Celebrating science that’s off the beaten track – the Ig Noble awards

Thanks to MaryLou P.

It was the quirky aspects of science that researchers celebrated at this year’s Ig Nobel award ceremony at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. Actual Nobel laureates gave out the ten prizes.

“This is the first in-person, with everyone together in one room, ceremony we’ve done since before the pandemic,” says Marc Abrahams, the founder and organizer of Ig Nobel event and editor of the Annals of Improbable Research.

On Thursday night, Abrahams stood before a packed audience in one of MIT’s largest lecture halls. “We honor some remarkable individuals and groups,” he said. “Every Ig Nobel prize winner has done something that first makes people laugh, and then makes them think.”

Plants that see

“I feel my research fits really well on this prize because I receive a lot of critiques about the paper,” says Felipe Yamashita with a chuckle, a botanist and one of the award winners.

He has a somewhat alternative view of plants. “I believe that plant[s] can see,” he asserts. “I don’t know how they can see. They don’t have an eye, but I’m pretty sure they can understand what’s going [on].”

Yamashita just finished his Ph.D. in botany at the University of Bonn. His thesis focused on a kind of plant called Boquila trifoliolata found in the temperate rainforests of southern Chile and Argentina. A decade ago, a paper came out saying that B. trifoliolata can change its lobed or rounded leaf shape to mimic the leaf shape of other plants.

Those authors speculated it was due to chemicals or microbes, but Yamashita and his collaborator had their doubts. “We didn’t really agree with that,” he says. “Then we said, ‘OK, let’s do another experiment [that] prove[s] that maybe [the plants] have some vision.’ ”

Yamashita’s experiment was simple. He grew several of the plants on a trellis divided by a couple shelves. These opaque barriers blocked the lower part of the plant from the upper part. Along the top of the trellis, Yamashita wove an plastic plant with slender, unlobed leaves. The artificial plants didn’t have the chemicals or microbes that might trigger the shape mimicry response.

When the real plant grew, the leaves below the shelves were lobed. But “almost all leaves that were growing close to the plastic leaf copied the plastic leaf shape,” says Yamashita. That is, the mimic leaves were longer, and less lobed.

Yamashita thinks the real leaves sensed the shape of the plastic leaves by detecting where they were letting light through and where they weren’t. “So the leaf grow one way, not the other way,” he says. “One direction, not the other direction.”

It’s a kind of seeing, concludes Yamashita. He says it may function as camouflage to help the plant blend in with its neighbors to reduce being munched on by some herbivore. The results were published in the journal Plant Signaling & Behavior.

A myth of old age

Another Ig Nobel recipient is Saul Justin Newman, an interdisciplinary scientist at Oxford University.

“I was joking to my family,” he recalls. “Every scientist dreams of the Nobel, but my dream had a typo and I’m perfectly happy.”

Newman snagged his award for his research showing that data related to some of the longest-lived people on the planet is riddled with errors.

“For example, the world’s oldest man has three birthdays, one of which seems to be a deliberate fraud.” he says. “In Japan, 82% of the 100-year-olds turned out to be alive on paper — and dead in reality.”

The list goes on. “I had a lady reach 103 in a freezer,” says Newman.

He admits at first, these results sound kind of humorous. But there’s something pernicious going on.

“Picture your father dies or your mother dies at the age of 95,” he explains. “You’ve got no job and their pension check turns up the week after they’re dead. All you have to do for that pension check to keep turning up in perpetuity is not register the death.”

Newman says it’s easy to get away with. And he’s found a link between people who reach remarkable ages on paper and places in the world where there’s a hefty amount of pension fraud.

“It’s dissonant because all of these places don’t rank very highly on any other metric of survival,” he says.

Other Ig Nobel winners this year included a prize for the study of the swimming ability of dead trout. Another demonstrated a technique for separating drunk worms from sober ones.

Abrahams closed the award ceremony with these words:

“If you didn’t win an Ig Nobel Prize tonight — and especially if you did — better luck next year.”

Posted in Science and Technology | Leave a comment

Can You Spot the Cat? Cats Hidden in Famous Paintings

by Marina Kochetkova in Arts Magazine. Thanks to Ann M.

cats in famous paintings: Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Portrait of Julie Manet (or Girl with a Cat), 1887, Musée d’Orsay, Paris, France. Detail.

Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Portrait of Julie Manet (or Girl with a Cat), 1887, Musée d’Orsay, Paris, France. Detail.

