With Obama getting the nod, I think its something we need to discuss.
Me, I lived in pretty liberal area which is very ethnically diverse, and pretty much with the exception of one asshole anti-semitic HS teacher have been pretty lucky in regard.
But this thread in the Lounge, got me to thinking that I am VERY lucky and that my experience is much different that many.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...
(posted with permission of the OP)
So I would be interested to hear people's different experiences with something that sadly seems to still be pretty prevalent...

Spent a lot of time working with all my health issues today:
Issue one: the "pre-existing condition" crap. I got a second letter warning me of having this status. After calling my health advocate they said to talk to CIGNA because they probably had the info but hadn't gone through it. I called them and they found it and have now "reprocessed" them. I wonder now what that means but I think it won't be to bad (hopefully).

Issue two: Paying for my interferon. I did get confirmation that they will cover it and I have a new script ready..instead of the $1266 I paid I now have a copayment of $25!!wOOt!

Issue three: I talked to the people at Mayo today..They think that now that I've been on the interferon for a few weeks my body is adjusting so I shouldn't have too many side effects even if I increase the dosages..Which may be absolutely true because I have had almost no problems this week post injection. Now we aren't pleased that although my platelets went down (from 1620 to 1240) they didn't go lower..so we are gonna increase dosages.

*side note* Can I tell you how nice it is to be able to call/e-mail the people at Mayo for continuing advice on how to deal with my meds/issues...with VERY quick and informative responses.

Issue four: I submitted a claim for reinbursement of the $1266 I paid last month for the interferon so hopefully I will get that back one of these days.
All in all, I think there is light at the end of this long dark tunnel I have been traveling through for a long time...

And I don't want him to go. And I wanted all you people who were mocking him, to understand what a big huge loss for DU this will be if indeed he does leave.
Stay Russell!! You are awesome!!

I'm so glad I live on the second floor...I was hanging out in my condo and I hear this loud "SCREECH, BANG, CRUNCH, BANG!!
I go to my kitchen window and I see one of my neighbors cars hs jumped the curve and is almost onto the walkway into my building. I don't think anybody was hurt but there seems to be some smoke coming out of the car. I bet the people on the first floor were really startled...almost 8 years here and I have never seen anything like this..

looking through my mail and I got a notice from fucking CIGNA, that they want information on why I went to Mayo and that if I had a pre-existing condition its not covered. Fuck of course its a god damned pre-existing condition. But its a group plan, there isn't supposed to be any of this nonsense. What the hell am I going to do if they won't cover anything. I'm looking at probably a 10-20,000 dollar medical bill.
Oh god....

I keep hearing that asshole McCain blow off Health Care reform as easily done by more people exercising and eating right. Well MORAN here's why that won't do a thing for most of us.
My story:

I have a rare chronic blood disorder called essential thrombocythemia..a disorder where my bone marrow makes too many platelets(most likely due to a genetic defect/damage)
a normal count is between 100-400. My counts until recently have been between 500-800. Earlier this year, something changed. My counts went way up..to 1350, 1475..Yes thats right 10x normal. Since its a rare disease and not well understood by many hematologists I went to see one of the few specialists in the disease in the country..at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. It was expensive (airfare, travel expenses) but worth getting expert opinions. It turned out that I was not misdiagnosed ( a possiblity) nor am I converting into a more serious disease (a possibility involving both myelofibrosis or even leukemia). But I did need to go back on medication, something I knew was going to happen. However the old meds, hydroxyurea is a chemotherapeutic that was making me nauseaus a lot.


So the Mayo doc wanted to put me on something stronger but more effective..Interferon. However its a bit experimental although well documented in literature as being helpful to my disease. Also expensive.
Sooo, my insurance company is fighting this. My doctor's office filed an appeal with all the research on the drug and why I need it. But the insurance company says its going to take up to 30 days to review my case! Meanwhile my platelets went up AGAIN. To over 1600. That puts me in a higher risk for bleeding/clotting stroke/coronary issues.
Thanks for listening. I'm so frustrated.

