The Grumpy Doc – Page 2 – Grumpy opinions about everything.

War and Medicine

On November 12, 2024

The Evolution of the Army Medical Corps

The history of military medicine in the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries is essentially the history of the Army Medical Corps. There is no surprise that the Army Medical Corps played a significant role in advances in battlefield medicine. However, many people do not appreciate that the Army Medical Corps also played a significant role in the treatment of infectious diseases and improvements in general sanitation. For example, one of the first public health inoculation efforts was ordered by General George Washington in the Continental Army to protect troops against smallpox. Walter Reed led an Army Medical Corps team that proved that the transmission of yellow fever was by mosquitoes. The Army Medical Corps developed the first effective typhoid vaccine during the Spanish American War and in World War II the Army Medical Corps led research to develop anti-malarial drugs.

Revolutionary War and the Founding of the Army Medical Corps

The formal beginnings of military medical organization in the United States trace back to 1775, with the establishment of a Medical Department for the Continental Army. On July 27, 1775, the Continental Congress created the Army Medical Service to care for wounded soldiers. Dr. Benjamin Church was appointed as the first “Director General and Chief Physician” of the Medical Service, equivalent to today’s Surgeon General. However, Church’s tenure was brief and marred by scandal: he was proved to be a British spy, passing secrets to the enemy.

Church’s arrest in 1775 created a leadership vacuum, and the fledgling medical service had to reorganize quickly under Dr. John Morgan, who became the second Director General. Morgan sought to professionalize the medical corps, emphasizing proper record-keeping and standards of care. However, the Revolutionary War medical system struggled with limited resources, inadequate supplies, poor funding and an overworked staff. The lack of an effective supply chain for medicine, bandages, and surgical instruments was a significant issue throughout the conflict.

Early Challenges in Battlefield Medicine

During the Revolutionary War, military medical practices were rudimentary. Medical knowledge and understanding of disease processes had advanced little since the days of ancient Greece. Medical training was inconsistent and was principally by the apprentice method. In 1775 there were only two small medical schools in all of the 13 colonies. One of those closed with the onset of the revolution.

Field surgeons primarily treated gunshot wounds, fractures, and infections. Most treatments were painful and often involved amputation, as this was one of the few ways to prevent infections from spreading in an era without antibiotics. Battlefield medicine was further hampered by the fact that surgeons often had to work without proper sanitation or anesthesia.

One of the most significant health challenges faced by the Continental Army was disease, including smallpox, typhoid, dysentery, and typhus. In fact, more soldiers died from disease than from combat injuries. Recognizing the threat of smallpox, General George Washington made the controversial but strategic decision in 1777, to inoculate his troops against smallpox, significantly reducing mortality and helping to preserve the fighting force. At Valley Forge almost half of the continental troops were unfit for duty due to scabies infestation and approximately 1700 to 2000 soldiers died of the complications of typhoid and diarrhea.

It’s estimated that there were approximately 25,000 deaths among American soldiers both continental and militia in the American Revolution. An estimated 7000 died from battlefield wounds. An additional 17,000 to 18,000 died from disease and infection. This loss of soldiers to non-combat deaths has been one of the biggest challenges faced by the Army Medical Corps through much of its history.

Post-Revolution: Developing a Medical Framework (1783-1812)

After the Revolutionary War, the United States Army Medical Department went through a period of instability. There were ongoing debates about the structure and necessity of a standing army and medical service in peacetime. However, the need for an organized military medical service became apparent during the War of 1812. The war underscored the importance of medical organization, especially in terms of logistics and transportation of the wounded.

The Army Medical Department grew, and by 1818, the government established the position of Surgeon General. Joseph Lovell became the first to officially hold the title of Surgeon General of the United States Army. Lovell introduced improvements to record-keeping and hospital management and laid the groundwork for future medical advances, though the department remained small and under-resourced.

Advancements in Military Medicine: The Mexican-American War (1846-1848)

The Mexican-American War provided an opportunity for the Army Medical Corps to refine its practices. Field hospitals were more structured, and new surgical techniques were tested. However, disease continued to be a significant challenge, yellow fever and dysentery plagued American troops. The war also underscored the importance of sanitation in camps, though knowledge about disease transmission was still limited.

The aftermath of the Mexican-American War saw the construction of permanent military hospitals and better organization of medical personnel, setting the stage for the much larger and more complex demands of the Civil War.

Civil War: The Birth of Modern Battlefield Medicine (1861-1865)

The Civil War represented a turning point in military medicine, with significant advances in both battlefield care and medical logistics. By the start of the war, the Army Medical Corps was better organized than during previous conflicts, though it still faced many challenges. Jonathan Letterman, the Medical Director of the Army of the Potomac, revolutionized battlefield medicine by creating the Letterman System, which included:

Field Dressing Stations: Located near the front lines to provide immediate care.
Ambulance System: Trained ambulance drivers transported wounded soldiers from the battlefield to hospitals.
Field Hospitals and General Hospitals: These provided surgical care and longer-term treatment.