I like cats and I’m sure that many of you do, too. A fascinating animal, the cat has earned itself an important place in culture, literature, and art. Artists gave it a rich variety of symbolic meanings. However, at times they seem to hide these cute creatures from our sight. Can you spot the cats in their paintings? Beware, though, if you dont spot all the cats, you will have to sing along to the song.

1. Superstitious Cat – Hieronymus Bosch

Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights. On the inner face of the triptych, three scenes share the concept of sin, on the left panel, Adam and Eve, and is punished in Hell in the right panel. The centre panel depicts a Paradise that deceives the senses, a false Paradise given over to the sin of lust.
Cats in famous paintings: Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights, 1490-1500, Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain.

Hieronymus Bosch’s (c. 1450–1516) triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights is full of symbolic references. It illustrates the human journey between divine influence and diabolic temptation, between salvation and damnation. For example, in the moment of Creation, God is presenting Eve to the astonished Adam. Here, we should think of love, harmony, and wonder at a world that does not know sin. However, close to Adam, we spot a big cat carrying prey in its mouth. In this Paradise, it symbolizes the arrival of evil, even before the appearance of the tempting serpent. (continued)

Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights, close up of the left panel, with three figures, two men, Adam and God, holding the hand of Eve, cat is on the right with the prey in its mouth
Cats in famous paintings: Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights, 1490-1500, Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. Detail.
Posted in Animals, Art | Leave a comment

Debate recap by Jimmy Kimmel

Thanks to Mike C.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Impossible Happens

Thanks to Bob P.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Who is Laura Loomer?

In several recent photos of Donald Trump, beside him stands Laura Loomer. Who is she? According to Wikepedia, “Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is an American far-right political activist, internet personality, and conspiracy theorist. She was the Republican nominee to represent Florida’s 21st congressional district in the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, losing to Democrat Lois Frankel. She also ran in the Republican primary for Florida’s 11th congressional district in 2022, losing to incumbent Daniel Webster. She has described herself as “pro-white nationalism” and a “proud Islamophobe“….

In April 2023, it was reported that Donald Trump wanted to hire Loomer for a campaign role. However, the idea was said to have been met with heavy resistance from Trump’s team, as well as warnings from Marjorie Taylor Greene over hiring a “documented liar”. Since October 2023, Loomer has written and posted false claims about the Israel–Hamas war.”

Heather Cox Richarson notes, “It has been notable for a while that Trump’s wife, Melania, is nowhere to be seen, and Trump has begun to cling to provocateur Laura Loomer, who has vowed utter loyalty to Trump and is evidently quite happy to be seen with him. This is a problem for the Republican Party because of her history of conspiracy theories and open racism. As Joe Perticone and Marc Caputo of The Bulwark note, Loomer has referred to Vice President Harris as a “drug using prostitute,” for example, and suggested she has not given birth to children because “she’s had so many abortions that she damaged her uterus.”  

Loomer’s extremism has made other Trump supporters urge him to keep her at a distance, sparking an embarrassing public fight. Two of those trying to get Trump to isolate Loomer are Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Their chilliness prompted Loomer to fight back on social media, questioning Graham’s sexual identity and calling attention to Greene’s extramarital affair and comparing her to a “hooker.”  The public fight between Loomer and Trump’s more restrained supporters—and who would have thought Greene would fall in the “more restrained” category?—illustrates something Josh Marshall pointed out in Talking Points Memo today.”

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

In the spin room at the Harris-Trump debate, I witnessed the strangest moments of my political career

Trump himself coming to the spin room, JD Vance and Stephen Miller panicking, a member of the Central Park Five in attendance, and Scaramucci talking about Taylor Swift — the fallout from the debate was immediate and intense

by John Bowden in The Independent (thanks to Jim S.)

Donald Trump had three opponents onstage Tuesday at the presidential debate in Philadelphia — at least, that’s what his campaign would have you believe.

Before the two candidates had finished their closing statements in front of the ABC moderators, there was already murmuring in the so-called “spin room” that the Republican candidate would demand another try. It was a sign of the battering he took from his opponent on issues like abortion rights, January 6, and his penchant for personal attacks and showmanship over substance.

As the surrogates for Trump and Harris filed in, it became clear that a familiar song-and-dance was going to play out, with Republicans attacking the media for conducting fact-checks during the debate. But it seemed as if even the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee (RNC) officials present knew that the narrative of the night was going to be about their candidate’s inability to land any serious policy-related hits.

