Nov

5

It seems the measles outbreak now going on in the US has an interesting change of note. Babies are getting infected far more easily in utero than in the past. It raises the question of whether or not the delayed effect of measles known as SSPE (subacute sclerosing pan-encephalitis) will develop earlier than its usual 6-7 after the acute infection.

Doctors Say a Rare Kind of Measles Is on the Rise

Henry Gifford responds:

For many years measles spread through 100% unvaccinated populations, reportedly only in communities of 250,000 or more humans, because in smaller communities everyone was soon either immune (most) or dead (few), leaving the virus nobody to infect. With long distance travel rare until recent centuries, the virus had a hard time jumping to new populations.

Now, after over a half century surviving in a largely vaccinated population, the virus has apparently adapted. Or did it adapt? Perhaps the strain currently infecting people in utero comes from an under vaccinated population overseas?

It would be very interesting to find an unpolitical answer (also called “Science”), but I won’t hold my breath.

Pamela Van Giessen comments:

Maybe not even “overseas.” My mom was a nurse in Phoenix in the 1990s and often spoke about the measles issue in the immigrant Hispanic/Mexican communities during that time. That was probably the last time one could have a data based/non political conversation about the matter.

Stefan Jovanovich goes there:

The question is always a political one because "the science" is always given final sovereign authority over any individual's right to say no.

Nils Poertner writes:

Follow the money in science. The very weak and ill in a society are quite relevant for the whole system - they keep the money flowing.

Pamela Van Giessen responds:

That would be older people. The vast majority of healthcare spending happens in the last few years of life. The alternative, however, is unpalatable and none of us would agree to it.

Stefan Jovanovich writes:

There is and has been for over a decade a rational alternative to the billing code system that makes the medical treatment of old patients the only way hospitals and doctors can get paid. Health insurance could allow patients to choose an early death if the savings in costs were be shared with the patients' dependents, heirs and legatees.

As is always the case, the American Marxists have come up with the right idea (black-skinned people are entitled to equal rights, punitive treatment of non-violent crimes is stupid and wildly expensive, the list is very long) and applied the very worst use of it.

In Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, Maine, Delaware, Illinois, New York medically-assisted suicide is a lawful death for which life insurance policy benefits are REQUIRED to be paid and policies shall have no minimum waiting periods.

There is no "system" and "health" is an abstraction, says the doctor daughter; that is why the hospital and institute (CDC et. al.) administrators prosper most and the treatments/repairs that actually valuable - the ones that cause more good than harm, including their costs to the patient - are insider secrets that no one can share with the civilians because the meat puppet public opinion will always believe in the televised miracle cures that pay for Monday Night Football.

Larry Williams comments:

Fully agree… You have to be responsible for your own health. You can listen to doctors, but you have to think it through. Sometimes their logic is just horrible, and you have to look for what really works. You're not going to immediately find it with so many medical practitioners, especially those who work for large institutions. Kind of like lawyers, they have to bill hours… Doctors have to find procedures to do.

Here is a case in point. Most doctors get very concerned if one's PSA level is, say, 7, 8, maybe even 10. However, that number itself must be related to the size of the prostate gland to see if it's significantly higher or not. Most just look at the absolute number. Not realizing the larger the gland, the higher the number will be, without a terribly significant meaning behind it. I've had numerous friends with prostate biopsies, an absolutely horrible procedure to go through, and their PSA index to the size of the gland was not alarming.

Pamela Van Giessen adds:

The most profitable revenue stream for healthcare/hospital systems is oncology treatment (e.g., outpatient chemo, radiation, etc.) based on demand and their huge drug mark up combined with hospital drug discounts. Since most healthcare systems are “non-profit” not sure how one could trade this.

Asindu Drileba wonders:

Health Insurance stocks?

Stefan Jovanovich responds:

For the tort bar, yes; for the shareholders, no. LLM is going to be a literal goldmine for negligence litigation.

David Lilienfeld writes:

For PSA, the actual number is pretty meaningless. The direction of travel is far more important. For liver function tests, it's a bit different. Actual levels there matter, and they can matter a lot. It really depends on the test. For a white blood cell count, the level is notable, not nearly so much for hematocrit and anemia.

Jeffrey Hirsch writes:

My hip replacement was no bargain either. Lots of other medical stuff going on. I deal with them all best in the gym and on the trail and by eating as clean as I can.

We trade this sector with XLV, XBI and IBB. Been in all 3 since May/June. They were part of our Best “Worst Six Months” ETF trades back in the April 30 issue. Good defense turned into good offense.

Pamela Van Giessen adds:

What I don’t think many (most?) people realize is that what you pay may not have any bearing on profitability. Hip replacement surgeries are remunerative to the surgeons and medical device companies but not necessarily to the hospital/healthcare system where the procedure was performed. They get a facility fee and paid for however much time you spend in the hospital but those overnighters don’t make them a lot of $$ because the labor (nurses, techs), the building, etc cost them.

Oncology treatment, otoh, is a windfall for these outfits. Yes, they have to pay staff (nurses, pharmacists), and for the facilities but treatment is delivered from 9-5, more or less, so labor is relatively contained, there are no doctors taking a big chunk of the $, and the mark up on the drugs is HUGE especially when you factor in the discount that these systems get on the drugs (that they do not pass on to patients). This is why there are now cancer treatment centers in the smallest of hospitals (see Cody WY hospital, for instance).

Archives

Resources & Links

Search