This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Obama, Romney duel over economy

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Speaking to skeptical voters nationwide from the pivotal battleground of Ohio, President Barack Obama defiantly defended his record on the economy Thursday and painted Mitt Romney as the standard-bearer for those who would bring back George W. Bush's policies.

"I want to speak to everybody who is watching who may not be a supporter, may be undecided, or thinking about voting the other way," Obama said. "If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney."

That line drew a chorus of boos from a rowdy crowd of about 1,500 people assembled to hear Obama try to reframe what some Democrats have described as his wobbly election message.

Romney, speaking to supporters at an aluminum plant in Cincinnati moments before Obama's remarks, offered his own version of the choice voters face on Nov. 6.

"If you think things are going swimmingly, if you think the president's right when he said the private sector is doing fine, well, then he's the guy to vote for," he said.

Obama opened his remarks with a direct reference to his much-mocked claim last Friday that the "private sector is doing fine" compared to cash-strapped state and local governments. Republicans including Mitt Romney have seized on that comment to suggest the president is out of touch.

"So, Ohio, over the next five months, this election will take many twists and many turns, polls will go up and polls will go down, there will be no shortage of gaffes and controversies that keep both campaigns busy and give the press something to write about," he said.

"You may have heard I recently made my own unique contribution to that process. It wasn't the first time. It won't be the last," the president said in the verbal equivalent of a dismissive shrug.

"Of course the economy isn't where it needs to be. Of course we have a lot more work to do. Everybody knows that," Obama said from behind a lectern emblazoned with his campaign slogan, "Forward," in front of eight American flags.

Aides had suggested the president's 53-minute speech from Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland would serve to recast the debate between him and Romney on the sour economy, the top issue on voters' minds. The remarks at times seemed like a blend of the soaring oratory that carried the Democrat to his historic victory in 2008 along with the ponderous, laundry-list politics of unsuccessful "State of the Union" addresses.Obama worked to cast Nov. 6 as "a choice between two fundamentally different visions" about the best path out of the rubble left by the 2007-2008 global economic meltdown—not a referendum on an embattled incumbent at a time of 8.2 percent unemployment.

"The economic vision of Mr. Romney and his allies in Congress was tested just a few years ago," Obama said. "We tried this. Their policies did not grow the economy. They did not grow the middle class. They did not reduce our debt."

"Why would we think that they would work better this time?" said the president, who has used variations on that theme in scores of campaign events all over the country over the past few months.

"We can't afford to jeopardize our future by repeating the mistakes of the past. Not now. Not when there's so much at stake," he said.

In a preemptive rhetorical strike, Romney anticipated Obama's words: "He's going to be a person of eloquence as he describes his plans for making the economy better," Romney said. "But don't forget, he's been president for three and a half years. And talk is cheap. Action speaks very loud."

But the president emphasized the timeline of events. "Our economy started growing again six months after I took office and it has continued to grow for the last three years," Obama said.

The president also pleaded for patience—"not only are we digging out of a hole that is 9 million jobs deep, we're digging out from an entire decade"—and he blamed Republicans in Congress for stalling his efforts to revive the economy.

"What's holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take," he said. "And this election is your chance to break that stalemate."

"If they win the election, their agenda will be simple and straightforward; they have spelled it out. They promise to roll back regulations on banks and polluters, on insurance companies and oil companies. They'll roll back regulations designed to protect consumers and workers while cutting taxes on the very wealthy," Obama said.

The president said he would boost investments in education, scientific research and refurbishing the country's crumbling infrastructure.

Before Obama left Washington, the Department of Labor released official data showing that weekly unemployment benefit applications rose 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 386,000—the latest sign of anemic hiring and sluggish growth.

And the Gallup polling organization released a survey showing that more than two-thirds of Americans—including half of Republicans—still pin the country's economic ills on former President Bush.

What one might call the blame gap has narrowed considerably: When Gallup first asked Americans in July 2009 whom they faulted for the poor economy, 80 percent laid a great deal or a moderate amount of blame on Bush, and only 32 percent held Obama responsible.

The current numbers show 68 percent of the public blames the former president while 52 percent say Obama deserves the criticism. (The numbers total more than 100 percent because the question was not "which one do you blame more," but how much blame each president deserves individually.)

And on Wednesday, an ABC News/ Washington Post poll showed that only 38 percent of independent swing voters viewed Obama's economic plans favorably, with a majority (54 percent) disapproving. But independent voters judge Romney's economic ideas just as harshly: 47 percent gave his economic approach an unfavorable rating, with just 35 percent finding it favorable.

The Democratic president has crisscrossed the country in recent months pleading for patience from voters still struggling in the anemic recovery and grappling with a stubbornly high unemployment rate above 8 percent. In his speeches, Obama makes a point of charging Bush and Republicans in general with the 2007-2008 meltdown and warns that Mitt Romney's economic program resembles the Bush approach "on steroids."