Before the cameras arrived, the Trump campaign had announced that his running mate JD Vance would serve as their top surrogate for the evening. That ended up being thrown to the wayside: Vance spoke to reporters for a few minutes before hopping on TV for an interview, only to be overshadowed minutes later by the arrival of Trump himself.

Candidates themselves almost never emerge in the spin rooms, with the exception of primary debates. But Trump gaggled with journalists for about 20 minutes before disappearing behind the curtains, flanked by rifle-bearing security.

It’s rare for a candidate to appear in the spin room themselves
It’s rare for a candidate to appear in the spin room themselves (Getty Images)

In that gaggle occurred possibly one of the most stunning moments of the campaign — after defending his performance, Trump came face-to-face with New York City Councilman Yusef Salaam, none other than a member of the “Central Park Five” whom the former president called to be executed for crimes they were later exonerated of committing. Reporters asked Trump if he would apologize to Salaam. He did not, instead turning away laughing after quipping that Salaam was “on my side”, which the bemused Salaam denied.

Vance, meanwhile, was sticking to the message clearly blasted out to the Trump team as the debate unfolded: attack, attack, attack — and blame the moderators for their candidate’s performance.

The Ohio senator sparred with reporters for several minutes over the issue of whether Haitian-born immigrants living in an Ohio town after being granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) were “eating” cats and dogs owned by local residents. It was a claim that ABC’s moderators noted they could find no evidence to support on Tuesday.

He wasn’t the only one who was clearly panicking. Stephen Miller, famous for his role as the architect of Trump’s first-term immigration policy, took things a step further and had to force himself to walk away from a conversation with a Hispanic reporter after raising his voice repeatedly and yelling angrily that Kamala Harris was responsible for a supposed epidemic of child rape (one that is wholly imaginary) which he then blamed on immigrants.

“Why are you yelling at me?” the reporter asked Miller, who near-screamed at the man and asked him if he had any “remorse” for children who were supposedly being murdered and raped.

Vivek Ramaswamy, one of Trump’s two former opponents-turned-allies who showed up to the debate, echoed some of Miller’s anger as he lambasted ABC’s David Muir for “setting [Harris] up with softball questions”.

Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign official recently added to the team after serving on Trump’s 2020 squad, took a bit of a calmer approach. He said after ABC’s program ended that another debate on Fox News “should have already happened” and indicated that he thought the campaign would continue pushing for more.

But he, like other Republicans, also eviscerated the moderators for only jumping in to make corrections when Trump said something that was obviously false. Harris, he said, “took the bait” from moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, and allowed them to “cover for her” during the program.

Harris was allowed to “continue to not answer for essentially [running] the most dishonest campaign you’ve ever seen in 20 years of public service”.

He and the RNC’s Brian Hughes both claimed to The Independent that Trump had been successful in staying on message; Hughes also rejected the idea that Black women would be turned off by Trump’s answer about why he was comfortable speaking about Harris’s racial identity.

JD Vance sparred with reporters on a viral right-wing conspiracy claiming that Haitian immigrants are eating pets in an Ohio town
JD Vance sparred with reporters on a viral right-wing conspiracy claiming that Haitian immigrants are eating pets in an Ohio town (Getty Images)

There was one (former) Trump campaign official present in the room who did not share that assessment. Anthony Scaramucci, known as Trump’s shortest-serving director of communications in the White House, gave the president a grade of two or three points out of ten, compared to an eight for his opponent. He said those scores were essentially a direct reversal of the two candidates’ performances at the June debate between Trump and Joe Biden.

“I saw a guy that was out of his element. I saw a guy that was not prepared for [Harris]. She was very well-prepared. She had a very good narrative to tell. She had an expansive idea of where she wants to go with the country. He wasn’t prepared for that. So he was going to certain dogwhistles that he uses,” said Scaramucci.

He also opined on possibly the biggest headline of the evening: Pop star Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris, and the effect her support would have on an election he said would be largely focused on turnout rather than convincing undecided voters.

“The Taylor Swift thing on the margin is beneficial because it creates momentum. And one thing that Taylor Swift is very good at is bringing out the registrations,” he explained.

Republicans, who have been anticipating the Swifie-verse siding with Kamala Harris since back when Biden was at the top of the ticket, did not act surprised but offered little response.