The Civil War saw the introduction of anesthesia (chloroform and ether), which reduced the suffering of wounded soldiers and made more complex surgeries possible. However, infection remained a major problem, as antiseptic techniques were not yet widely practiced and germ theory as a source for disease and infection was poorly understood. Surgeons worked in unsanitary conditions, often reusing instruments without sterilization and frequently doing little more than rinsing the blood off of their hands between patients.

Sanitation and Public Health Measures

One of the most critical lessons of the Civil War was the importance of camp sanitation and disease prevention. Dr. William Hammond, appointed Surgeon General in 1862, emphasized the need for hygiene and camp inspections. Under his leadership, new regulations improved the quality of food and water supplies. Though disease still claimed many lives, these efforts marked the beginning of a more systematic approach to military public health.

Additionally, the United States Sanitary Commission (USSC)was established in 1861. It was a civilian organization that was created to support the union army by promoting sanitary practices and improving medical care for soldiers with the objectives of improving camp sanitation, providing medical supplies, promoting hygiene and preventive care, supporting wounded soldiers and advocating for soldiers welfare.

Hammond also promoted the use of the Army Medical Museum to collect specimens and study diseases, fostering a more scientific approach to military medicine. Though he faced resistance from some military leaders, his reforms laid the foundation for modern military medical practices.

Conclusion

The evolution of the Army Medical Corps from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War reflects a gradual shift from rudimentary care to more organized, systematic medical practices. Early efforts were hindered by leadership issues, such as the betrayal by Benjamin Church, and by the challenges of disease and limited resources. However, over the decades, the Army Medical Department improved its structure, introduced innovations like inoculation and anesthesia, and laid the groundwork for advances in battlefield care. The Civil War, in particular, was pivotal in transforming military medicine, with lessons in logistics, sanitation, and surgical care that would shape the future of military and civilian medical systems.

For further reading, the following sources provide excellent insights:

Office of Medical History – U.S. Army
“Gangrene and Glory: Medical Care during the American Civil War” by Frank R. Freemon

The Unprecedented Reach of Social Media

By John Turley

On November 7, 2024

In Commentary

A Vast Reach

Social media has proven to be a more effective platform for spreading propaganda than traditional media due to its vast reach, the ability to target specific users, emotional manipulation, algorithm-driven amplification, and the speed at which information spreads. While print, broadcast, and other forms of media still play roles in shaping public opinion, they simply cannot compete with the scale, focus, and speed offered by social media platforms.

This shift represents a fundamental change in the dynamics of information spread. The power to shape beliefs and influence behavior is no longer concentrated in the hands of a few gatekeepers but is now accessible to anyone who understands how to leverage the tools of technology. As a result, the modern information landscape is more fragmented and volatile, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between genuine information and propaganda.

Understanding these dynamics is essential for navigating the digital world, particularly as social media plays an ever-larger role in public discourse. Whether we can develop better strategies for recognizing and mitigating propaganda in this new environment remains to be seen, but it must be addressed if we are to preserve the integrity of public information.

Sheer Scale

One of the primary reasons social media is more effective at spreading propaganda than traditional media is its sheer scale. Platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and TikTok have billions of users globally. Information shared on these platforms can be instantly viewed, and reshared by a wide audience, allowing propaganda to spread virally within hours or even minutes. Unlike print or broadcast media, which require significant resources and distribution channels, social media allows anyone with an internet connection to produce and share content.

Targeting

Another critical advantage social media has over traditional media lies in its ability to micro-target specific individuals or groups. Social media platforms utilize algorithms that gather massive amounts of data on users’ behaviors, interests, and demographics. This data is then used to curate content with which users are most likely to engage, creating a personalized experience. While this system may enhance user satisfaction and increase time spent on the platform, it also can create filter bubbles producing highly effective propaganda.

Propaganda creators can design content that speaks directly to the fears, values, or biases of particular segments of the population. By targeting users who are already inclined to believe certain narratives, propagandists can reinforce pre-existing biases, creating echo chambers in which users themselves specifically choose content that reflects their preexisting ideas without encountering opposing viewpoints.

Emotional Manipulation

Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, and the most engaging content is often that which provokes strong emotional responses. Whether it’s outrage, anger, fear, joy, or sadness, emotionally charged content is more likely to be shared and spread than neutral or purely informative posts. This creates an environment in which sensationalism and emotional manipulation thrive, making social media fertile ground for propaganda. The old newspaper dictum, “If it bleeds it leads” has been carried to levels never imagined by previous generations of editors.

The Role of Algorithms

One of the most insidious aspects of propaganda on social media is the role of algorithms in determining what content users see. These algorithms are designed to prioritize content that keeps users engaged, often by promoting material that aligns with their existing beliefs or that provokes strong emotional reactions. In doing so, algorithms contribute to the spread of propaganda by ensuring that polarizing or misleading content reaches more people.

The Speed and Scale of Misinformation

Unlike print or broadcast media, where editorial processes and production timelines can act as natural checks on the spread of misinformation, social media operates in real-time. Users can share content instantly, without fact-checking or verifying sources. This speed makes it much easier for propaganda to spread before it can be debunked. By the time fact-checkers have corrected misinformation, it has already reached millions of people, many of whom may never see the correction.

