Search results

The CDC's 2022 revisions of the deeply flawed 2016 Prescribing Advice contains some welcome changes that should reduce the needless suffering of pain patients. Unfortunately, the new document does not go far enough. My comments will be officially submitted to the CDC during the public comment period.

Kansas, like several other states, is shielding healthcare providers from sanctions for the off-label prescription of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. That said, its State Senate – and one senator, in particular – is living in “crazy town.” Time for us to take a deeper dive into so-called fly-over country.

The media is beginning to run the autopsy on our pandemic responses. (Although to be fair, outlets have been Monday morning quarterbacking from Day 1.) What exactly is the plan for the next pandemic? Of course, the real problem is that in dealing with the future, there's no plan at all.

From the very beginning, the FDA knew that the COVID-19 vaccine was linked to serious heart trouble in recipients. The FDA medical officer review [1] of Pfizer’s original COVID-19 application notes “clinically important serious adverse reactions [included] anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis.” There is an urgent need for the FDA, CDC, and manufacturers to thoroughly investigate serious heart-related adverse events after the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

The CDC 2016 Opioid Prescribing Advice, which has caused so much hardship to so many pain patients, has been tossed out and replaced by a revised document. Is it better? Sure looks that way.

In recent years, the “Death with Dignity” [1] movements have been racking up victories. Thirty years ago, only Switzerland allowed assisted deaths. Today, no less than 12 countries and 10 states plus the District of Columbia sanction (or decriminalize) euthanasia (where the doctor administers a lethal drug) and Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID), when the patient does the deed.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule has been a policy and regulatory ping-pong match for over 20 years. Obscured in the regulatory back and forth is a tremendous environmental success story. Yet the regulatory ping-pong match continues. The latest round is that the current Administration’s EPA reaffirmed an Obama Administration legal finding that regulating power plants for mercury is appropriate and necessary.   

Another study has found that vaping doesn't prevent smokers from relapsing to cigarettes. The results seem to undermine the efficacy of e-cigarettes as smoking-cessation tools—until you take a closer look at the definition of "relapse."

Notable changes have occurred since our last COVID-19 progress report [1]. The Omicron variant has taken hold nationwide. The pace of booster inoculation has picked up but resistance to the original primary series persists. Local efforts to reduce exposure to the virus vary widely, creating confusion as to whether the end of the pandemic may finally be in sight.

Electronic Health Records, those over-hyped, energy and time-sucking billing algorithms sold to the American public and healthcare professionals as THE answer continues to search for some valuable clinical role. Clinical decision support are algorithms that scan our data and send timely reminders to our physicians to “Do the Right Thing.” While it may work well in the Ivory Towers, and even that is debatable, when taken out for a real-world test, clinical decision support is nowhere near ready for prime-time.

What can we learn from Joe Rogan and Daniel Ek? Growing rice for saki. What’s up with Djokovic? The topmost dishonorable moments in healthcare this year – the Shkreli Awards.

There is a campaign underway to discourage health care providers from weighing their patients unless it’s "medically necessary." Proponents of this effort are rightly concerned about the stigma often attached to obesity, but they're going about it the wrong way by minimizing the risks of being overweight.

Drs. Robert Popovian (a member of the Scientific Advisory Board at ACSH) and Radife Kiral, both at Pfizer, examine the response of our healthcare system to the COVID pandemic. In some areas we did well; in others not so well. What can we do better in the future?

Dozens of studies examining the effects of vaccine mandates have been published over the last year. A pre-print review of this literature has found that requiring COVID-19 vaccination may carry significant costs, including a deepening distrust of public health authorities and greater vaccine hesitancy.

The U.S. dithers, Europe ponders and the extinction of life-saving antibiotics continues apace.

There is a tussle between those that believe that our COVID vaccines are net beneficial and those that argue that there are too many adverse side effects. The combatants cite data from varying sources, always pointing out that their opponents’ data are, as Mark Twain states, “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” A new paper from JAMA Network Open puts some context to the numbers.

Consumer Reports (CR) promotes itself as an unbiased source of a wide variety of product ratings. It also publishes Should I Eat This? Simple ways to know what to eat and what to avoid. I recently received the updated 4th edition. Let's see how much of the content we should swallow.

Let us leave aside our obsession with COVID and consider two more significant health problems that have long plagued us, obesity and cardiometabolic disease resulting in hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. As a new review article suggests, “Adipose tissue lies at the center of these health problems….” Fat is more than something that insulates and gives our body a shape.  

Just when there are signs that people, elected officials, in particular, are starting to understand that what we've heard about the opioid epidemic is largely a myth (one that does little more than harm pain patients) along comes an anti-opioid hit piece in Forbes. It's based on an interview with an anti-opioid zealot, the chairman of an anti-opioid commission at an anti-opioid university. Let's take it apart.

Consider that committing a crime is a choice involving tradeoffs; the initial one is whether criminal action will be more lucrative than working. Of course, those lucrative moments are short-term gains, and they come with the risk of being caught and suffering long-term, or latter-term, losses. Can an individual criminal’s preferences – for short-term gains (impatience) and risk adversity (avoiding latter-term losses) – predict crime? A study of young Danish man suggests a link.

The latest results from the USDA's Pesticide Data Program confirm that America's food supply still very safe, despite allegations from activist groups to the contrary.

It's been an interesting month COVID-wise. The COVID antivirals made their way to pharmacies. All in all, things went pretty well (unless you happen to be Merck). Here, you'll learn how to locate pharmacies in your area that have been selected to carry the drugs, and how to see if the pills are in stock.

A new take on sin taxes, Wordle and the Internet, who is an expert, and the return of human sacrifices?

Haven’t we all seen those heart-rending news articles about a child with cancer, their parents unable to pay the bills? Just then a GoFundMe site comes through, helping the child receive necessary care and preventing a financial catastrophe for the parents. However, researchers are finding that the GoFundMe so-called safety net is riddled with holes, and it's basically a lottery that's “rigged” toward those in higher-income communities.

Sri Lanka ran a cruel experiment on its population last year by trying to mandate all-organic food production. The results are in, and they're tragic.