“No, I’m not a teeny-bopper,” Hughes joked when asked for his opinion on it.

Harris’s surrogates, who included a list of swing-state governors including Josh Shapiro, Gavin Newsom, Roy Cooper and Michelle Lujan Grisham, were all evoking satisfied confidence in where the race stood after the dust settled.

“There was only one commander-in-chief onstage tonight,” Newsom declared after the debate. “It was a terrible night for Donald Trump… and a great night for our democracy.”

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Huskies and Cougars football game will be showing in MBR noon Saturday (game is 12:30 PM)

Life Style has arranged for viewing of the game which is backed out by Comcast (apparently negotiations continue between Comcast and BTN).

Posted in Sports | Leave a comment

Working definition of long COVID

Ed note: Please see the full article here.

Posted in Health | Leave a comment

What Exactly Is Long Covid? — ITT Episode 37

Published September 11, 2024 in the New England Journal of Medicine

Ed note: This discussion below may help those afflicted with long COVID to understand the confusing array of symptoms they may have. I hope this lengthy article may prove worthwhile reading for some. The existence of long COVID in about 6% of the those acquiring COVID is a reminder that prevention is key. Please consider receiving your updated immunization ASAP.

The millions of people worldwide who are suffering from a vast array of disabling symptoms long after being infected with SARS-CoV-2 may eventually benefit from a new consensus definition of long Covid.

Rachel Gotbaum: This is “Intention to Treat” from the New England Journal of Medicine. I’m Rachel Gotbaum. Today, we are going to talk about the millions of people who have been struggling with baffling and often disabling symptoms since being infected with SARS-CoV-2. There has been no standard definition of what exactly long Covid is or how to diagnose it, until now. Recently, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine came out with a comprehensive definition of long Covid, calling it a chronic, systemic disease state with profound consequences.

Long Covid can affect any organ in the body and can attack one or multiple systems, and includes some 200 symptoms and hundreds of conditions, such as lupus, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, and cognitive impairment. The hope is that with this new definition, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers can finally help the patients with long Covid who continue to suffer.

Tiffany Brown: I’m Tiffany Brown. I’m 56 years old. I got Covid in August of 2020. By December, I started to feel ill again. I was having trouble concentrating and focusing. The headaches and the full body aches are sometimes so bad, you just don’t want to get out of bed. You just want to lay there because you hurt so bad.

Susan Miller: My name is Dr. Sue Miller. I am 51 years old, and I have had long Covid since my only Covid infection, which was in May of 2022. So I was sick for about 2 weeks. I had a lot of GI symptoms. I had a fever, a terrible sore throat, and I had hallucinations.

After that, my energy level never recovered. I was having headaches and terrible fatigue, and I would forget things. I was a practicing neonatologist at a community hospital, and the thing I noticed when I went back to work was that I couldn’t multitask. And my job is one big multitask.

Tiffany Brown: I started to feel so ill that I went back to the doctor, and I wasn’t getting any results. The doctor took blood work, would always tell me basically, “That’s a lot of symptoms, and it doesn’t sound like you actually have a specific illness.” I felt that they implied many a times a lot of it may be in your head, and they would tell me something like, “You could lose weight, you could eat better, you could start exercising.” And I walked daily for years, and after having Covid, I could not do that. I still can’t. (continued)

Susan Miller: I was an extremely high-functioning, athletic, smart, overachieving person. So I would take call for 24 hours, I’d go home and run six miles, cooked my family dinner, walked the dogs, read books, and all of a sudden, I couldn’t do any of that. And it was scary.

Tiffany Brown: I realized that I wasn’t getting any better, and I went to a bigger hospital out of state and had a full interview and many tests done, and I was told I had Covid long-haulers. I had never heard of the Covid long-haulers before, and it was very, very helpful and some relief to know there was a name to what I had and that it wasn’t just in my head.

Susan Miller: One night on call, I was called to see just kind of a routine check of a baby, and I left my call room, and I forgot my glasses, my ID badge — so I couldn’t get back into the call room — and my stethoscope, and I walked out and I got lost a little bit. And it was that moment that I knew I just, I couldn’t take that chance. I took an oath of do no harm. My whole life, I wanted to be a physician. I was at the peak of my career, and I lost all of that because of a virus.

Tiffany Brown: I no longer have my job. I worked for 27 years for the county that I live in, and when I was off work, I was told if I didn’t come back in a certain time, I would be relieved, and they did so. And I had been there so long and knew so many people that it just felt like I had lost friends and family that I would never get back.