Someone here on DU very nicely gave me a gift of $500 to help pay for the meds while I wait out the appeal. Thats great..but I found out that the actual cost of the meds for a month is $1250! What can I do? I'm gonna have to shell it out. I'll still have some savings left over but after this and paying for my Mayo trip..sigh. Yeah, that big 600 rebate is going to medical bills.
I called the health insurance carrier (CIGNA) to see if the process can be rushed. Nope. So I guess if I get a stroke before that or go to the hospital with a bleeding issue, I'm SOL (although the dummies would have to pay much more than $1250 if it happened).
So tomorrow I am going to pay out of pocket for my meds because what the hell is my ability to pay off bills gonna matter if I'm dead from a stroke...
How many people have crazy stories like this? Health care should be what both Congress and the next President concentrate on first thing.

AND it involves a pole. Notice how he cannily has kept his head (least important organ) out of the shot....

This post is not an attempt to sway anyone's belief on homeopathy, ufos, ESP etc, but merely an attempt to share what I have learned about evaluating data/evidence. Critical thinking skills are, IMHO, one of the most important tools in a scientists box and something I think more Americans need to know. And I have come to see that those who have not had the benefit of scientific background/education might not understand some of these distinctions well. So in an effort to educate/enlighten (something I try to do with my posts) I will explain certain skills that are taught. I would like to think people could use these things to better examine everything from the aforementioned topics to things like what our government claims is true, and what other politicians say/do.

First subjective evidence vs. objective evidence

Subjective evidence is basically how everyone personally observes and evaluates. Its your own personal interpretation of sensory input. Sometimes its accurate and sometimes not. I hear people say, I know what I saw..My eyes don't lie. Maybe they don't but certainly our brain is capable of misinterpreting what it sees/hears. Thats actually what happens with people who have learning disabilities like dyslexia..the brain is not interpreting the input correctly (transposting letters from correctly written words leaving text incomphrehensible to the sufferer) Sometimes we see what we expect/want to see like the example I cited in my previous post about the serial sniper and people looking for and "seeing" a white box truck instead of the real vehicle of the maroon caprice because thats what they believed was the suspect vehicle.

Objective evidence--some people claim that no one can ever be completely free of our own biases agendas, opinions, etc. That is to some extent true, but there are ways to compensate for that...Its one of the reasons why peer review is so important in the evaluation of study data. They attempt to get people who while may be in the field have no direct connections or reasons to be biased pro or anti to the person, so as to get as close to objective evaluation of methodologies and the results/conclusions drawn from those results. Thats why when people cite sources from places that don't have good objective measurements of data (and its why I don't like wikipedia as a citation for scientific evidence) I have a hard time taking it seriously.

Next: How to evaluate a scientific study. As everyone should know, just because a study has been published does not make it good science, especially if the peer review is lacking. But sometimes seriously flawed studies do get published/used (because of political agendas etc...) and it helps to understand what you are looking at before one can accept/reject a study.

Study size: Of course this makes a HUGE difference. Small studies really don't tell too much about how accurate the conclusions drawn are for the general population. Obviously a bigger sample size is better. Unfortunately study sample size is a big limitation in clinical trials.Its understandably hard to get people to volunteer to be "guinea pigs" so to speak. Despite what some think, thats the reason why a lot of drugs have issues after they are put on the market (Vioxx for example). Because even with accepted clinical trial study sizes there is still often not enough to truly anticipate all the possible side effects when its becomes widely available to the public. Thats why the FDA has an indefinite post-marketing phase for monitoring drugs because they do understand the scientific limitations of clinical trials. Vioxx was known to have potentially serious side effects yes (as many drugs do, unfortunately--nothing is 100% safe--medicine isn't an exact study there is a bunch of unpredicitability involved), but because of the natural limits on study size it was not understood how common those serious health issues were until the wide use of the drug made it evident. Thus Vioxx was pulled.

Statistical Analysis: This is not my area of strength so I won't get overly technical, but suffice it to say that there are differing ways of analyzing data, differing statistical tests and some are more appropriate than others to analyze data. I have seen people try to manipulate results this way...by using inappropriate analysis of data. Its entirely possible to have a significant results using one type of test, and have not significant results using another type of test.