The decentralized nature of social media makes it difficult to trace the origins of propaganda. Fake accounts, bots, and coordinated campaigns can obscure the sources of misleading content, making it harder for users to assess the credibility of the information they encounter. In traditional media, the source of information is typically clear, whether it’s a newspaper, a television network, or a radio station. On social media, the source of propaganda can be either disguised or entirely anonymous, or perhaps even fabricated by artificial intelligence, adding layers of complexity to the problem.

Hopefully this Brave New World of social media does not overwhelm the values that guide our country.

History Rocks!

By John Turley

On November 4, 2024

In History, Humor

Always has, always will.

Rock on!

The Harmful Grip of Cigarette Smoking

By John Turley

On October 24, 2024

In Commentary, Medicine

Addiction, Health Risks, and the Benefits of Quitting

Cigarette smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable death worldwide. In the more than 65 years since the US Surgeon General first required health warnings to be placed on cigarette packs, significant progress has been made in reducing the rates of smoking. In 1965 about 45% of US adults were smokers and today fewer than 12% smoke on a regular basis. Youth smoking rates have also declined dramatically. In recent years fewer than 5% of high school students report smoking on a regular basis. In my high school class (1966) the smoking rate was probably closer to 30%. As encouraging as these numbers are, there is no acceptable rate of smoking, and I hope those of you who don’t smoke will pass this article on to family or friends who do.

The Power of Nicotine Addiction

Nicotine, the primary addictive substance in cigarettes, is remarkably potent. When inhaled, it travels to the brain within seconds, where it stimulates the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that creates a feeling of pleasure and relaxation. Over time, the brain rewires itself, craving nicotine to maintain these pleasurable effects, leading to dependency.

The addictive nature of nicotine makes quitting extremely difficult, as withdrawal symptoms, including irritability, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and intense cravings, can deter many smokers from quitting. Nicotine also increases heart rate and blood pressure, contributing to the stress-relief paradox: although many smokers feel cigarettes help them relax, the substance actually exacerbates stress on the cardiovascular system.

Smoking can be tied to our daily routines. Some people have commonly have a cigarette with morning coffee or after meals. Other people reach for a cigarette when they’re on the telephone. Social settings and peer influence can make quitting difficult. Attending social gatherings where smoking is common can reignite cravings. A smoker who decides to quit can feel surrounded by the temptations to resume smoking.

There are a number of other factors also that make it difficult to quit smoking. There’s a lack of immediate health benefits noted. Improvements like better lung function, reduced cancer risk or long terms outcomes are not noted right away. Some smokers fear weight gain more than they fear the effects of smoking and will delay any attempts at cessation because of that. Some smokers also feel frustration because after a few days without a cigarette they think “I don’t feel any better, what’s the point?”

Health Risks: Nicotine and Smoke by-products

Cigarette smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, many of which are toxic. Among these are tar, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and heavy metals like cadmium and lead. Some chemicals are carcinogens, contributing to the development of cancer, while others damage tissues and organs in less visible but no less harmful ways.

Cardiovascular disease: Smoking increases the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and peripheral artery disease. It contributes to the buildup of plaque in arteries, restricting blood flow and forcing the heart to work harder. Among smokers greater than age 40, more than 50% develop cardiovascular disease and they’re more than twice as likely to die from cardiovascular events compared to non-smokers.
Congestive heart failure: Nicotine triggers release of adrenaline which increases both heart rate and blood pressure, putting more strain on the heart. Carbon monoxide from cigarettes binds to hemoglobin reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Plaque buildup from coronary artery disease as well as myocardial fibrosis, scarring in the heart tissue, both lead to impaired cardiac function. Quitting smoking can significantly lower the risk of death from heart failure related complications.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): Smoking damages the lungs, leading to chronic conditions such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Over time, lung capacity declines, making breathing progressively more difficult. Even with smoking cessation, lost lung function cannot be fully recovered. It is vitally important that anyone with pulmonary disease quit smoking as soon as possible.
Cancer: Tobacco use is responsible for roughly 80% of lung cancer cases. It is also linked to cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, pancreas, bladder, and cervix, among others.
Diabetes: Smoking increases the risk of type 2 diabetes by around 30 to 40%. Smokers with diabetes are much more likely to experience complications such as heart disease and kidney failure.
Reproductive health issues: Smoking affects fertility in both men and women. Pregnant smokers are at higher risk for miscarriage, preterm delivery, and having low-birth-weight infants.

The Benefits of Quitting Smoking

It’s never too late to quit smoking, and the benefits begin almost immediately after quitting.

Within 20 minutes: Blood pressure and heart rate start to normalize.
Within 12 hours: Carbon monoxide levels in the blood drop to normal, improving oxygen flow.
Within weeks: Lung function improves, and circulation begins to return to normal.
Within months to a year: Coughing and shortness of breath decrease, and the risk of heart disease drops significantly.
Within five years: Stroke risk drops to that of a non-smoker, and the risk of certain cancers is cut in half.
After ten years or more: The risk of lung cancer is about half of what it would have been had the person continued to smoke.