Susan Miller: I saw my internist. She ordered a bunch of basic labs and an MRI of my brain, and all of that came back normal. She had no idea what was going on with me. She said that there’s nothing that she can do. All she could offer me was a hug. And now, 2 years later, I realize that that’s really common. Most doctors, they don’t know anything about long Covid.

Tiffany Brown: It was hard, very hard, because most people look at you and you look like you’re OK. They don’t see your pain. So it was very disheartening.

Susan Miller: I had been on a waiting list for a year and a half, and I saw a new neurologist. He was reading my MRI. I had asked him a pointed question about my hippocampus because they’re both small. One’s smaller than the other, and that’s abnormal. They shrunk. They have atrophy. And so I said to him, “Well, this is something that is seen with long Covid,” and he said to me, “Yeah, you probably know more about that than I do.” So me, the brain-injured neonatologist, knows more about how long Covid affects the brain than the neurologist, who is a specialist in the brain. So I called and reached out to every long Covid clinic. I basically just tried to get in anywhere I could.

Tiffany Brown: After I was diagnosed with Covid long-haulers, I applied for the state disability, and I got rejected. No long information, just that “We don’t feel you’re disabled at this time.”

Susan Miller: So what I found at the long Covid clinic is that from a psychological standpoint, I have huge validation and a lot of support. What I did not find is that there were actual experts there on this postinfectious syndrome that I have. We can’t tell you why some days your fatigue is so bad that you just have to lay around all day. We can’t tell you why you get bruises in weird spots. We can’t tell you why your toes turn blue all of a sudden. And we don’t know what to do to make it better.

Tiffany Brown: I took out my retirement to have something to live off of, so I was very frightened, from one minute to the next, if I would not be able to pay my gas and light or keep my home. What are you going to do once your money runs out? And I went and got a disability attorney, and through the attorney, I was able to get disability. I didn’t, at one point, think I would be able to go through it. I just thought I would just give up. And it’s still hard day to day.

Susan Miller: I think the biggest problem is that medical providers are not engaged in long Covid. It’s not on their radar. The amount of money they have put into research for long Covid is like spitting in the ocean. Long Covid needs to be in the discussion, the everyday discussion for physicians, for medical professionals, for researchers, for our government. We need to understand that this is a public health crisis. And it’s not going away for some of us.

Rachel Gotbaum: This is “Intention to Treat” from the New England Journal of Medicine. We’re now joined by two people who helped shape the new National Academies of Science definition for long Covid. Karyn Bishof is president of the Longhauler Advocacy Project, and Dr. Wesley Ely is a professor of medicine and critical care at Vanderbilt University. So Dr. Ely, you’re an ICU doctor, you do research. And at first, you’ve written for NEJM and said that you didn’t really believe long Covid existed. Tell us about your experience with that and how it transformed.

E. Wesley Ely: For 25 years, we’ve been studying survivors after the ICU and diagnosing them with this disease state called postintensive care syndrome, which is an acquired disease of dementia and post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and muscle and nerve disease. So as an ICU doctor, I’m taking care of all these Covid patients in an ICU setting, on ventilators, immobilized, on high-dose sedatives, and I’m thinking they’re getting out of the ICU, and they just have PICS, postintensive care syndrome, and all these people are talking about these prolonged symptoms. And then we started getting calls into our research center here at Vanderbilt University, and these are people who are telling us, “We have prolonged symptoms. We were never in the hospital. We got Covid and never even got admitted to a hospital.” So now we have a new set of people coming to us, saying, “We can’t think well. We have blood-pressure problems. We have heart rates that are through the roof. We have GI problems, all kinds of joint problems — I mean, this whole constellation that we now know of as long Covid over 200 symptoms — and we were never put in a hospital at all. What can you do for us? What is this?”

And so I had to start thinking to myself, “Wes, you need education. You need to learn. And most importantly, you need to listen to these people.” And as a medical insider, we are taught to not diagnose something unless we understand what it is, to not label something unless we understand what it is. And when we don’t understand something, we feel uncomfortable. And that’s the way I felt.

