Saturday, June 21, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
A new Special Comment from Keith Olbermann.
Tonight, a Special Comment on Sen. John McCain’s conclusion that it’s "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.
Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger. For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.
This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything. Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.
"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."
"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.
"If it’s now working, Senator," Lauer continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.
That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory — not in defeat, which is what Sen. [Barack] Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Sen. Obama still doesn’t realize it."
And there is the context of what Sen. McCain said. Well, not quite, Senator.
The full context is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir. This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.
Yes, sir. You.
Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, "I believe that success will be fairly easy –" John McCain., September 24, 2002.
"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time –" John McCain, September 29, 2002.
Of the ouster of Saddam and the Baathists: "There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators – " John McCain, March 24, 2003.
Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?"
"No," you answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence – " John McCain, March 18, 2004.
You were asked about the troops, and the future.
"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."
"…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – " John McCain, January 31, 2005.
When a speaker at your town hall, five months ago, referenced the President’s forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, you cut him off.
"Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me … – " John McCain, January 3, 2008.
And your forecast of your hypothetical first term.
"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – " John McCain, May 15, 2008.
That, Sen. McCain, is context.
You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not that important.
That, Sen. McCain, is context.
And that, Sen. McCain, is madness.
The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."
In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though, they were already wounded.
And when they come home, is not that important.
Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country’s demand for a "Status of Forces," agreement with Iraq, a treaty which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.
The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq’s consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U.S. military bases in Iraq,from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.
Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases - staff them, in Mr. McCain’s MCEscher dream world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they’ll be back by 2013.
And when they come home, is not that important.
Last year, a 20-year old soldier from the Bronx, on the day of his re-deployment to a second tour in Iraq, said he just couldn’t face the smell of burning flesh again. So, Jonathan Aponte paid a hit man 500 dollars... to shoot him in the knee.
Mount Sinai Hospital in New York reported treating a patient identifying himself as another Iraq-bound soldier, who claimed he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station. No one doubted his story until examinations proved there was a second pen in his stomach bearing the logo of Greyhound Bus Lines.
In 2006, says his sister, a 24-year old Army Specialist from Washington State, on the eve of his second deployment, strapped a pack full of tools to his back, and then jumped off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.
And when they come home or more correctly all those like them who did not risk death or disability to avoid going back, when they come home, is not that important.
You’ve sold them all out, Senator. You.
You, whose sacrifice for this country was as all-encompassing and as horrible as the rest of us can only imagine in our darkest moments.
You, who survived, so that you could make America a better place where young men did not have to go and die in pointless wars or be maimed or be held prisoner or have to hire hit-men to shoot them in the knee because that couldn’t be worse.
You, who should know better.
Where, Senator, is the man who once said "veterans hate war more than anyone else, because veterans know, because veterans know these brave Americans, and others, know, that there is nothing more painful than the loss of a comrade."
Where is he, Sir? Where is the man who described that ineffable truth?
Oh, so long ago you touched the essence of the reality of Iraq. Your comments about your lost comrades, yesterday.
The men and women in Iraq, today, Senator, they are your comrades, too.
And you are condemning them to die.
To die, for your misdirection, for Mr. Bush’s lies, for whoever makes the money off building 58 permanent American bases and all the weapons and all the bullets and all the wiring so costly and so slip-shod that it electrocutes our comrades as they step, not to fight freedom’s enemies, but into the shower at the base.
That, Senator, that is context.
It is an easy thing to dismiss Sen. McCain as a sad and befuddled figure, already challenging for some kind of campaign record for malaprops.
Just yesterday in Philadelphia he answered Sen. Obama, not by defending or explaining his own "not that important" remark, but by seizing upon Obama’s "bitter" remark - or trying to.
Obama had foolishly said that some, in despair, in small towns, cling to their religion and their guns.
Sen. McCain vowed he’d go to those towns and tell them, "I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter."
It was hard not to dismiss with a laugh, Sen. McCain, or any Republican, for even accidentally implying that he’s clung to the Constitution, not after the last seven years.
It was hard, the day before, not to become almost bemused when the Senator tried to say he would veto every single bill with ear-marks, but wound up, instead, vowing "I will veto every single beer."
It was hard, this week, not to laugh at how Sen. McCain could offer any serious defense against the accusation that he is running for President Bush’s third term, when a 2006 interview suddenly surfaced in which McCain said he would consider Dick Cheney for a position in a McCain administration.
"I don’t know if I would want him as Vice President. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."
These are all very funny, in a macabre yet unthreatening way.
And then one remembers Sen. McCain’s inability to separate Sunni and Shia, or his insistence that Iran is training Al Qaida for service in Iraq, and then being corrected about it, and then saying the same thing again anyway.
And then one is, inevitably, drawn back again to the overlooked substance of yesterday’s remark...
