you’d been vaccinated. Never mind that it was out of date with no protection. Yes, he had had the J&J vaccine – but for all intents and purposes, he was unvaccinated. That’s pretty much what this data is saying, too. Yes, these people who died were “vaccinated.” But the vaccine’s protection had worn out – and it wasn’t that they hadn’t gotten the second booster, they hadn’t even gotten the first booster!! So, they were basically unvaccinated -- even though officially they’d been vaccinated and could say they’d been vaccinated, and research data would show they were vaccinated. Add to this that they were elderly and perhaps immunocompromised. So, the results are not terribly surprising: if you didn’t get the shot and are unvaccinated, or if you did get the shot but its efficacy wore off long ago and you didn’t get even one booster, you’re just as unvaccinated -- and both offer absolutely no protection. And as one read the article, there was other data that supported how most of the deaths were for people unvaccinated, and that those who’d had the booster had significantly lower death rates. Now, if you add the second booster to that, they are even more protected. In fact, not only did the article say this – but they highlighted it with a separate boldfaced heading -- "Unvaccinated still die at a much higher rate" “The share of deaths among vaccinated people has risen, but the rate of death is still many times higher among unvaccinated people. In January and February, unvaccinated people died at about seven times the rate of the fully vaccinated and 20 times the rate of people with boosters, according to a study of deaths among the vaccinated from 23 state and county health departments.” So, it says very clearly that people who are unvaccinated not only die at a rate seven times those who have had the initial two doses (or one for J&J), they are dying at 20 times the rate of people with just one booster. The study wouldn’t have data yet for people with two boosters. So, that “20 times the rate” figure is only a minimum figure – yet the protection compared to someone unvaccinated is overwhelmingly higher. I have a thought with further impacts the data. I suspect a major factor in all this, too, is that people who got the initial two-dose shot and believe they are now “vaccinated” think that they have remained “vaccinated” and are, if not completely protected, substantively vaccinated. Never mind that the vaccine’s efficacy actually wore off long ago and they didn’t bother to get a booster – since why should they? They’ve been “vaccinated.” Further, feeling that they were vaccinated and protected, many such people probably felt they could take more risks than before. Traveled more. Got together with big groups indoors more. Didn’t wear a mask. Didn’t try to socially distance. Maybe didn’t wash their hands as much. After all, “I’m vaccinated.” Even though the protection had worn off. So, is it true that “Covid deaths no longer overwhelmingly among unvaccinated”? Absolutely. It’s just that the efficacy of people who got “vaccinated” well-over a year ago and never got a booster (let alone two) have had the effectiveness of their initial vaccination wear off to the point where they are, essentially, unvaccinated. Even though they can say “Yes, I’ve been vaccinated!” The only annoyance is that I’m near-certain that unvaccinated people and their advocates will misuse the article completely. And no, most especially since there was a serve-yourself buffet of food, with common serving utensils, along with a guest who was effectively unvaccinated, despite his insistence to the contrary, I did not go to the party. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|