I felt like, for example, part of the disease of long Covid has a lot to do with the symptoms of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, and that ME/CFS is a disease state that many people don’t believe of in Western medicine. There’s no diagnostic test, there’s no treatment, isn’t even real, and many doctors label such patients as psychosomatic or having psychological illness and suggest that they go get psychiatric help, and it’s all stress related. So that’s where I was coming from as a physician. Am I willing to lay down my diagnosis and call it a real thing and have other doctors in my circles say, “Wes, are you losing it? Do you actually believe this stuff?,” and in the end of the day, I fell heavily on the side of, “Yes, I believe in this. And call me a quack, but I think we’re going to prove that this is a real disease state, and we’ve got a lot to learn from the patients and about the science.”

Rachel Gotbaum: Karyn Bishof, you were a firefighter and a paramedic when you got Covid and then became disabled with long Covid. Tell us about your experience and how you found this community and started to do advocacy.

Karyn Bishof: It started to become evident to me that I wasn’t recovering as much as my coworkers and something wasn’t quite right. I ended up losing my dream career as a firefighter paramedic because of these health issues, and really early on there was no information. I literally went online and Googled “prolonged symptoms from Covid,” and that is how I found the article, talking about long Covid for the first time. That’s how I found an online community of other patients. Up until that point, I thought I was completely alone.

There was nothing about this on the news, nothing about this in the media. This was the first time hearing about it, after 3 months of being completely isolated with all of these new symptoms and health conditions that nobody understood. And seeing all the stories from patients like myself, like people being unable to work, people experiencing symptoms that are not being talked about on the news. We now know that there’s 200 symptoms, as Wes already stated. And part of that picture is that umbrella picture of long Covid, which none of us really recognized and knew how large that umbrella was at the time.

I started doing these patient surveys, saying, “What symptoms are you developing? What conditions have you developed? What clinicians are you seeing that may be helping? Have you lost your job? What are your employers saying?” And seeing the responses from so many people across the globe, coming together, trying to figure out what is going on with us, and what can we do to raise the alarm bells for the public and for clinicians and researchers to start helping us and prevent others from becoming like us. And I started to form the Covid-19 Longhauler Advocacy Project. And to date, we’ve now grown to 60 chapters across the U.S., in every U.S. state and territory, and we have chapters for pregnancy and family planning, teens, BIPOC, LGBTQ, caregivers, labor force union, bereavement, and more, because we find that our role is really identifying the gaps and our needs and bringing that to the stakeholders who make the decisions and who can implement the changes that we need.

Rachel Gotbaum: Do we know how many people have long Covid?

E. Wesley Ely: There are fairly good data to say that at least 6% of people who get Covid end up with long Covid. That still translates, by the way, into globally over a hundred million people, and in the United States, 15 to 20 million people. I think that qualifies as a public health disaster right there.

Rachel Gotbaum: So let’s talk about what’s happening, because we’ve talked about 2020, but this is more than 4 years later, and we finally have a definition. What is happening for patients?

Karyn Bishof: I think one of the biggest barriers that we still face all comes down to the foundation of education around long Covid. And many in the patient community are still facing these barriers and the stigma from providers who can’t imagine that a virus is causing all of these issues, or think that there has to be something wrong, or there’s comorbidities, or preexisting conditions in these patients, and that’s why they’re developing long Covid. But as the 2024 NASEM long Covid definition points out, anybody can get long Covid, regardless of demographics, regardless of you’re an adult, regardless if you’re a pediatric, regardless if you have prior health conditions. And I think that’s one of the things that has been overlooked during the pandemic as a whole.

E. Wesley Ely: I think that what’s happening is that we’ve got millions of people suffering from a disease state, who have either never been acknowledged to have that disease state by a medical professional or have been acknowledged and are getting grave difficulties at finding any real help from the disability and income perspective. So most of these patients who have a severe, progressive form of this, or even a moderate form of this, have lost their livelihood, have lost their ability to make money, they’re disabled, and many of them in our support groups, for example, come to us and say, “OK, I’ve now lost my housing,” and that really puts people in a state of despair. So it’s a public health nightmare, quite frankly. And the public health nightmare is that we have not met these people where they are to help them find Social Security disability income, we have not helped them find the medical needs that they need because doctors haven’t yet, without a definition, felt comfortable making this diagnosis. But we hope that this 2024 NASEM definition will allow the doors to be opened for both medical professionals and the public at large to find a way forward.

Rachel Gotbaum: So Karyn Bishof, the lack of an understanding of this condition has created major barriers for patients to get help.