The Deceptive Appeal of Vaping

Unfortunately, the rise of e-cigarettes, also known as vaping, has emerged as an alternative to smoking among many people. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine through vapor rather than smoke. While they eliminate some of the harmful byproducts like tar and carbon monoxide, vaping is not without risks. Some vaping products contain toxic materials not contained in tobacco. Especially custom or self-blended cartridges for vape pens that may have carcinogenic or otherwise harmful additives not readily obvious to the user. Unfortunately, many adolescents and young adults who have never smoked cigarettes have developed a nicotine addiction through e-cigarette use.

Conclusion

There is no safe level of use of tobacco or other forms of nicotine. Quitting smoking improves quality of life, reducing the frequency of respiratory infections and improving overall energy levels. For long-time smokers, the prospect of reversing years of damage may seem daunting, but research consistently shows that health outcomes improve at any point, even decades after quitting. If I could give my smoking patients only one piece of medical advice it would be: “Quit smoking and quit now”. And I know how hard it is. I quit smoking 53 years ago and for many years afterwards it remained a daily struggle. But eventually, with the help and support of my family I was able to get past my tobacco cravings.

What Would Ronnie Think?

By John Turley

On October 21, 2024

In Commentary, Politics

Thoughts on Ronald Reagan and the Current State of the Republican Party

I think Ronald Reagan may have been the best president of the modern era. I know that will make my liberal friends cringe. Additionally, I have recently gained new respect for Clinton and Obama, and I know that will likewise make my conservative friends cringe. I’ve always considered myself to be more conservative than liberal. But I just cannot support the current direction of the Republican Party and now consider myself to be a “Recovering Republican”. I didn’t leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me. And I wonder “What would Ronnie think?”

Speculating on what Ronald Reagan might think of the modern Republican Party is risky and involves consideration of his political philosophy, policies, and the values he championed during his presidency from 1981 to 1989.

Key Points of Reagan’s Ideology:

Conservatism: Reagan was a proponent of traditional conservative values, emphasizing limited government, individual liberties, free markets, and a strong national defense. He likely would have been concerned about the confrontational form of conservativism espoused by many contemporary Republicans.
Optimism: He often conveyed a sense of optimism about America’s future, believing in the ability of the American people to solve their problems. He would have been concerned about current rhetoric designed to pit Americans against one another.
Bipartisanship: Reagan worked with Democrats on significant legislation, showcasing a willingness to compromise for the greater good. President Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Speaker of the House, believed that partisanship ended after 6:00 PM and should never be a barrier to friendship.
Focus on Issues: His presidency was marked by a focus on economic issues, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and a strong anti-communist foreign policy. He likely would have been concerned by the Republican Party’s current often favorable response to the totalitarian governments in both Russia and China.

Speculation on His Views of Today’s GOP:

Populism vs. Traditional Conservatism: Reagan might be concerned about the rise of populism within the party, which sometimes shifts focus away from traditional conservative principles. He valued ideological coherence over personality-driven politics.
Divisive Rhetoric: The modern Republican Party has seen an increase in divisive and confrontational rhetoric. Reagan was known for his ability to unite people and might disapprove of the factionalism that can alienate moderate Republicans and independents.
Economic Policies: Reagan’s foundational economic principles might resonate with today’s emphasis on tax cuts and deregulation. However, he also expressed concern over increasing national debt and the impact of tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions. He was a strong proponent of free trade and believed that it had benefitted the US economy by opening markets and encouraging competition and he played a significant role in establishing trade agreements that laid the basis for the North American Free Trade Act. In contrast, today’s Republican Party is more concerned with protectionist policies and tariffs and creating trade barriers which they believe will somehow benefit the country as a whole.
Social Issues: Reagan had a more moderate stance on certain social issues than some factions of today’s GOP. He might find the current approach to issues like immigration and LGBTQ+ rights more contentious than his more inclusive positions. He was slow to respond to the AIDS crisis but was not as overtly hostile to the issues as the current GOP. Reagan advocated a restriction of federal funding for abortions but did not back a total ban on abortions.
Foreign Policy: Given his strong anti-communist stance and emphasis on diplomacy, Reagan may critique some of the modern party’s more isolationist tendencies. He might also be concerned about the current positive approach towards totalitarian regimes.
Immigration: Reagan had a different approach to immigration than the current GOP. He backed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which provided emergency amnesty for approximately 3,000,000 undocumented immigrants. Many of today’s Republicans would label Reagan’s amnesty program as a failure and certainly not one that they would be willing to repeat. Reagan’s policies were aimed at addressing the historic realities of immigration and included provisions for legalization which is currently opposed by most Republicans.

In summary, while Reagan might appreciate certain aspects of the modern Republican Party, such as a commitment to conservative economic principles, he would likely be critical of the divisive politics, populism, and the lack of bipartisan cooperation that he valued. Reagan’s views might resonate with traditional conservatives who still value free market principles. Likely though, they would face pushback from factions within the party that prioritize the nationalist policies. Many Republicans today see Reagan’s approach as outdated or incompatible with their current priorities which emphasize immediate economic protection over long term global engagement. This assessment is speculative, of course, and based on my interpretation of his beliefs and leadership style.

