HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: The future of medicine
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:02:49 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu]
 
>Of course, when they practice bad medicine, they don't get hauled into
>court either.  More than two-thirds of all actual malpractice never
>gets sued.
 
That's part of the problem.  If the current system could accurately
identify the bad doctors it might be more useful, but only a tenth of
all malpractice results in action and about a tenth of the cases filed
have any merit (although in the majority of cases where the doctor was
found liable, an independant panel of experts agreed that malpractice
had occurred).
 
>As for defensive medicine, insurance companies could have it stopped
>tomorrow if they so chose.
 
It isn't that easy.  In order for them to say that a test is unnecessary
(except in the case in which the test has no proven utility in that
application), they would have to have an independant expert see the
patient.  Otherwise, how can they know that my patient with a migraine
is unlikely to have a brain tumor or subarachnoid hemorrhage?  A
physician can make his H+P sound convincing enough that any test within
reason that he orders will be hard to question.  Patients won't put up
with needing to have a second opinion before every test, nor is it
always safe to delay testing.
 
>Indeed, it's the AMA that's the greatest bar to quality control at the
>moment.  There are doctors out there with malpractice rates an order of
>magnitude or so higher than average -- just try and find out which ones
>those are.
 
I'm in agreement with you here.  I'm not an AMA member.  Many of us
aren't and don't agree with the way they do things.  It is not the
official spokesman for physicians, it is a PAC whose primary focus is
not what is best or most ethical for society but how best to maintain
physicians' incomes and autonomy.  In that respect it is not much
different from any other union.

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:09:40 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)

In article <1993Jan6.012838.1325@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie (Tim Starr) writes:
>}The ultimate experimental proof--putting people in bubbles and injecting
>}them with HIV and waiting for several years--will of course never be done.

>Ethically, that is, by conventional medical ethics.  It will never be done
>ethically.

I don't know about the ethics under all circumstances.  What about prisoners
on death row being offered the chance to volunteer with testing by various
defective HIV viruses as potential vaccines?

>}The closest approximations were the unwitting victims of HIV+ blood and
>}blood products--for which there have been numerous peer-reviewed studies
>}in the medical journals, and research experiments with HIV and SCID-hu mice,
>}for which there are also peer-reviewed papers in the research journals.

>}D's claim is patently ridiculous.

>To those of us who aren't familiar with this evidence, this isn't obvious.
>I, for one, would like to know more about these studies.

The blood transfusion cases have been discussed elsewhere.  SCID is "Severe
Combined Immune Deficiency", a congenital defect.  There are strains of SCID
mice which have had a human immune system, of sorts, transplanted into them,
hence the name "SCID-hu".  Recently, one such strain was identified that
comes down with MAIDS upon HIV innoculation.

>}Yup, definitely creationist mentality.  Look here, stupid: I know and use
>}more logic than you do.  I stated a true fact about HIV, AIDS, and the
>}researchers.  No amount of brainless innuendo on your part will change
>}that or make it go away.

>Now, look, ad hominems against Grossman are hardly in line with claims to
>logical rigor, are they?  Can't we do without these?

I did *not* employ argumentum ad hominem, despite the popular confusion
regarding the rhetorical term.  I made no claim that his argument was
invalid on the grounds that he is an idiot.  I'm just flaming the idiot.

>}Of course, HIV by itself _does_ cause illness.  The initial immune response
>}is your basic viremia, something like the flu or mono.  Many, but not most,
>}are quite serious and need hospitalization.  Moreover, HIV by itself causes
>}AIDS dementia complex.

>Are we correct to believe that the mechanism for this remains unknown?

The viremia is standard immune response to virus infection.  The etiology
of ADC is a baffling mystery.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.medicine:512 sci.skeptic:22122
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:47:24 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <C0ELI3.7F7@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> 
|> |> I seriously doubt there *were* any well-controlled, double-blind studies on
|> |>this issue until recently, since the matter would not even have been considered
|> |> a *question*, and thus would not have been felt to *warrent* much research.
|> 
|> For that matter, what kind of studies would constitute such evidence?  Which 
|> is to say, is "disease" a well-defined scientific concept?

I would say yes - the American Psychol. Association has a set of operational
definitions for various categories of mental pathologies (commonly called
mental diseases).  It is perfectly possible to test if a particular personality
trait or behavior pattern meets these operational definitions.