Karyn Bishof: In terms of the barriers that long Covid patients are facing, when many patients are seeking benefits like Social Security disability, or food assistance, or Medicaid, or housing assistance, they have to rely on a doctor’s documentation of how their illness impacts their activities of daily living, how it impacts their ability to work, how it impacts their ability to attend school. And many of these patients can’t even get that initial documentation from their providers to do that. So in education, I mean, educating not only the patient community, but the very clinicians who are responsible for identifying long Covid in the first place. And the same thing goes for payers and insurance. Many of the medications that we need are not approved for long Covid. Long Covid has no approved treatments, no cure, no anything. So patients are having to also get the diagnoses for, say, conditions like POTS in order to get beta-blockers, or conditions like MCAS in order to get needed medications, and access to many of those specialists are few and far between. So access to clinical care and the type of clinicians needed to get the documentation we have to address in order for the long Covid community to move forward and recover.

Rachel Gotbaum: So how do you think we got here with this lack of attention to this problem?

E. Wesley Ely: I think we are where we are in terms of the societal unacceptance of long Covid and the medical community’s essential unacceptance of long Covid — broad-sweeping brush strokes here — because this pandemic occurred, it threw us all for such a loop, it scared everybody dramatically, we had millions of deaths, and we all want it to be over. We want to forget about this and move on with our lives. And the last thing we want to hear, as a society, is that there is an infection-associated chronic condition resulting from this virus that doesn’t go away for people years later. But honestly, everybody I’ve asked, “Have you ever heard of long Covid?,” they all say, “Oh, yeah, my cousin has it,” “Oh, yeah, my best friend has it.” Everybody seems to know somebody who has long Covid, and yet the government and medical community is not talking about this very broadly. One of my patients applied four times to Social Security, got rejected every time. She has a medical diagnosis of long Covid. She has all the chart documentation that you could ask for. And yet she can’t get the help that she needs. We’re just way behind on acknowledging the realities of this public health disaster.

Rachel Gotbaum: So Karyn Bishof, what is it like for you today? How is your functioning now?

Karyn Bishof: Unfortunately, my health continues to worsen since developing Covid. I’ve been diagnosed with lupus, eosinophilic esophagitis, chronic migraine and new daily persistent headache, GI dysmotility, insomnia, and many other things. I mean, my daily medications are well over 15 to this point, and I’ve probably seen over 40 or 50 different clinicians over the last four and a half years. My typical day, unfortunately, starts with hours and hours of nausea and vomiting every single morning and GI upset. It doesn’t matter if I ate the day before or 3 days before. It happens every single day, and absolutely wipes me out. I mean, I spend my day in bed, sometimes make it down to my couch in my living room. But something like attending my son’s soccer game on a weekend means that I have to commit myself to doing absolutely nothing for 3 to 4 days before and 3 to 4 days after in order to just attend a 2-hour event. And at that 2-hour event, in order for me to go, I have a chair that has a leg lift on it, it has a canopy, I have to bring ice packs with me because I’m not able to regulate my temperature, but I also have to hide from the sun because I have lupus. So it is a cascading, vicious circle of trying to manage, and a lot of the times, unfortunately, we’re not able to prevent. We’re more so chasing, chasing, chasing, and we’re always behind the eight ball.

Rachel Gotbaum: So how will this new long Covid definition help improve the lives of people like Karyn Bishof and so many other people living with this disease?

E. Wesley Ely: OK, I’ll say three ways that this definition really improves things — clinically, from a research perspective, and from a policy perspective. Doctors can now see a person in an office that they would have listened to their symptoms and said, “Gosh, I don’t know if I should be out on a limb, making this diagnosis, when I don’t even understand what the disease is, or even to call it a disease.” Now, the doctor can hear their patient and say, “Wow, you meet this 2024 NASEM long Covid definition very clearly. You meet the criteria. I’m putting in your chart that you have long Covid.”

Doctors before wouldn’t have done that because they didn’t want to be out on a fringe and be called a quack, OK? So that’s the first thing is clinically. Now the patient also has achieved a great accomplishment, now that they can be believed and be heard. Then second, from a research perspective, doctors like me, physician-scientists, can design randomized control trials with explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria based on this definition, and get the right people in, exclude the wrong people that won’t help to answer a specific research question, and get the public answers about the right therapies for this disease state. And then third, the policymakers can say, “Ah, finally, I get it. That’s what this is? Let’s change the way we determine disability income rights for patients to meet this definition.” So all three of those are huge things we think can be affected by the publishing of this definition.