For a deeper dive into Reagan’s legacy, consider reading more from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation (www.reaganfoundation.org)

What Would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Think About Our Current Political Climate?

By John Turley

On October 16, 2024

In Commentary, History, Politics

In considering what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might think of today’s political situation, it’s tempting to view their perspectives through the lens of nostalgia, believing that the founders had an idealistic vision that, if followed, would have prevented many modern problems. It’s impossible of course to know what they may have thought about our current environment. Certainly, such things as a 24-hour news cycle on cable television and social media would have been beyond their comprehension. While both men lived in a vastly different era, their writings and philosophies give us a sense of how they might respond to the polarization and tensions we witness today.

George Washington: A Warning Against Partisanship

George Washington was deeply concerned about the rise of factions in the United States. (Political parties as such were unknown at the beginning of our republic.) In his famous Farewell Address in 1796, he warned that factions could lead to division and weaken the unity of the country. Washington was worried that faction (party) loyalty would surpass loyalty to the nation, creating conflict between groups and impairing the ability of government to function for the common good. He feared that excessive partisanship would “distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” leaving the nation vulnerable to foreign influence and internal discord.

If Washington could observe today’s political environment, he likely would be saddened by the partisanship which dominates political discourse. The gridlock, belligerent rhetoric, and divisiveness we experience today demonstrate the appropriateness of his concern. Washington would likely advocate for a return to greater civility, urging Americans to focus on the common good and to set aside factionalism for the sake of national unity. While political parties have become integral to our system, Washington would likely still press for cooperation, mutual respect, and compromise among all groups.

Thomas Jefferson: Liberty, Democracy, and the People’s Role

Thomas Jefferson, while more supportive of political parties than Washington, had his own complex views about governance. Jefferson believed in the power of the people to govern themselves and was a passionate advocate for liberty, democracy, and decentralization. He distrusted concentrated power, whether in government, or economic institutions, and feared that it could lead to tyranny. Jefferson was famously a champion of agrarianism and believed that widespread participation in the democratic process was the best defense against corruption and the loss of liberty.

Jefferson, while a proponent of states’ rights and individual liberties, might view polarization as a threat to democratic ideals if it stifles dialogue and compromise. He believed in the potential for free men to govern wisely, but would caution against the erosion of civil discourse that might follow the rise of extreme factionalism

Faced with the highly charged political debates of today, Jefferson would likely express concern over the increasing centralization of power in government, banks, and large corporations. He would, without doubt, be troubled by the outsized influence of money in politics.

Jefferson was also a firm believer in education as a cornerstone of democracy; he would stress the importance of an informed electorate, particularly in an age where misinformation can spread rapidly.

However, Jefferson was no stranger to political conflict, having played a central role in the fiercely partisan battles of his time. He understood the value of vigorous debate but would probably urge that such debate remain focused on the core democratic principles of liberty, justice, and equality rather than devolving into personal attacks.

Media and Civil Discourse

Of course, it is impossible to know what Washington and Jefferson would think about the current role of media, particularly social media which would be beyond anything in their experience. Washington felt strongly aggrieved by the attacks upon him in the newspapers of the time. He felt unfair attacks would undermine national unity. Jefferson, on the other hand, was a strong proponent of freedom of the press. He was also very adept at the use of newspapers to accomplish political means.

However, it is likely that both would caution against the dangers of misinformation and partisan bias to distort public perception. Most likely both would emphasize the need for a responsible press that distinguishes between fact and opinion and supports a healthy democracy. Both would be opposed to using false or misleading statements to influence the public.

Unity and Civic Responsibility

Despite their differences, both Washington and Jefferson would likely agree on one thing: the importance of unity and civic responsibility. They envisioned a country where citizens were deeply involved in a participatory government, contributing not just with votes but with informed, constructive dialogue. Washington would call for a spirit of national unity above party lines, while Jefferson would insist that the preservation of liberty relies on active and informed participation from the public.

Both founders would encourage a healthier, more cooperative political environment, one where differences are respected and not allowed to fracture the country. They would likely see today’s polarization as a threat to the very ideals they fought to establish, and both would urge Americans to remember their shared values.

Conclusion

In short, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, while men of their own time, had insights that are still relevant today. Neither man could have predicted the exact nature of modern politics, but their wisdom offers enduring guidance: political disagreements must not undermine the unity, liberty, and civic responsibility that are the foundation of the American experiment. We owe it to them not to lose the promise of the American Revolution.

Vaccinations for Older Adults

By John Turley

On October 14, 2024

In Medicine

What You Need to Know

As we age, our immune systems naturally weaken, making us more susceptible to infections and illness. For senior citizens, staying healthy can sometimes be a challenge, but one of the most effective ways to protect yourself is through vaccinations. In this article, we’ll explore the key vaccines that are especially important for older adults and discuss why staying up to date with them can have a significant impact on your health and quality of life.

Why Vaccines Matter for Seniors

Vaccines are not just for children. In fact, as we get older, some vaccines lose their effectiveness, and the risks of certain diseases increase. Conditions such as pneumonia, shingles, and flu can become more severe in older adults, leading to complications like hospitalization or even death.