In fact it was the failure of homosexuality to meet these specific definitions
that led to its removal from the list of phychological disturbances.

Now, one could, of course, argue with the particular set of criteria they have
chosen. But that is a different issue.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: kfl@access.digex.com (Keith F. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: The future of medicine
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:15:14 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

What's needed, at minimum, is:

1) People with habits that have high medical costs should pay those
   costs.  There's no reason the rest of us should subsidize smokers,
   drinkers, people who eat meat every day, don't wear seatbelts, have
   unprotected promiscuous sex, get no exercise, have no smoke detector,
   etc.

2) Any solution which only works when people are compelled against their
   will to participate is a solution that has no place in a free society.
   Anyone who wants to opt out of a system must be free to do so.  That
   is, they don't pay taxes/premiums into it, and in return they aren't
   eligible for benefits from it.

3) Any solution which only works when people are forbidden against their
   will from participating is a solution that has no place in a free
   society.  Laws forbidding unlicensed practice of medicine, and free
   trade in medications, must be overturned.  Laws against fraud would
   remain, of course.  It's wrong to tell someone you're a licensed
   doctor if you aren't, or that a drug is safe if it isn't.

4) It's wrong to forbid malpractice suits.  If a doctor, licensed or
   otherwise, causes harm through malice, negligence, or incompetence,
   they should be compelled to do whatever they can towards making
   things right again.

Keith Lynch, kfl@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jbeason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Joseph E. Beason)
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:57:07 GMT


Psychologists and psychiatrists are part of the same social apparatus that
all people are.  Our viewpoints are colored, we are prejudiced, chock full
of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc, etc.

What is considered abnormal/normal is arrived at by concensus, changes
continuously, and is ferociously argued over.  Much of this argument is
political.  Hell, the APA takes stands on abortion rights, perhaps the hottest
political topic these days.

Psychologists and psychiatrists decided that homosexual behavior was abnormal
and that homosexuals were sick.  They then went about proving these decsions.
This is siilar to a charming mental illness they once found in slaves,
basically, the dislike of their slave state and the desire to be free.  I
forget the name of this dire mental disease, I'll look it up next time I
go library hopping.

Then, lo and behold, some scholars (such as my very het and very glorious
mentor) said, "Wait a second, this is silly.  All the gay/les people I
know are just peachy."  When studies were conducted on non-clinical 
populations, gay/les folk (sorry, I'm not familiar with work that focuses
on or distinguishes bi-folk) were just as healthy, stable, etc.  Or, more
precisely, showed the same variation across the spectrum of psychological 
well-being.

Commitees (don't we love commitees) were formed to discuss the matter.  When
chalenged as to why these commitees didn't have any gay representation
(imagine, if you would, a completely lesbian commitee discussing the
health of straight men, hee hee hee, I can imagine the recommendations),
the reply was "why, there are no gay/les folk in APA!".  Well, by this
time, there were a bunch of out GL people (after all, there had always been
GLs present, just unfortunately silent) who begged to differ.

Yes, politics shaped the debate.  Yes, political pressure created change in
what was considered healthy.  But such politicking is CONSTANTLY going on.
Heterosexuals, and pro-het forces are masters of it.  This is the same
politics that goes on in schools, and churches (read any history of any
religious organization), and governemnt, and so on and so on.

How do you define health?  Normalcy?  What is normalcy?  Being the average.
No one is the average.  Being within two standard deviations of it?  On
which variables?  (I think fashion sense should be the benchmark of
sanity, myself.  Then again, that probably means I have low affect and
perhaps even depressive...)  Is health about subjective well-being?  About
being able to successfully function in the world.

This of course ignores an entire body of social and psychological science that
a lot of personal "illness" is due to "ill" societies, but maybe that'sa
discussion for another time.

Joe,
psychologist and statistician to the stars

Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:20:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.030659.11086@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> dac@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (David A Cooke) writes:
}
}	Yes, there have been a few individuals with AIDS who have been
}HIV-.  Several cases of this were brought up at the last international
}conference on AIDS.  This doesn't really support the arguments of those
}who argue that HIV doesn not cause AIDS, however.  Most tests for AIDS
}are indirect, and given the AIDS virus' obscenely high mutation rate,
}it wouldn't be at all improbable that it will periodically mutate
}sufficiently that it won't show up on the standard tests.

