This sounds like a great idea….for doctors to lose paying customers
Doctor groups take up global warming advocacy
Patients should be prepared for future meetings with their doctors to include discussions of global warming.
Under a political advocacy campaign launched Wednesday, a coalition of physician groups will tell the public that their health is threatened by catastrophic man-made global warming, also called climate change.
Participating doctors will also urge government action to reduce the damage believed to be caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health is led by Dr. Mona Sarfaty, Director of the Program on Climate and Health in the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
The consortium said in a press release that it represents more than half of American physicians. Its members include the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, Immunology; American Academy of Family Physicians); American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP); American College of Physicians (ACP); ecoAmerica, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
On Wednesday, the consortium issued a report titled, “Medical Alert! Climate Change Is Harming Our Health.â€
Nothing like a fancy pants physician driving a fancy pants gas guzzling vehicle to and from their big carbon footprint house telling you to cut back on your carbon footprint to ruin your day. Gaia help any doctor that asks me questions or lectures me, because they will be getting an earful asking them what they’ve done in their own lives, what they drive, what kind of house they have where they go on vacation, if they have a second vacation home, if they use air conditioning, what temp they keep it at, if they have an ice maker, if he/she plays golf, and so forth. Right before walking out and telling him/her to stick their bill in their you know where.
The Academy of PEDS is about as left wing as it gets, and my source is my ex-wife who is a pediatrician. The other organizations are not familiar to me but likely a bunch of academic. In medicine, if you are too stupid to practice you become an academic.
“Good bye. I’ll tell your staff to give me all of my records. That’ll save your staff time because they won’t have to forward them to my new physician”
Mark,
At some point in the past doctors may have worried about losing patients, now it is the patient having difficulty finding a doctor. In short doctors don’t care any longer as you opted to go with socialized medical care. But you can care for yourself, can’t you.
Frankly, most educated individuals can, as long as they have an internet connection.
By the way, when Watson is fully established, kiss your lovely parasitical life goodbye.
I’d simply ask them for proof that it’s dangerous to my health. That should end it right there.
They will offer proof they consider sufficient, not proof you consider sufficient. If you question the scientific adequacy of what they claim, they will remind you, “I’m a doctor.” Which makes them experts in climatology, of course.
Fortunately, my GP is a very sensible lady, and doesn’t fall for dumbness like that. She asks questions concerning my health, and not what I drive or how I vote.
I have a policy not to discuss politics with my doctor or medicine with my senator.
Why would conservatives expect physicians to know about human health?
Here’s what they’ve observed:
Physicians are not scientists, but you don’t need to be a scientist to understand the threat of global warming.
Should physician groups (in this case representing half the physicians in America) advocate solving social problems that impact human health? Should they lobby against smoking? Unsecured handguns in homes with children? Illicit drug use? Unprotected sex? Obesity? Fast food? Seat belt use? Unfenced swimming pools?
That said, were the physicans’ groups talking about counseling patients directly or using the physicans’ influence politically?
Would you really choose your physician based on the political stances?
But being a dumbass helps though…
Jeff,
As I understand your business model, all you do is hold parties for the level 2 participants. Get you present yourself as curing cancer, big laugh. From your comments it is obvious that you are lacking in any credentials.
dave,
As you prove daily, you understand little. Many new therapies start with an idea from a scientist. Let’s say she discovers that a particular growth factor receptor in a cancer cell line is always activated, even in the absence of its ligand, causing the cells to proliferate. This may start a long process of trying to find an inhibitor for that receptor, often by screening huge chemical libraries against the receptor enzyme activity to find a small molecule (this is usually a drug company endeavor). Or they may generate and test monoclonal antibodies to find an inhibitor. Next they test the inhibitors against the cell line to see if they stop cell growth. They next evaluate the pharmacokinetics/efficacy and safety in animal models of cancer. If they decide to approach the FDA they conduct formal prescribed animal safety studies (toxicology in two species (typically rat and dog), genetic toxicity, cardiovascular, immunotoxicity etc) and other non-clinical in vitro studies (protein binding, hERG, receptor and transporter assays, CYP inhibition etc). In addition the putative drug itself is evaluated for purity, metabolites, chemical stability, synthetic route etc. These results are assembled into an IND and submitted to the FDA. The whole process from idea to IND can vary from a couple of years to 10 or more. A non-rejected IND allows a single tiny dose (typically 1/10th the safe dose in animal studies) of your putative drug in healthy volunteers, that can escalate in a method approved by the FDA, eg, first cohort of 6 gets 10 mg (4 active, 2 placebo), if toxicokinetic and adverse event profile is satisfactory, then 15 mg, 22.5 mg, 33 mg etc.
Our company creates and synthesizes small molecules, tests them in non-clinical studies, and then submit INDs to the FDA to open clinical studies. If not rejected by the FDA, we then conduct clinical studies in both healthy volunteers (Phase 1) and also in cancer patients (Phase 1b and Phase 2, so far). With a successful large Phase 2 (ongoing), more nonclinical studies and a successful even larger Phase 3 study we’ll submit an NDA to the FDA, hoping for drug approval. Based on our previous Phase 1b success, we’re also planning small, investigator-sponsored Phase 2 trials in collaboration with major cancer centers in the US, in different indications, e.g., lung and pancreatic cancers. These small Phase 2 trials cost a couple million each, money we get from venture fund investors. The large Phase 2 and 3 trials cost many millions each. Financially, it’s all very high risk, very high reward. The development process is slow, tedious and risky. Many in the industry wish there was a better way to finance drug discovery and development.