Additionally, some seniors may have underlying health conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or chronic lung disease, which further increase the risks associated with preventable infections. Vaccinations help reduce these risks by boosting your immune system and offering protection against specific diseases.

Key Vaccines for Senior Citizens

Influenza (Flu) Vaccine: The flu is not just an inconvenience, it can be dangerous, particularly for people over 65. Every year, the flu leads to serious complications in seniors, including pneumonia. The CDC recommends that everyone 65 and older get a high-dose flu vaccine annually, as it is formulated to better stimulate the aging immune system. Even if the flu vaccine doesn’t entirely prevent infection, it often reduces the severity of the illness. Remember, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1920 was one of the deadliest of all time with estimates of death ranging from 17 to 50 million with some estimates as high as 100 million.
Pneumococcal Vaccine: Pneumococcal diseases, such as pneumonia, meningitis, and bloodstream infections, are significant threats to older adults. The CDC recommends two types of pneumococcal vaccines for those 65 and older:
1. PCV20 or PPSV23: Typically given once, offering broad protection against the most common strains of pneumococcus. If you have never been vaccinated, the PCV20 is the main recommendation.
1. PPSV23: If PCV15 was given initially, a dose of PPSV23 should be given at least one year later. If you had the older PCV13 (but not PCV15), your physician may recommend the PCV20 for additional coverage. The combinations of pneumococcal vaccines can be confusing, so check with your physician.
Shingles Vaccine (Herpes Zoster): Shingles is caused by the reactivation of the chickenpox virus (varicella-zoster) and is more common and severe in older adults. The shingles vaccine, Shingrix, is recommended for adults over 50 and is given in two doses. Shingrix provides strong protection against shingles and its most serious complication, postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), a painful condition that can last for months or even years after the rash disappears.
Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (Tdap): Every adult should receive a Tdap booster, which protects against tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough (pertussis). For seniors, a Td booster is recommended every 10 years to maintain protection. Tetanus can enter the body through cuts or scrapes. Both pertussis, which is increasing in incidence, and diphtheria, which is extremely rare, can be serious, or fatal, for older adults.
COVID-19 Vaccines and Boosters: While the pandemic has become more manageable, COVID-19 still poses a threat, especially to older adults. COVID vaccines and boosters have significantly reduced severe illness and hospitalization. Unvaccinated patients are 2.5 times more likely to die from a COVID-19 infection than are the vaccinated. The discrepancy is even higher among older patients. The CDC continues to update its guidelines for boosters, so it’s important for seniors to stay current with recommendations, especially if they have underlying conditions.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine: RSV is a common virus that can cause severe respiratory illness in older adults. It is recommended for most adults beginning at age 60. Consideration should be given to vaccinating younger adults with chronic heart or lung disease, diabetes, or a weakened immune system due to cancer or chronic immunosuppressant medications.

The Benefits of Staying Up to Date

Vaccinations for seniors are about more than just preventing illness. They help reduce the severity of disease, prevent complications, and decrease the likelihood of hospitalization. Staying current with vaccines also has a community benefit. By protecting yourself, you help limit the spread of contagious diseases to more vulnerable populations, including those with weakened immune systems.

Talk to Your Healthcare Provider

As always, it’s essential to consult with your healthcare provider before getting vaccinated, especially if you have underlying health conditions. Your doctor can help you determine which vaccines are most appropriate for you based on your age, medical history, and lifestyle.

Conclusion

Vaccinations are a critical part of staying healthy as we age. By keeping your vaccines up to date, you not only protect yourself but also contribute to the overall health of your community. If you’re unsure about which vaccines you need, schedule an appointment with your healthcare provider to discuss a vaccination plan that will keep you protected for years to come. Remember: Prevention is the best medicine, and vaccines are a simple, safe, and effective way to reduce the risk of serious illness as we get older.

Understanding Vitamins, Supplements, Herbal Preparations, Patent Medicines, and Homeopathic Medications

By John Turley

On October 4, 2024

In Commentary, Medicine

What you should know.

The cost of prescription medications is almost constantly in the news. It has even become a topic of debate in the current presidential elections. Americans spend over $500 billion annually on prescription medications. This includes drugs covered by insurance, and out of pocket costs and specialty drugs for chronic conditions.

But this is not the only expense Americans have for drug related health care items. Almost $90 billion a year is spent on nonprescription preparations.

The shelves of pharmacies, health food stores and convenience stores are lined with a vast array of vitamins, supplements, patent medicines, herbal preparations, and homeopathic medications. They are also available from hundreds of online sources, both reputable and of questionable origin.

Many people turn to these products in the hope of improving their health, boosting their immune systems, or addressing specific ailments. However, the development, testing, approval processes, and regulation of these products can be confusing, even for the most educated consumer. We will delve into each of these classes of health products, exploring how they are developed, tested, and regulated, and highlighting some potential drawbacks of which you should be aware.

Vitamins and Dietary Supplements

Development and Testing

Vitamins and dietary supplements include a broad range of products such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and other nutritional components. These products are typically developed through a combination of scientific research and commercial interest. Manufacturers may isolate nutrients from food sources or create them synthetically. Testing often involves ensuring that the products contain the stated ingredients in the correct amounts. However, unlike pharmaceuticals, these products are not usually subject to rigorous clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety before they are marketed.