Among independents, who often play a role in deciding elections, 51 percent assign Obama a great deal or a moderate amount of blame, while 47 percent say he deserves not much or no blame at all. Meanwhile, 67 percent of independents say Bush bears a great deal or a moderate amount of the fault. Only 32 percent exonerate him in whole or in part.

After the speech, Obama headed to New York to make a Flag Day pilgrimage to ground zero and attend a pair of fundraisers aimed at scooping up $4.5 million for his campaign. One of the events will be hosted by actress Sarah Jessica Parker and Vogue editor Anna Wintour. Fifty guests there are due to pay $40,000 each.

"Running for president is an expensive proposition," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One.


View the original article here

Best of Medical Blogs-weekly review and blog carnival

The "Best of Medical Blogs-weekly review and blog carnival" is a weekly summary of the best medical Blog post. Feel free to send your suggestions to my email at clinicalcases@gmail.com. Best medical blog (BMB) is published every Tuesday, just like the old Grand Rounds.

Cultivate followers on social media, if you want to communicate science

From the blog science Soapbox http://goo.gl/cPQq1 and medical Museion http://goo.gl/QmEU7:

Social media platforms can be very limiting. For example, you can define genotype and Phenotype in 140 characters or less? If you want to use social media to communicate effectively, necessary for readers to drive somewhere.

Write a blog gives substance to your social media presence. You have the opportunity to talk about science in a meaningful way, which ultimately helps people better understand the world around them. Answering these questions is probably because you have first in science. Don't be afraid to share what you've discovered.

Are the doctors are afraid to be wrong?

From blogging to surgeon skeptical Scalpel: «I once did some work as an expert on a malpractice insurance company. Rarely there is a case that doesn't have many opportunities for second-guessing. When you know the outcome, you can always find something in the medical record that could have been done differently.

The current security climate and medicolegal patient creates a feeling among doctors that any mistake is to be extensively examined. This results in a similar situation to an athlete trying not to lose a game instead of trying to win. For those of you unfamiliar with the sport, that the strategy usually fails. Fear of being wrong can lead to excessive test too. " http://goo.gl/FWTbC

When did stop teaching the basics for residents and medical students?

Dr.% of the blog Rants Medical db loves ACGME competency 6 just fine, but also suggests a simple list of http://goo.gl/2sqip:

1. Take a complete history, relevant, accurate
2. make a proper physical examination
3. order the appropriate laboratory tests and interpret them completely and accurately
4. order the correct images and interventions and interpret them

Happy 5th Blogiversary!

Former plastic surgeon and blogger extraordinaire Dr. Bates of Ramona reflects on his 5 years of blogging and the medical community blogging. http://goo.gl/0EVJW

As blogging has helped me academically. According to Dr. cent: why I write almost everyday, my writing has improved dramatically http://goo.gl/GLNsL

Medicine-Stanford University Grand Rounds and social media

Graham Walker was one of the first medical blogger. Went on a break during his residency in emergency medicine (EM) and now has found new reasons to blog like a EM attending at Stanford University medical center. This is his talk on social media and medicine at Stanford University Grand Rounds: http://youtu.be/qtkggenLmlE

Dr. Walker: "my speech on the dissemination of medical information over time, as the internet and social networking are changing medication, how to use digital tools to be a better doctor at the bedside."

Here is the list of Graham of digital tools to improve the specialty.

Paper-based charts: how soon we forget http://goo.gl/Vspmp -Dr. Wes: suddenly, don't miss the paper charts anymore.

Dr. Wes: is how bad the cardiovascular risk of azithromycin? http://goo.gl/yVgfo -"Big data" related to "big mistake"?

Comments from Twitter:

Seth Trueger @ MDaware: some great stuff in there

Skeptical scalpel @ Skepticscalpel: thanks for including me.


View the original article here

Best of Medical Blogs-weekly review and blog carnival

The "Best of Medical Blogs-weekly review and blog carnival" is a weekly summary of the best medical Blog post. Feel free to send your suggestions to my email at clinicalcases@gmail.com. Best medical blog (BMB) is published every Tuesday, just like the old Grand Rounds.

Cultivate followers on social media, if you want to communicate science

From the blog science Soapbox http://goo.gl/cPQq1 and medical Museion http://goo.gl/QmEU7:

Social media platforms can be very limiting. For example, you can define genotype and Phenotype in 140 characters or less? If you want to use social media to communicate effectively, necessary for readers to drive somewhere.

Write a blog gives substance to your social media presence. You have the opportunity to talk about science in a meaningful way, which ultimately helps people better understand the world around them. Answering these questions is probably because you have first in science. Don't be afraid to share what you've discovered.

Are the doctors are afraid to be wrong?