Wrong conclusions drawn/what statistically significant figures mean: Sometimes just because a result shows statistical significance does not mean that we can drawn firm conclusions from it. And often times wrong conclusions (again usually if an agenda of some sort is involved- this is what happened with Avandia, IMO-eagerness to market led to ignoring or drawing the wrong conclusions of safety studies) can be made from them. In small enough study sizes a small change up or down leads to large differences in statistical significance and can sound look more legitimate then it really is (a recent study posted here had a 2X doubling of health risk in rats on something but when you looked at the actual stats the risk jumped from 0.5% to 1.0%- or something like that. Not really a huge concern in reality although indeed "statistically significant")

Anyway, thats some of the methodologies that I have learned (both formally and informally) on how to evaluate evidence. As I said too many people jump to conclusions about various issues scientific, political and otherwise IMO. So I thought I would share some of the ways I and others like me draw conclusions.
Feel free to disagree with my analysis but I think its a rational and logical way of dealing with the world around us.

Lately, there has been a lot of threads concerning what I would dub "pseudoscience" (ESP, extra-terrestial visits/UFO ghosts. etc)
and in every thread the same old tired stereotypes of scientists/rationalists/skeptics keep coming up. I am tired of them. I thought I would address a few of them. I have always been aggravated by generalities especially those based in misconceptions

1) Scientists are closed minded. Not true for the most part. Scientists are by nature skeptical of data that has not been rigorously tested through the scientific method. And its not in their training (or nature) to accept something as the truth merely because someone SAYS its true. Thats why so many of us ask for peer-reviewed data. To us, thats the best way to evaluate a claim or theory. Observational evidence, while it has its place, is not good proof--ask anyone involved in court cases..forensic evidence is considered superior to eyewitness in some ways. For example--the Beltway snipers in 2002...The witnesses were all "sure" that a white box truck was involved. One person had seen it at one seen and so people looked for that and overlooked the real vehicle--a maroon Chevy Caprice. A LOT different. So can you understand why scientists aren't going to take a bunch of blurry photos and questionable eyewitness accounts as being "the truth"?
Have I met dogmatic scientists? Sure, but for the most part most scientists are willing when the data is shoved in their face to accept new paradigms which leads to steeotype number two..
2) Science is a religion/faith based/afraid of anything that challanges their beleifs.No, I would argue that is true of religion which by definition is faith based. Scientists however observe the known world and find that patterns exist (when I say patterns I mean principles of science like photosynthesis, cellular respirataion, law of gravity, etc). When something is presented that goes outside of the bounds of those observed principles scientists are extremely skeptical. A lot of "inventions" or "devices" that are talked about here are usually totally unproven scientifically, yet there are too many people who believe based on the claims of the inventor and their "believers" that they are the next big thing. Maybe after rigorous scientific testing the "devices" might have merit but that needs to be seen. The example I have seen is multiple postings about a device that claims it can eliminate malignant tumors based on vibrations. Fine, lets see the studies that prove that out..in the appropriate physiology..but it does fly in the face of accepted biology. Yet its hailed as "the cure for cancer" and gets raves while I post about something much more promising and based on sound science of using viruses to target and destroy cancer tumors gets ignored by many of the same people who hail the unproven device as "the cure".
3) Scientists who dispute "common wisdom" must have an agenda..ie are shills in the pay of someone, aren't true progressives, are secret agents for the right etc...Sometimes things that are widely held beliefs aren't scientifically accurate. The old chestnut that anything natural must be good and science goes agaisnt nature is the big one in my mind. How many natural things can kill us in truly horrendous ways? Ebola is natural. Rattlesnake venom is natural. Hell predators like sharks are natural. Nature is not pretty. But sometimes the things that people think are "unnatural" aren't even that. Take vaccines..which have been labelled by some as "chemicals". No. They are modified microorganisms. Sometimes they are simply microorganisms that have been heat killed..Vaccines basically expose us to the pathogen we are trying to protect agaisnt in a way that causes minimal sickness..vaccines work WITH the immune system. What is more natural than that? Unless of course you think that no intervention in the saving of lives should ever be done..that we should just let "nature" take its own course? Oh and those who think all herbs are natural..They are just as much "chemicals" as anything in modern meds (vinegar is acetic acid for example). And some of these so called natural cures are EXTEMELY DANGEROUS. Laetrile for example is promoted as a treatment for cancer...When it really is a compound with CYANIDE in it. Digitalis (fox glove) in very small doses can be good for the heart but in larger doses is deadly to humans....
Finally not so much a stereotype as another way that people try to justify pseudoscience is the "statistically significant" findings that are often pushed as proof of something. So feeding a rat compund x causes the cancer risk to double..Sounds bad right? Well when you look at the statistics you see that the risk jumps from .5% to 1%. A big jump statistically perhaps but really insignificant in terms of how much of a risk it is. This type of fear mongering seems to happen all the time here...And we pretty much object to the admin manipulating us through the use of fear (terrorism) so why is okay for us to do the same thing to others?
Also I have had people push studies on me as proof of ESP where the success rates were statistically significant from random...the success percentages were 20-40% for the most part. To which I must say: Would anyone go to a doctor that was only right 30-40% percent of the time? I don't think so. Can you imagine the outcry if the FDA approved a drug that was only effective 30-40% of the time.....Critical thinking skills are very important and too many people seem to not only lack them but attack those who are trying to apply them
As someone who cares passionately about science, rationality and of course the future of this country, I thought it was important to share my POV on this. I will get off my soapbox now...