Approval Process

In the United States, vitamins and dietary supplements are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. Under DSHEA, manufacturers are responsible for ensuring the safety and labeling of their products before they reach the market. However, the FDA does not approve dietary supplements before they are sold. Instead, the FDA can take action against any supplement that is found to be unsafe once it is on the market.

Drawbacks

One of the primary drawbacks of dietary supplements is the lack of pre-market approval, which means that the burden of proving safety is often on the consumer or the FDA post-market. This can lead to situations where unsafe or ineffective products remain on the market until sufficient adverse events are reported. Additionally, the quality of supplements can vary widely between manufacturers, and contamination with other substances is a known risk. Although, given the competitive nature of these products and the number of distributors, questionable products are usually forced out of the market early.

Herbal Preparations

Development and Testing

Herbal preparations include products made from plants or plant parts, used for their supposed medicinal or therapeutic properties. The development of these products is often rooted in traditional medicine practices, although modern herbal preparations may undergo some degree of scientific research. Testing for herbal preparations can vary widely; some are backed by clinical studies, while others rely on anecdotal evidence or traditional use.

Approval Process

The FDA considers herbal supplements as foods, not medicines. So, they are not subject to the same testing, manufacturing, and labeling standards and regulations as medicines.

This means they do not require pre-market approval by the FDA. However, in other parts of the world, such as Europe, herbal products may undergo more rigorous testing and regulation. All herbal products that display an intended use must be accompanied by a box warning stating: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnosis, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Drawbacks

The primary concerns with herbal preparations are the variability in potency and the potential for contamination or adulteration with other substances. Additionally, the lack of standardization in the preparation of herbal products can lead to inconsistent effects. Herbal supplements, unlike medicines, do not need to be standardized to make sure of batch-to-batch consistency. Some herbs can also interact with prescription medications, leading to adverse effects.

Homeopathic Medications

Development and Testing

Homeopathic medications are based on the principle of “like cures like,” where substances that cause symptoms in a healthy person are believed to cure similar symptoms in a sick person when taken in highly diluted forms. The development of homeopathic remedies typically involves diluting a substance repeatedly until little to no trace of the original substance remains.

While counterintuitive, homeopaths believe that a homeopathic medicine is more powerful the more times the active ingredients have been diluted. A 6X potency indicates that the drug has been diluted at a ratio of 1 to 10 for a total of six times. A C potency means the dilution ratio is 1 to 100. The higher the numeral, the lower the concentration of active ingredients in the medicine.

Testing in homeopathy is controversial, as traditional scientific methods, such as randomized controlled trials, often find no evidence that homeopathic remedies are more effective than a placebo. Some supporters claim that homeopathic remedies are developed for a specific patient making general testing irrelevant.

Approval Process

In the U.S., homeopathic medications are subject to regulation by the FDA under a different framework compared to dietary supplements. Historically, these products were allowed to be sold without pre-market approval as long as they were prepared according to the guidelines of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS) and the FDA’s Good Manufacturing Practices. All products are required to be clearly marked as “homeopathic”. In recent years, the FDA has increased scrutiny of homeopathic products, particularly those marketed for serious conditions, or containing potentially harmful ingredients, as well as those for eye conditions, and all homeopathic injectables.

Drawbacks

The major drawback of homeopathic medications is the lack of scientific evidence supporting their efficacy. Most scientific reviews and clinical trials have found that homeopathic remedies do not perform better than placebos. Moreover, because homeopathic products are so highly diluted, they are generally considered safe, but they may delay patients from seeking effective medical treatments for serious conditions.

Patent Medicines

History and Evolution

Patent medicines have a colorful history. They began in the 19th century and were popular into the early 20th century before evolving into the over-the-counter industry that we now know. This class includes many modern over the counter medications produced by reputable drugs companies and also medications of dubious quality and effectiveness produced in garages and basements.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, medicine wagons and medicine shows became popular vehicles for the promotion and sale of patent medicines. These traveling shows often combined entertainment with health claims, featuring acts such as music, magic tricks, and even wild west performances. At the center of the spectacle, a charismatic “doctor” or salesman would tout the benefits of their patent medicine—a proprietary formula claimed to cure a wide range of ailments.

Patent medicines of this era were largely unregulated, and their ingredients were often a secret. Some contained alcohol, opium, or other stimulants, which provided temporary relief or a placebo effect. Because there were few laws governing their production and sale, these concoctions could be marketed without scientific proof of their efficacy or safety.

Medicine shows traveled to rural and urban areas alike, attracting customers who had little access to conventional medicine, particularly those in remote regions. Unfortunately, these products were often ineffective or even dangerous. The rise of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which required the labeling of ingredients and restricted misleading claims, signaled the decline of these shows and the broader patent medicine industry.