"If (the surge) is now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
"No."
No?
The surge is working and even that still tells Sen. McCain nothing about when we can ransom our soldiers?
Wasn’t that the ultimate purpose of the surge? To get them out?
If we cannot tell, if McCain cannot even guess, doesn’t that, by definition, mean... the surge isn’t working?
And ultimately we are drawn back to the "not... too... important" remark, in its full context:
The context of the kaleidoscope of confused rhetoric, and endless non sequitur, and mutually exclusive conclusions—and what they add up to: a veritable tragedy, a microcosm of the American tragedy that is Iraq, a tragedy of a man who himself will never understand… "the context."
Your tragedy, Sen. McCain?
No. I’m sorry.
This tragedy is of Justin Mixon of Bogalusa, Louisiana. And it’s of Christopher McCarthy of Virginia Beach. It’s of Quincy Green of El Paso, and Joshua Waltenbaugh of Ford City, P.A. The tragedy is of Shane Duffy of Taunton Mass, and Jonathan Emard of Mesquite, Texas. It’s of Cody Legg of Escondido in California, and David Hurst of Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The tragedy is of Thomas Duncan the 3rd of Rowlett, Texas, and Tyler Pickett of Saratoga, Wyoming.
And who are they, Senator?
They are ten Americans, who have died in Iraq since the first of this month. There are four more. The Defense Department has not yet identified the others.
And while you, Senator, may ask for all the context you can get, those ten men... will never know any of it.
Because the true context here, is that if you could ask those American war heroes, or the family and the friends that loved them, if they have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq…
They could rightly say, "No. But that’s… not… too… important."
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
Monday, May 12, 2008
RA and PRA diagnosis
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Kimkins survivors
Now, anyone who's been following the chatter in the low carb community knows that there's a lot of controversy about the Kimkins plans, and that it looks like the whole scam is about to blow wide open. Many members have been banned from the site and have looked for an found other sites to get the support and help they need.
You know....this whole thing turns my stomach and makes me want to cry for the victims.
Here's the story, from what I can gather on the net.
Back several years ago a poster on a forum said she had lost close to 200 pounds in a relatively short period of time. This poster went by the name of Kimmer. Over the course of many postings over many months, Kimmer said she was a woman who lived in California with her son. She also said she had foster children, specifically male teens. Apparently there was also a claim of being on permanent disability and having defaulted on college loans. Apparently there have been several confirmations that this Kimmer is actually a woman named Heidi Diaz, who lives in Corona, CA. (I encourage you to look up and at the evidence and make your own conclusions, but the sources I've seen look pretty convincing)
People on the forum were impressed by Kimmer's before and after pictures and started asking her questions about her plan. Eventually they started asking for advice in following her plan, and she more firmly defined it. Apparently there were several plans. After a while Kimmer was apparently approached by someone who suggested setting up a website of her own where she could post her plans and set up a forum for members. There would be a fee for membership. That fee started around $15 and is currently around $60. The fee was supposed to be for the support forums, a personal page, email, etc. The plans were readily available all over the net! (And there are a few!
I never joined Kimkins as the first time I looked into it I found it was a low fat plan. At that point I just dismissed it as one I wasn't interested in. I did notice there was a lot of chatter on the forums about Kimkins, but never really paid much attention. I noticed more and more ads for Kimkins on all the diet sites....and noticed that even links that looked like they were for different things also lead to the Kimkins site. Women's World did an article about Kimkins and boy did the Internet light up with activity to the Kimkins site as well as various weight loss forums!
While this was going on, there began to be a few in the low carb community that were questioning the wisdom of these plans. There were also bloggers that were trying and openly promoting Kimkins, even some of the lower calorie plans.
Now, generally there are 2 groups that use low carb as a diet, and of course there are subgroups. The first group is mainly interested in weight loss....and the faster the better. The second group is more concerned with the health aspects of low carb while working at loosing weight. Within each group you're going to find differences of opinion on whether calories "count" or not, if high fat or low fat is better, if you should eat high protein or high fat, etc. Personally I am of the health group and believe both fat and protein are good in any amounts (as long as they're as natural as possible) and that carbs should be avoided unless they are veggies, fruit and some dairy. I also believe that calories do count, but low carb calories are generally better tolerated than high carb calories.
So anyway....while Kimmer was building her site and more and more people were joining and talking about the plans on other sites, there started to be seen people who had personally been harmed by the diet or were concerned about things that were being said on the Kimkins site forums. And I guess it was right about here that Jimmy Moore publicly joined Kimkins and began to heavily advertise for the plan. (Jimmy has since quit the plan and publicly apologised to his readers)
Jimmy Moore's enthusiastic approval of Kimkins really upset the low carb community. Jimmy's is a very heavily read site and many of his readers are people looking into low carb. By Jimmy approving the Kimkins plans, he was saying that these plans were low carb and safe. (There is also controversy as to whether these plans are to be considered "low carb" or "low calorie". Personally I say they are "very low calorie" diets that happen to be VERY low in carbohydrates and fats) Jimmy's endorsement upset many in the low carb community, myself included.