From blogging to surgeon skeptical Scalpel: «I once did some work as an expert on a malpractice insurance company. Rarely there is a case that doesn't have many opportunities for second-guessing. When you know the outcome, you can always find something in the medical record that could have been done differently.

The current security climate and medicolegal patient creates a feeling among doctors that any mistake is to be extensively examined. This results in a similar situation to an athlete trying not to lose a game instead of trying to win. For those of you unfamiliar with the sport, that the strategy usually fails. Fear of being wrong can lead to excessive test too. " http://goo.gl/FWTbC

When did stop teaching the basics for residents and medical students?

Dr.% of the blog Rants Medical db loves ACGME competency 6 just fine, but also suggests a simple list of http://goo.gl/2sqip:

1. Take a complete history, relevant, accurate
2. make a proper physical examination
3. order the appropriate laboratory tests and interpret them completely and accurately
4. order the correct images and interventions and interpret them

Happy 5th Blogiversary!

Former plastic surgeon and blogger extraordinaire Dr. Bates of Ramona reflects on his 5 years of blogging and the medical community blogging. http://goo.gl/0EVJW

As blogging has helped me academically. According to Dr. cent: why I write almost everyday, my writing has improved dramatically http://goo.gl/GLNsL

Medicine-Stanford University Grand Rounds and social media

Graham Walker was one of the first medical blogger. Went on a break during his residency in emergency medicine (EM) and now has found new reasons to blog like a EM attending at Stanford University medical center. This is his talk on social media and medicine at Stanford University Grand Rounds: http://youtu.be/qtkggenLmlE

Dr. Walker: "my speech on the dissemination of medical information over time, as the internet and social networking are changing medication, how to use digital tools to be a better doctor at the bedside."

Here is the list of Graham of digital tools to improve the specialty.

Paper-based charts: how soon we forget http://goo.gl/Vspmp -Dr. Wes: suddenly, don't miss the paper charts anymore.

Dr. Wes: is how bad the cardiovascular risk of azithromycin? http://goo.gl/yVgfo -"Big data" related to "big mistake"?

Comments from Twitter:

Seth Trueger @ MDaware: some great stuff in there

Skeptical scalpel @ Skepticscalpel: thanks for including me.


View the original article here

Decision in Costner vs. Baldwin oil cleanup case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
In the New Orleans courtroom clash of Hollywood actors, Kevin Costner is the winner.

A federal jury this evening rejected a claim by the actor Stephen Baldwin and his friend, Spyridon Contogouris, that Costner and a business partner duped them by keeping them uninformed on a multimillion-dollar deal between Costner's company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, and the oil company BP.

Baldwin and Contogouris sold their shares in Ocean Therapy Solutions before it sold cleanup devices to BP for use in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The pair's lawyer had asked the jury to award them $17 million in damages, according to The Associated Press. But after less than two hours of deliberations, the jury awarded Baldwin and Contogouris nothing.

Costner smiled and shook his attorney's hand after the verdict, later saying, according to AP, "My name means more to me than money and that's why we didn't settle."

Baldwin's attorney, James Cobb, said, "We're disappointed. We thought we proved rather convincingly that these two guys, Mr. Costner and [his business partner, Patrick] Smith, defrauded us. ... The jury saw it a different way but we respect the jury's verdict."

Baldwin, the youngest of the four acting Baldwin brothers, filed a suit in December 2010 against Costner and Smith, over profits from the technology that BP leased for the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Costner's device is a five-ton centrifuge designed to separate water from oil, spit out clean water and save the oil on ships, Smith said in his testimony.

The timeline of the case goes as far back as the production for Costner's film "Waterworld." Costner starred and co-directed the science-fiction film, which tanked at the box office when it was released in 1995.

In the early 1990s, Costner financed and oversaw the development of an oil-and-water-separation technology under the auspices of a corporation owned and managed by him called CINC Inc., an acronym for Costner in Nevada Corporation.

After the April 2010 oil spill, Costner made headlines again marketing his device and snagging a $52 million deal with BP for 32 of his centrifuges.

"It separates oil and water at incredibly high speeds under very difficult conditions," Costner told "Good Morning America's" Sam Champion in 2010.

The devices weren't used to cap the well but were designed to collect oil on the water's surface.

Baldwin has said he was bought out of Costner's company for $500,000 while Contogouris was bought out for $1.4 million.

BP reportedly never used the 32 devices it ordered from Costner's company, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. By September 2010, the well had been sealed with cement and a relief well.

Costner's memorable work includes starring in "The Bodyguard," "Dancing with Wolves" and "Field of Dreams." Baldwin, the younger brother of actor Alec Baldwin, is best known for "Bio-Dome" and playing Barney Rubble in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas."

The Associated Press and ABC News' Barbara Garcia, Matt Gutman and Sheila Marikar contributed to this report.