I'm curious about this mutation rate.  It seems to conflict with the stable
estimates of the US HIV+ population based upon tests of those entering the
military.  Will you please elaborate on this?

}	If the second possibility is true, it would only disprove the
}HIV-AIDS link in the strictest sense.  The existence of other viruses
}that produce syndromes clinically nearly indistinguishable from AIDS
}does not imply that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.  It simply means that
}AIDS, like pneumonia, can have more than one causative agent.  The
}evidence that HIV is far and away the major culprit, if not the only
}possible one, is overwhelming.  As far as I know, there are less than
}a hundred known HIV- AIDS cases.  There are hundreds of thousands of
}HIV+ AIDS cases.  This is a very tight association, and the exceptions,
}if they are truly exceptions at all, are not sufficient to challenge
}the rule.

The problem would seem really to be the relatively high number of HIV+
people without AIDS, which I've heard is about 1.5 million in the USA.  There
have been predictions that they'd start contracting AIDS in droves, but
this hasn't happened, leading Gallo of NIH to extend the "dormancy" period
to between 12 and 30 years.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:03:46 GMT

In article <lryrz1q@lynx.unm.edu> bhjelle@carina.unm.edu writes:
}In article <1993Jan6.012008.1059@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1993Jan5.030659.11086@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> dac@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (David A Cooke) writes:
}>}
}>}are indirect, and given the AIDS virus' obscenely high mutation rate,
}>}it wouldn't be at all improbable that it will periodically mutate
}>}sufficiently that it won't show up on the standard tests.
}>
}>I'm curious about this mutation rate.  It seems to conflict with the stable
}>estimates of the US HIV+ population based upon tests of those entering the
}>military.  Will you please elaborate on this?
}
}The mutation rate of a virus has nothing whatsoever to do with
}the prevalence of HIV in military recruits.

Above, you claimed that HIV mutation might make it undetectable.  If so, it
would seem that testing of large samplings would vary widely.  Yet, this
doesn't seem to be the case with what I mentioned, which would tend to
refute the claim that mutation is having that effect.

}The seroprevalence in military recruits, by the way, should not be
}accepted as a surrogate for that of the general population. Military
}recruits are subject to all kinds of selection, both overt
}(homosexuality) and subtle (they know they will be tested for HIV).

I'm aware that the sampling isn't perfectly representative, but will you please
tell me of a better one?

}>The problem would seem really to be the relatively high number of HIV+
}>people without AIDS, which I've heard is about 1.5 million in the USA.  There
}>have been predictions that they'd start contracting AIDS in droves, but
}>this hasn't happened, leading Gallo of NIH to extend the "dormancy" period
}>to between 12 and 30 years.
}
}Gallo has said no such thing. Furthermore, making estimates like
}that would be far removed from Gallo's scientific interests.

I'm sorry, but he has said such things, and I have the references to prove it
if necessary.  The remove from his scientific interests is beyond me to
judge - hell, figuring out that his scientific interests are is beyond me!


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: Breast Implant Info Needed
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:21:00 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

>
>watch. If the doctor sells you implants, and puts 'em in you, he or she is not
>held to strict liability.

Whether there was any information that might alert the doctor to the
risk or not? You leeches truly are slime.
>
>
>However, what I need are hard citable statistics on breast implants, how many
>such operations have been done, the reasons, the percentage of complications,
>etc, etc...
>
Go chase an ambulance.

>PLEASE HELP!

Darrell assures you that you will be "cut in" on the mosterous profits
he anticipates.

>Darrell M. Crosgrove
>U. of Toledo College of Law
>
Brian
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The future of medicine
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:48:22 GMT

Another problem with medical costs is the fact that preventive
medicine is a public good -- a lot of important medical care is of
the type where the benefits won't be seen until dozens of years
down the road.  But since it's unlikely that the insurance carrier
of today's patient is going to be the same insurance carrier for
that patient later, there is underinvestment in preventive health 
care--it's of no benefit to an insurance company to pay to help
out some other insurance carrier years down the road.

Of course, that doesn't excuse the abysmal current governmental
policy of refusing to do anything about prenatal healthcare, but
spending millions upon millions taking care of low-birthweight
babies... 
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)

In article <C01tBL.JA4@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>    Non-HIV AIDS cases since *1872*.