Now you are seeing blogs reporting fantastic results of following Kimkins as well as blogs explaining the dangers of a very low calorie diet. There are blogs with before and after pictures and blogs talking about the hair loss, weakness, inability to exercise and even loss of menses related to the effects of the diets. There were blogs praising Kimmer and the Kimkins plans and there were now blogs questioning the very existence of Kimmer, aka Heidi Diaz. The pro-Kimmer postings were definitely being overshadowed by the anti-Kimkins postings.
The charges that people are saying about Kimmer and Kimkins?
1. Kimmer is in fact Heidi Diaz, a woman that lives in Corona, California. This woman appears to be morbidly obese. No one knows if she ever lost the weight she claimed to have lost, but even if she did, she apparently was unable to sustain the loss.
2. That Kimmer is posting advice to severely limit the intake of calories to the point of starvation levels.
3. That Kimmer is posting advice to use laxatives on a daily basis.
4. That Kimmer is allowing and even advising at least 1 teenager on her site.
5. That posts on the Kimkins support forum have been edited or deleted. These posts are posts questioning the wisdom of the advice given by Kimmer.
6. That Private Messages have been accessed by the administration staff on the Kimkins site.
7. That members have been banned from the site,, but given no refund and in many cases any explanation.
8. That some of the before and after pictures on the site are fake.
9. That Kimmer accepted money for non-existent foster children as a result of posts about money problems on the site.
To me, there are 2 disturbing things about this whole thing. One is that this woman has been pushing and promoting a very dangerous diet plan without any training in the field. And the other is the way she preyed on a group of people that were vulnerable and, in many cases, desperate.
The plans that many are upset about are the plans that encourage very low calories. Some of these plans are said to have a high of 800 calories!! Fat is restricted as much as possible and vegetables are severely limited. Some argue that these plans are only for short-term use, while others note that there is no time limit stated with the plans and Kimmer is advising people to stay on them for the long-term. Even in the short-term, diets that call for calories as low as these promote should only be undertaken with close medical supervision. I have known several people who have been put on very low calorie diets by their physicians and they were all very closely monitored. They were also told to watch for certain signs of starvation like hair loss and loss of menses.
Kimmer preyed on people, mainly women it seems, who are desperate to loose weight at almost any cost. Some only had a small amount to loose, but desperately wanted to get back to their "goal" weight, and many others had 100 pounds and more to loose. The one thing in common that these people had is that they'd tried other plans and weren't successful....or weren't as successful as they wanted to be. These people were willing to do something dramatic if that something worked....and by all reports, Kimkins did work!
Apparently the support forums on the Kimkins site were great. Many wonderful people posted there and many friendships were formed as a result of belonging to Kimkins. Good thing, as now many of these disillusioned members are finding each other on other sites, including Jimmy Moore's new forum. Many refer to themselves as Kimkins survivors, and survivors they are!! They are now starting to figure out how to eat healthy and loose weight. Many are going to different low carb plans, but are still reluctant to increase their fat or calories too much. They are upset, and rightly so, that not only were they used by Kimmer, but they are also now being used by anti-Kimkins bloggers who are using their words without permission. They are afraid to trust again. The damage done by Kimkins is not only physical.
Luckily there are plenty of support groups on the Internet. I follow several low carb/diet support sites and I'm seeing threads and posts from new members who are former or still current Kimkins members. And the other members on these forums are doing what they can to help. Many of these sites have tools to help track your intake and progress and members that are more than willing to answer questions and provide information and support for those that are asking for it. If you aren't already a member of a support group, I highly recommend joining one. Here are links to some of the favorites on the net:
Active Low Carbers Forum
Jimmy Moore's site
Spark People
Low Carb Friends
Protein: minimum 100g/day. Ideal 130+g/day
Carbohydrate: Beginning Jan 1, minimum 15g/day, less than 50g/day. Subtract fiber grams only.
Fat: as desired of the following:
- Coconut oil (and other tropical oils)
- Butter
- olive oil (not for high heat cooking)
- Nut oils (avoid for high heat cooking)
- Bacon fat (minimal unless bacon nitrate free)
- animal fat (fresh)
Intermittent fasting: 24h Jan 1, 2007, as desired.
Exercise: minimum 3X/week
- Cardio: walking daily, starting minimum of 20 minutes.
- Strengthening/toning: Body For Life program
Grains: minimal.
Corn, canola, soy and other "industrial" oils: do not use.
HFCS and trans-fats: check all labels and avoid whenever possible.