Also Read

View the original article here

Industry editorial makes outlandish claim about impact of medical devices

Minnesota is the home of several medical device makers.  So there’s been a lot of editorializing about the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act. There has been some criticism of Minnesota politicians over whose interests they represent on the issue.

Today’s Star Tribune carries a commentary from an industry spokesman – Dale Wahlstrom, president and CEO of LifeScience Alley. He retired from Medtronic in 2006 after 24 years.  His commentary includes this claim:

Medical devices save and improve lives. Between 1980 and 2000, medical device technology slashed the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50 percent and cut the death rate from stroke by 30 percent. As a result, life expectancy was extended by more than three years.

Please note: I’ve written to a contact at LifeScience Alley asking for the source of that data.  In fairness, he hasn’t had much time to respond but I don’t expect an answer on the data source because I don’t think there is one. I’ll be happy to post an amendment/addendum if/when an answer is forthcoming. That editorial has been published for hours already and I think it’s important to publish even this quick analysis as quickly as I can.

This quote attributes ALL cardiovascular health improvements to devices rather than siphoning off the mere fraction that might be attributable to devices versus drug therapies versus lifestyle changes.

One analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded:

Approximately 47% of this decrease (in coronary disease death rate) was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively).

So a little less than half is attributable to changes in risk factors.  A little more than half to ALL treatments – including drugs, surgery, etc.

The largest reductions in deaths came from the use of secondary-prevention medications or rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction or after revascularization (a total reduction of approximately 35,800 deaths) and from the use of initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (approximately 35,145 deaths), followed by treatments for heart failure and hypertension, statin therapy for primary prevention, and treatments for chronic angina.

The editorial is more than a matter of playing loose with the numbers; it is a vast overstatement and a distortion of the evidence. There’s no question that medical devices have contributed to the decline.  It is disingenuous to attribute ALL of the benefit to devices.

I’m not going to comment on the medical device tax.  For now, I’ll leave that to the politicians and special interests.

But on this site, we address and try to correct any misleading claims about medical interventions whenever we see them – whatever the source.  And this editorial made a whopper!

I only hope that such whopping misleading claims aren’t misleading politicians into positions they wouldn’t take if they evaluated the claims.



View the original article here

Industry editorial makes outlandish claim about impact of medical devices

Minnesota is the home of several medical device makers.  So there’s been a lot of editorializing about the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act. There has been some criticism of Minnesota politicians over whose interests they represent on the issue.

Today’s Star Tribune carries a commentary from an industry spokesman – Dale Wahlstrom, president and CEO of LifeScience Alley. He retired from Medtronic in 2006 after 24 years.  His commentary includes this claim:

Medical devices save and improve lives. Between 1980 and 2000, medical device technology slashed the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50 percent and cut the death rate from stroke by 30 percent. As a result, life expectancy was extended by more than three years.

Please note: I’ve written to a contact at LifeScience Alley asking for the source of that data.  In fairness, he hasn’t had much time to respond but I don’t expect an answer on the data source because I don’t think there is one. I’ll be happy to post an amendment/addendum if/when an answer is forthcoming. That editorial has been published for hours already and I think it’s important to publish even this quick analysis as quickly as I can.

This quote attributes ALL cardiovascular health improvements to devices rather than siphoning off the mere fraction that might be attributable to devices versus drug therapies versus lifestyle changes.

One analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded:

Approximately 47% of this decrease (in coronary disease death rate) was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively).

So a little less than half is attributable to changes in risk factors.  A little more than half to ALL treatments – including drugs, surgery, etc.

The largest reductions in deaths came from the use of secondary-prevention medications or rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction or after revascularization (a total reduction of approximately 35,800 deaths) and from the use of initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (approximately 35,145 deaths), followed by treatments for heart failure and hypertension, statin therapy for primary prevention, and treatments for chronic angina.

The editorial is more than a matter of playing loose with the numbers; it is a vast overstatement and a distortion of the evidence. There’s no question that medical devices have contributed to the decline.  It is disingenuous to attribute ALL of the benefit to devices.

I’m not going to comment on the medical device tax.  For now, I’ll leave that to the politicians and special interests.

But on this site, we address and try to correct any misleading claims about medical interventions whenever we see them – whatever the source.  And this editorial made a whopper!

I only hope that such whopping misleading claims aren’t misleading politicians into positions they wouldn’t take if they evaluated the claims.



View the original article here

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Photos of the day: Peaceful Xingu River

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Sao Paulo Fashion Week 22 photos

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Everyday Health Editors' Product Review Blog

Reuters: Business Travel

MedicineNet Nutrition, Food and Recipes General

Pages

MedicineNet Diet and Weight Management General

Frommer's Deals and News

Behind the Guides

Media Releases: News Desk

About.com Day Trading

Frommers.com Cruise Blog

Arthur Frommer Online

Dictionary.com Word of the Day

The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com