Its seems there are too many of these comparisons of late. As someone who struggeles with depression and anxiety on a daily basis, AND has two seriously mentally ill family members I really get tired of the comparison.
First of all saying religious belief is a mental illness is flame-bait. But its also totally WRONG. I would guess that those posters who talk about religious delusions have never actually dealt with delusional people. I know relgious people and while I may not agree with what they beleive and even question some of their beliefs (yes- I know someone who claims to be able to speak in tongues) it is far from true delusional beliefs which if you want to put it in religous terms would be believing that Jesus and/or God talks to them and is telling them what to do. But that kind of thing isn't limited to religious beleifs thats for sure.
But knowing personally what I do about mental illness its not an apt comparison. NOT AT ALL. And it degrades the seriousness of mental illness a true problem in society(and with a strong organic component).
Even some of the posts that aren't necessarily directly comparisons make correlations that bother me ie the "why are so many relgious folks depressed"? Thats a generality that really bothers me..depression strikes many groups through out our society. I actually have heard about a great deal of COMICS that have depression but does that mean humor and depression are linked? Nope.
Also I would like to note mental illness runs in my family but my family is a pretty secular/atheistic group. Does that mean that atheists are mentally ill..no not at all so lets not turn it the other way.
To be fair I also don't believe that religious beliefs have anything to do with treatment. There was a thread recently about how a certain study showed a percentage of psychiatrists don't believe in God. So what? The treatment of mental illness (psychiatry) is a science. There are many many studies that show mental illness has more to do with brain chemistry than anything else. Plenty of studies that show that religious beliefs or lack of them have to do with how you are raised. So you can say one is nature and one is nuture I suppose. BUt I definitely don't believe in "faith-based" psychiatry anymore than "faith-based" medicine but thats a whole different topic.
But I do think that equating religion and mental illness has no place in this forum or anywhere else for that matter. It not only demeans believers but it demeans the seriousness of mental illness as well.

So I have a sister that is suffering from some kind of mental illness (depression at least). I have known for awhile that she has been behaving very erratically and its led her to all kind of destructive behavior including having an affair with a man who was living in the house with her and her husband and child (this guy's girlfriend and child also were living there). Finally it became apparent that she was cheating and my BIL confronted the guy (and it nearly did get violent) but finally he was able to get him and his gf and child out and while they were gone tossed this guys belongings out on the porch and locked him out. And my sister agreed to stay and try to work things out with her husband. Some in my family thought that the worst was over.I didn't.