As already pointed out, it takes a RANDS victim to say something so
blatantly stupid.

>				      Cases since 1986 reported: Root-Bernstein,
>1990, _Pers. Biol. Med._, 33:480.

I looked this one up.  R-B's paper is _not_ a report on HIV- AIDS cases.
It's a rather poor rehash of Duesberg's arguments plus some rather weak
medical arguments applied to badly out of date data.  Along the way, he
mentions, that AIDS has been documented going back 100 years (something
he desperately needs to be true if there's any hope in blaming behavior),
although the only documentation he mentions refers to cases going back
to the 50s.  Dr Root-Bernstein seems to be oblivious to the fact that
two of the most famous ones--the Manchester sailor and the black gay
teenager--were confirmed HIV+.

>				   As of 1989, CDC says 5% AIDSs cases are non-
>HIV.

I think I know now what this may be a RANDS dementia complex induced twisting
of.  There was an MMWR supplement circa 1990, with CDC's definition of AIDS
offering a HIV+, HIV?, HIV- flowchart regarding diagnosis.  Not all--just a
very large most--of AIDS cases are expected to test positively, and it just
meant that doctors and clinicians are not required to apply the latest PCR
techniques looking for hidden virus before reporting AIDS to the CDC or their
patients' insurance companies.

>     All this in _Rethinking AIDS_, an occasional newsletter from Group for 
>Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (2040 Polk St.-321, S.F., 
>CA 94109).

With branch offices opening up soon at the Institute for Creation Research,
the Institute for Historical Revision, and the Institute for Pi Research.

>    Check a library's journal computer for "Duesberg."

In your case, checking a library's Roget's for "stupid" is more appropriate.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:49:41 GMT

In article <C0Aww2.M6q@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>Humans are bio. hetero. I don't 
>think anyone denies this.
>...
>Psy. health requires psy. 
>contact with this fact rather than repression or suppression of it.

Whthr. or not humans are bio. hetero., mst. ppl. agr. that humans are
nt. natr. incl. to abbrv. excess.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: The future of medicine
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:18:27 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan11.235321.3075@cnsvax.uwec.edu>,
	nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>  
>  
> .......  Few physicians have holes in their appointment schedules.  If
> they did, they would move on to somewhere they could have a full
> practice.

   Which brings up an interesting point (unrelated to that which David
   was replying to).

   In the new Clinton golden age of prosperity, when the 37 million
   American who allegedly have no health coverage start seeing
   doctors, who exactly is going to serve them?

   Perhaps the AMA will prevail upon the state health boards to lower
   their standards for medical licensing, bringing more physician
   snouts to the trough ;-)

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.medicine:502 alt.politics.homosexuality:9075
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:48:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality

In article <1993Jan6.020825.2633@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> In article <C0Aww2.M6q@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
 
> }As far as i know, even 
> }anti-reason societies oppose, to varying degrees, homosexuality.
 
> This is false.  The ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality.  I'd think that
> the society of Socrates and Aristotle was one of the more pro-reason ones,
> wouldn't you?

be careful with that one, the Athenians held their women in almost
total slavery. 

A better example is the Ancient Celts, who had no proscriptions against
homosexuality one way or the other.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Why care what percentage?  (was: Gay Likelihood)
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:32:27 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lobaugh@a.chem.upenn.edu (John Lobaugh)

In article <104219@netnews.upenn.edu>, lobaugh@a.chem (John Lobaugh) writes:
>>How effective is this?  PCR methods can detect viral RNA directly, long
>>before antibodies are raised.  In PCR testing of over 40000 seronegative
>>blood donors in San Francisco, one donor was identified as HIV+ (Busch
>>et al, NEJM 325:1, 1991).

>So what does this mean if I get a blood transfusion tomorrow? What are
>the statistics of getting the HIV? 

It's impossible to put a meaningful number on such minimal data.  How many
units of blood are you getting tomorrow?  Whole blood or plasma products?
And in which city is the transfusion taking place?

The medical journals have been debating the numbers for some years now,
but 1 HIV contaminated unit out of 100,000 units seems to be some kind of
ballpark estimate.  In the USA, about 8 transfusions per year now involve
HIV+ blood.

I would worry more about getting to the hospital through traffic.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)