A few of the original patent medicines stayed on the market until the late 20th century. The most famous of these was Carter’s Little Liver Pills which was touted for curing headaches, constipation, dyspepsia and biliousness. Lydia Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound which was sold for “female complaints “, is still on the market though it has been significantly reformulated. A number of medications on the market now could be considered as the descendants of early patent medicines, perhaps the best known of these is Geritol

Approval Process

Modern patent medicines fall into the category of over the counter (OTC) drugs. Preparation of these medicines must either follow a monograph established by the FDA (essentially a recipe book) or undergo New Drug Application (NDA) process. All patent medicines must comply with strict labeling standards and include accurate ingredient lists, dosage instructions, and warnings. Any health claims must be supported by scientific evidence.

Drawbacks

There are several drawbacks to over the counter (patent) medications. There’s a significant risk that people may intentionally take more than the recommended doses. This is particularly dangerous with some medications such as Tylenol which can lead to liver damage. People may use medications for a longer than the recommended period. They may also be used in an attempt to treat conditions for which they are not intended. They may mask symptoms of a more serious condition leading to a delay in seeking appropriate medical care.

Conclusion

Vitamins, supplements, herbal preparations, patent medicines and homeopathic medications each occupy a unique space in the health and wellness industry. While they offer consumers more choices in managing their health, the differences in how these products are developed, tested, and regulated are significant. As a consumer, it’s essential to be informed about these differences to make safe and effective choices.

I’d like to thank my friend Steve Kaplan, a Registered Pharmacist, who is also my coauthor for this post.

An Observation

By John Turley

On October 1, 2024

In Uncategorized

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

-George Carlin

Of Echo Chambers And Filter Bubbles

By John Turley

On September 27, 2024

In Uncategorized

The time has come, the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes – and ships – and sealing-wax –
Of cabbages and kings –
Louis Carroll
“The Walrus and the Carpenter”

Introduction

Recently, I have been researching the role of social media and the spread of modern propaganda. One of the things that surprised me, although it probably shouldn’t have, is how rapidly misinformation spreads over the internet as compared to verifiable fact-based information. I choose to use the term verified or verifiable rather than true or truth. It seems to me that we have entered an age where each person decides on their own version of truth. Truth has become relative. It’s based not on verifiable and reproducible facts but rather on who said it, where you read it, or if you agree with it. If it doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions, it can’t possibly be true.

A study by three MIT researchers found that false news spreads more rapidly on the social network Twitter (now X), by a substantial margin, than does factual news. “We found that falsehood diffuses significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth, in all categories of information, and in many cases by an order of magnitude,” reported Sinan Aral, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

They found the spread of false information is not due primarily to bots programmed to disseminate inaccurate stories but rather due to people intentionally retweeting inaccurate news items more widely than factual statements.*

To better understand how social media impacts propaganda, it is important to understand how this phenomenon occurs. This leads to two related concepts, Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles.

Echo Chambers

An echo chamber is a social structure in which individuals intentionally surrounded themselves only with those who share similar views and opinions. Within these chambers, dissenting opinions are either absent or actively suppressed, leading to the reinforcement of existing beliefs. On social media, echo chambers are created by users themselves, as they choose to follow, like, and share content that aligns with their views while ignoring or blocking contrary perspectives. This self-selection creates a feedback loop where individuals only hear what they already believe, which further entrenches their views.

Filter Bubbles

While echo chambers are largely the result of individual choices, filter bubbles are often shaped by algorithms. Social media platforms and search engines use algorithms to curate content for users based on their past behavior, what they click on, like, or share. The stated intention behind these algorithms is to provide users with content that is most relevant to them. But we shouldn’t overlook that it is also a method to make users more receptive to focused advertising and other forms of influence. The net result is a significant narrowing of the variety of opinions presented.

Individual Choice

Both echo chambers and filter bubbles limit the diversity of information by consistently show users content that aligns with their established interests and beliefs, isolating them from conflicting viewpoints and leading to a narrow and sometimes distorted understanding of the world. Over time, this can result in a skewed perception of reality, where the individual believes that their perspective is universally accepted or unquestionably correct.

While echo chambers and filter bubbles are often discussed in terms of algorithms and platform design, it is crucial to recognize the role of individual decisions in their creation and perpetuation. Each time we choose to follow a particular account, share a piece of content, or engage in a discussion, we are making decisions that shape our information environment.

The choices we make, whether to engage with diverse perspectives or retreat into familiar territory, have a profound impact on the information we encounter and share. When we choose to engage only with like-minded individuals and content, we contribute to the formation of echo chambers. Similarly, when we rely on algorithms to curate our content without seeking out alternative viewpoints, we become trapped in filter bubbles.

Echo chambers and filter bubbles are not exclusive to any political affiliation, religion, ethnicity, or social class. They are found across society. The willing acceptance of echo chambers and filter bubbles is the antithesis of critical thinking. When we fail to recognize that we are not considering alternative views, regardless of our political orientation, we are succumbing to indoctrination rather than education. We become unthinking automatons rather than critical thinking individuals who decide what is best for ourselves. Failure to actively engage with the information that we receive, to ensure that we receive multiple viewpoints (even those with which we disagree) and then failing to critically evaluate everything presented is a sure recipe for a loss of freedom.

*The paper, “The Spread of True and False News Online,” was published in Science, 9 March 2018