I have known for quite awhile that she was ill and have been trying to get her husband to get her treatment. He's tried and she has gone on anti-depressants but who knows if she is really taking them or if they are even helping?
Anyway the upshot is that last night she tried to kill herself and swore that she would be dead by Sunday. Finally, because she is a danger to herself BIL had her committed involuntarily for observation.
I knew last week that she needed to be committed but as a friend put it "unfortunately they can't commit you for doing stupid things". Why must we wait till they are a threat to themselves or to others? By the time you get to that point it can be too late to stop something bad from happening.
Why can't we figure out some better way of dealing this?
I hate that there is such a stigma *still* with mental illness that the lack of adequate care and treatment gets largely ignored by the MSM and almost all the politicians. I have heard about people who have their own family so prejudiced against mental illness/and the professionals that treat it that they had to struggle with their illness on their own or totally lose the only support they had?
How many of the homeless are mentally ill people that the institutions are forced to let out because of legal issues?
How many people are thrown in prison when it is psychiatric care that they really need? If we invested more in treatment we wouldn't have to keep building prisons!!
How much crime is committed by people who either a) are undiagnosed mentally ill people or b) people who have gone off their meds because nobody can legally force them to take them?
Lets not forget that in our cry for universal health care, that the mental health system is in even worse shape but has been ignored for far too long because "crazy" people (and I am just as guilty as others of casually throwing that around) make us too uncomfortable to deal with effectively as a society.
Forgive my rant, but my heart is breaking today.

So okay, I am sure this is not the first or last post like this. I was reading an editorial that someone posted in GD about how atheists are ruining the country, they are the cause of crime etc etc etc. It seems like all my life I have had to remind people that even though my morals are different from others they are still valid. At first it was, in real life, "I might be a liberal democrat but I have morals too!". Then it was "I am a scientist but that doesn't mean I lack ethics or feelings either".
Lately its been--"I might be an atheist but I have morals that I live by AND just because I am atheist it doesn't mean I think everybody should be".

I try really hard to live by the Golden Rule, myself. Something that most believers have told me is at the heart of their religion.
And I do feel guilt about things (boy do I- I have had many a sleepless night because of guilt over my behavior). Some believers (mostly fundie wackos) seem to feel that if you don't believe in God you don't or can't have a concience. Wrong wrong wrong. Even here in this forum I have seen threads that seem to suggest that atheists have never done anything to improve society/benefit mankind.
Lately in this forum theres been some conflicts which yes, is the nature of this forum. But I have really come to really resent being personally lumped into a stereotype as uncaring callous narrow minded and contemptuous of believers. In fact I really dislike the superior attitude that SOME atheists have alot. I hope to never fall into the category of believing that I am superior to a religious person solely based on the fact that they believe in God and I don't. I hate prejudice and while society seems to instill a certain amount of prejudice in us all, I try my best to work on reducing the amount of prejudices I have.

The mean cold nasty atheist stereotype,that's not me at all. I personally find it interesting to read about other people's point of view on things. If sometimes I say I would like to see proof of something..thats just me. Personally I don't see a problem about asking for proof on things..as a scientist I spend my days collecting data so it would be out of character and personally irrational for me to just accept belief in things without data to back it up. Some of us are just like that, and some aren't. I might not agree with those who aren't like that and if they wish to live their life that way so be it. But to resent me because I actually like logic and rational explanations for things is very unfair I think.
Nor do I like having people here in this forum tell me what I believe based on my label of an atheist or based on what some group who calls themselves atheists MAY be promoting. If you want to know what I believe or know ask me, don't tell me and we will get along great even if I personally disagree with your position.
Can atheists be sarcastic smartasses who jump to conclusions? Yep. I have done that more than once. And if provoked by being told by someone who doesn't know me what I believe or know I can be nasty, yes. But I do find many things of interest here and thats why I am taking the time to explain myself here. Thanks for listening to my little rant. I will get off my soapbox now.

Scientists are less religious than the general population, a new study shows, but the reason has little to do with their study of science or academic pressures.

The findings challenge notions that science is responsible for a lack of faith among researchers, indicating that household upbringing carries the biggest weight in determining religiousness.

"Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," said Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study.

"It is important to understand this, because we face religious-scientific controversies over stem-cell research and evolution,” Ecklund said today.