We DO hold annual investigator meetings where our clinical group (n=4) spends a day updating the multicenter Phase 2 investigators, discussing concerns/problems, re-affirming protocols etc. It probably does include meals and a night’s lodging. As you know, these large Phase 2 trials are double blinded, placebo controlled and extraordinary efforts are made to not “break the blind”. At a previous company we ran a Phase 1 study with an IV drug where the placebo suspension looked different from the drug suspension so we had to devise a system where the vials and the IV lines were shielded to prevent the staff (and patients) from knowing which was which!
You’ve hinted before about cheating on these trials for money, suggesting that the results were based on money paid directly to you by a drug company. That’s unethical and illegal. You would sell your integrity for a free steak and drinks? Shame on you.
You mean other than the fact that ALL those factors, including cold induced famine and wars directly caused by mass migration to escape it, have been observed far more frequently when the planet cools?
Your lying cannot obscure fact.
No and that’s what’s so insidious about the way the radical left politicizes everything. They will make people afraid to talk to their doctors for fear of reprisal affecting their health because of their political views.
If your doctor said to you “anybody who voted for Stinky or believes in AGW is an idiot” would you still choose that doctor, Jeffery?
Stinky,
It was the reporter and then TEACH, not the original article, claiming physicians would be talking to patients directly about global warming. Sort like trumpy hearing something on FOX and then sharing it as if it’s true.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/b-npa030917.php
Anyway the physicians will be too busy treating the seniors the soulless trumpy plans to starve.
This is no different than Doctors talking to you to find out about, dare I say it? GUNS!
My Dr tried it on me by starting a convo about a recent hunting trip. I threw him off and
asked about the Shingles vaccine, it worked. Just be my Dr., diagnose my problem, write my ‘script and leave the politics alone.
I ask my patients about their hunting, fishing, farming and everything else that they do. I learn a bunch from them and we part as friends. I could give a care about heath aspects of guns and directives from the government.
Saturday morning links
NYC ‘mega-pastor’ Tim Keller sees faith booming in the city He never wanted to be a missionary to NYC, but now loves it. He is semi-retiring. That is sad. How Knowing Too Much Can Hurt You at Work The power of a simple Oxford, aka Harvar
dave,
But you’re also interested in their unhealthful habits, correct? Smoking, sessile lifestyle, illicit drug use, etc.
And for a pediatrician, is it out of bounds to ask parents about how safely guns are secured in the home? The last thing they want is to treat a four old for a self-inflicted, accidental gunshot.
(I have a couple dozen guns, pistols, rifles and shotguns, all secured in gun safes, since we have grandchildren around most days).
As pointed out previously, it makes no sense for physicians to be talking to their patients about global warming AND that wasn’t the claim in the original article.
What may bend people out of shape is asking the children themselves about guns in the house. Especially in areas where it is difficult to get a gun license.
The 2009 stimulus bill included the HITECH Act, which mandates the computerization of medical records, and makes them available on the internet, with the appropriate safeguards to keep anyone but a physician or health care practice from accessing them.
Having physicians asking about firearms in the home, which has nothing to do with the cases in question unless the physician is treating for a gunshot wound, means that they are putting those answers down in a computerized medical record database. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that this is the creation of a mechanism for the government to search medical records to see who has firearms in their homes!
I have, quite pointedly, refused to answer such questions, and would tell any physician who asked that I was personally offended by being asked. However, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the proper answer should always be “No,” regardless of whether it is truthful or not.
Jeffrey the troll’s argument goes like this….I’m right, because shut up!
Myself, I would simply tell any physician hectoring me about AGW that it makes me doubt his overall competency, in that he is pretending to be an expert on matters for which he has no professional qualifications.
“…harms include heat-related illness, worsening chronic illnesses, injuries and deaths from dangerous weather events, infectious diseases spread by mosquitoes and ticks, illnesses from contaminated food and water, and mental health problems.â€
Every one of these problems have threatened mankind for all of history, and worse in the past before man started burning fossil fuels.
This is no proof at all.
Stinky,
I would ask, “Who’s Stinky? You can’t mean the commenter at the Cove! What’s he running for?”, and add that whom I vote for is personal. If she told me that “anybody who believes in AGW is an idiot” I’d give her a brief summary of the evidence and even recommend a few articles for her to read. But you are correct that you have to question the sense of anyone who rejects the notion of AGW outright or that it’s a communist conspiracy. If a physician told me that the Earth was flat or that the evidence supporting evolution was not persuasive, I would question his competence.
Again. The base article said that physicians’ groups would be lobbying politicians not patients. Obviously, if a patient asked about a physician’s opinion on the health effects related to global warming it would be proper for the physician to answer.
howsa typed:
Just because I’m right down pretend that’s the argument.