Artificial sweeteners: minimal use. Mainly use oligofructose (Sweet Perfection brand)
I base my plan primarily from Protein Power Life Plan (2000 edition) with strong influence of Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution (?1992 edition).
Note, this document is in progress, and may be updated at any time.
Updated 9/16/2007
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Millions face risk from drug-coated stents
This is from MSN, quoted verbatim:
Potentially lethal heart devices a frightening problem for patients, doctors
Millions of Americans could be walking around with tiny time bombs in their hearts.
The concern centers on devices called drug-eluting stents. Doctors implant them in the hearts of about a million Americans a year to treat coronary artery disease. They generate some $5 billion a year in sales for the two companies that make them. But they may be doing more harm than good.
Next month a panel of experts will try to advise the Food and Drug Administration on what to do about it. But many top doctors and scientists admit they are in uncharted waters with a frightening problem that was largely unanticipated. By one estimate the devices already kill 2,000 Americans a year — and no one knows what the long-term danger will be.
To understand the potential hazard, it helps to look at the history of efforts to open the arteries to the heart when they get clogged with cholesterol-containing plaque. That blockage leads to shortness of breath and the chest pains called angina. If the artery closes completely the result is a heart attack with destruction of heart muscle and often death.
Beginning around 1980, doctors started using tiny balloons inserted on wires through the veins and guided by X-rays to push open the clogged arteries. This procedure, called angioplasty, often worked — but with a problem. In about half the cases the artery would close up again within a few weeks or months, an outcome called restenosis. The re-shutting of the arteries occurs because the blood vessels respond to the treatment as if they suffered a slight wound. They try to heal by growing more cells which can clog the artery again.
Thwarting the body's own healing process
To solve the problem, starting in 1994, cardiologists put tiny pieces of wire mesh called stents around the balloons. These stay in place as a piece of scaffolding to try to keep the arteries open.
These helped, but not enough.
Cells still grew over the wire, and in 20 percent to 30 percent of the cases, the vessel clogged again.
Drug-eluting stents (DES) appeared as the next solution. These give off a drug that prevents cell growth, and for that, they work well. The restenosis rate fell to about 5 percent. In 2003, soon after the FDA approved them, drug-eluting stents captured most of the market, even though they cost about $2,000 compared to $800 for the bare metal version.
Then a new hazard started to appear.
Doctors began seeing patients suffer from heart attacks that seemed to be triggered by the new stents. Because the drug-eluting stents are so effective at stopping the cell proliferation inside the arteries, the DES's end up as a piece of metal sticking out in the artery. That creates a perfect place for a blood clot to form and instantly block the artery. The result? A potentially fatal heart attack.
Dr. Jeffrey Moses of Columbia University, who conducted some of the original studies of the DES's, estimates the danger of a blood clot at 1 in 500 patients a year. For every million of the devices implanted, that would add up to 2,000 clots a year — although not all of them would be fatal.
But an estimate from Drs. Sanjay Kaul and George Diamond from Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles, published on the Web site of the American College of Cardiology, estimates that deaths from the new devices exceed 2,000 a year. Studies from Europe regard the danger to be many times higher. Because the devices are so new no one knows how long the hazard persists.
Already, many cardiologists are cutting back from using the devices. Sales are dropping dramatically. The FDA panel may well recommend they not be used at all.
Companies are searching for alternatives, including balloons that give off the drugs and would be removed at the time of the procedure, as well as stents that dissolve a few weeks after they are implanted.
What's next?
The big question now facing the FDA is: What should the estimated 4 million patients who already have a DES do?
The devices cannot be removed safely or easily. One preventive measure is to keep the patient on the blood-clotting medication Plavix for months or even indefinitely. But that medicine can cause severe bleeding, including a type of deadly stroke, and it costs more than $1,200 a year.
DES manufacturers Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson could end up rivaling Vioxx maker Merck as targets of lawsuits from people who suffer heart attacks.
The origin of this terrifying problem is that medical devices, like drugs, get tested for a few months in a few hundred or at most a few thousand of people before the FDA approves them.
Many experts are clamoring for better methods of assuring safety before devices like these go into millions of people for a lifetime.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15816251/
Please note the lines about the Europe saying failure rates are much higher than US estimates!!!
Also, note that these "complication" didn't show up until after approval? Why is that? Is it because the manufacturer gave incomplete or incorrect data to the FDA? It certainly wouldn't be the first time!!!
What ever happened to "First, do no harm"? I guess that should be removed from they Hippocratic oath?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
It's been a very good day!!!
The Dems have won the House, and just a little while ago, it was reported that they also won the Senate!!!
The system of checks and balances has finally been restored!!!
For all that voted yesterday, thank you very much!
For all that voted for the Democrats....You're awesome!!!!
We did it!!!