Detailed in the latest issue of the journal Social Problems, the study is based on a survey of 1,646 scientists at 21 elite research universities and in-depth interviews with 271 of the scientists. Specifically, the survey contacted researchers specializing in physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, psychology and other fields.

Ecklund said nearly 75 percent of the subjects responded, which she said is extremely high for a faculty survey
http://www.livescience.com/history/070629_...


Interesting survey. Surprised me to some extent, and I think it reveals more than a few myths.

Now some of the popular “myths” about vaccines:
1) Vaccines cause autism due to mercury in them. There are two points here a) the scientific community in general does not believe there is any link between vaccines and autism (for various reasons I won’t go into here). This is a scientific consensus. Are there some in the community who believe there is a link? Sure. But the vast majority are skeptical. The mercury in the vaccines was part of the preservative called thimerosol. Preservatives are necessary to keep the vaccines potent enough for storage for a certain amount of time. Thimerosol has been removed from almost all vaccines with the exception of flu vaccines. However thimerosol free flu vaccines are available as well.
My old boss was one who wouldn’t even have thimerosol in the lab for use in non-vaccine related buffers. It is therefore now a non-issue
2) adjuvants are unsafe neurotoxins. Untrue as mentioned before they are an established technology. Before any vaccine+adjuvant gets approved for clinical trials they undergo YEARS of animal testing (usually in both mice, rats, rabbits and monkeys). And its not a few animals but hundreds for each candidate vaccine. Both safety (toxicity) and efficacy (potency) studies are conducted in these animal studies.
3) Vaccines are rushed onto the market before safety testing is finished. For the most part, wrong. Besides the years of animal studies done prior to clinical studies, the clinical trials themselves (usually conducted under very strict regs called Good Laboratory Practices and/or Good Manufacturing Practices) are long (usually in the 10 year area) where again both safety and efficiency are checked. Clinical trials are long enough to establish safety. Sometimes though when the data indicates a problem with the vaccine the study will be ended and the candidate vaccine withdrawn. This happens on a fairly regular basis but usually is not reported in the MSM. Some non-FDA approved vaccines have been rushed onto the market for use by the government from time to time. The anthrax vaccine of the mid to late 90’s is an example of this. Non-FDA approved vaccines are used in private industry for people doing experimental work. But all the vaccines used in the general population and distributed by pharmaceutical companies/biotech firms MUST be FDA approved and therefore must go through the GLP compliant clinical trials, after having extensive pre clinical testing.
4) Vaccines are huge money makers for Pharmaceuticals. Incorrect. Vaccine development and particularly production have such high costs of development and don’t have a large profit margin that many biotech’s and pharma’s do not feel the rewards are worth the risks of investing in a long drawn out research project. The UN is constantly begging Pharmas to invest more in the manufacturing of vaccines as there are constant shortages for them in the third world . Polio might be extinct in this country but it is a HUGE problem in Africa and there is not nearly enough vaccine to go around. In fact most vaccines are made by companies in Europe because laws and regs there with the funding is set up so that making the vaccines is not as expensive. The reason why there has been flu vaccine shortages in the past few years is because only 2 companies make it, and one had production issues that made them not be able to make any.

That’s the basics. Are there problems in the industry. Absolutely. I and other sensible techs/scientists often know what companies are more profit minded than science minded and avoid them like the plague (Pfizer has a real bad reputation in the professional community for example). Are there dishonest scientists? Sure and I have encountered them and fought them to the detriment of my career. Most scientists are more motivated by ego and reputation than greed though. The ability to publish and professional reputations are the big motivations for scientists . Some will massage or manipulate data to protect their intellectual reputations. Very few are motivated by simple greed although there are a few. But the vast majority of scientists and techs are dedicated and hard working and motivated to improving this world. That’s why the vast majority are registered democrats….

PS- I will be happy to answer questions to the best of my ability or direct you to where you may be able to find answers.
Thanks for bearing with me
Sue

Note to mods: I am aware most of these topics are now posted in health but I would like to see these posts remain in GD if at all possible
Note to science geeks: I am aware that I have very much simplified some very complex science in an effort to communicate and inform.