Karyn Bishof: This definition helps to get everybody on the same page. Now, we have a standardized, consensus definition, that if adopted government-wide and implemented, will help start shaping these programs to benefit the long Covid community. But the most important thing to emphasize is that it’s actually adopted and implemented. Having this definition is a great starting point, but unless these people and these programs begin to implement that, the long Covid community sits and waits in the same position we’re in right now.

Rachel Gotbaum: Thank you both so very much.

Karyn Bishof: Thank you for having us and for raising awareness about long Covid.

E. Wesley Ely: It’s a privilege to be part of this process of discovery and, hopefully, to find patients who are suffering some answers.

Rachel Gotbaum: We had help from Associate Editor Cliff Rosen and Producer Brigid McCarthy. Our managing editor is Debra Malina, and our engineer is Adam Straus. Next time, researchers say it may someday be possible to communicate with more patients in a coma or vegetative state than previously thought.

Speaker 6: I think that this indicates that there’s probably a substantial population of people who we see just no evidence of responsiveness at the bedside, and yet something’s going on in there.



Posted in Health | Leave a comment

Tipping culture

Thanks to Ed M.

Posted in Humor | Leave a comment

Debate analysis – Heather Cox Richardson

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab
Posted in Government, Politics | Leave a comment

Does everyone *really* need routine vaccinations?

Your questions on Hep B, HPV, rubella, measles, and U.S. universal vaccinations

Ed note: If you’re like me, you’ve had young relatives ask you, “Why so many shots?” Vaccines are a modern marvel, but young people haven’t seen (thankfully) the often devastating diseases that they may never see. Vaccines are a “victim of their success” as the authors note.

Katelyn Jetelina and Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD Sep 10
Thanks to Ed M.

In Friday’s “The Dose” article, YLE noted that routine vaccinations are declining. Afterward, we received many great comments centered around a root question: I understand vaccines have saved many lives, but does everyone really need them? 

In many ways, vaccines are victims of their success. Given the drama and polarization surrounding vaccines, it can be hard to find answers that aren’t simplistic, defensive, or angry. And, as everyone discovered during the pandemic, disease risks are often not uniform. 

Here are a few of your top questions answered! (continued)

“Why are vaccines mandated for diseases that aren’t endemic, like rubella?”

Rubella is the “R” in the MMR vaccine. It’s caused by a virus that spreads in airborne droplets from coughing or sneezing. It’s not endemic in the United States anymore. So yes, the risk is extremely low. Yet, it is mandated for children in all 50 states. Why? 

Think of population immunity like a water dam built to prevent flooding. Once it’s built, we won’t have flooding anymore. But if the next generation comes along and says, “Hey, there’s not flooding anymore—do we really need this dam?” and decides to get rid of it, the flooding would return quickly.

Rubella is still alive and well in other parts of the world. In the U.S., we have rubella cases yearly, but only from international travelers. However, outbreaks don’t happen often in the U.S. because population immunity—an invisible shield—stops them in their tracks. In other words, vaccination is the reason rubella isn’t endemic. 

Once a virus is eliminated and has no risk of returning—like smallpox—we stop vaccinating for it. 

“The NYT image you shared has always bothered me because it doesn’t consider the probability of getting measles is very low. If we consider that, do the vaccine’s benefits still outweigh risks?” 

This is a fantastic question. The calculation is mathematically and ethically tricky. 

This is because the individual decision to get vaccinated changes the risk-benefit calculation for everyone. In other words, your probability of encountering measles is low because so many people around you are vaccinated. 

Data visualization by Kristen Panthagani; data sources here, here, and here

But you’re right—the risk of exposure makes a difference. Let’s look at two scenarios: nobody vaccinated and everybody vaccinated. Before the measles vaccine, nearly every child in the U.S. got measles by age 15, because it’s so contagious. So risk of exposure was near 100% (to be conservative, say 95%). At 100% vaccination, the risk of measles goes to zero. Using the risks in the NYT image, here’s what we get after accounting for exposure risk during childhood: 

Is there a situation where the probability of an individual getting a complication from measles infections roughly equals the likelihood of an adverse event from a vaccination? The math to calculate this is really tricky — it depends on not just vaccination coverage, but the risk of an outbreak, the density of the population, the size of an outbreak, etc. Even if this scenario happened, the average vaccine side effect isn’t equivalent to the average measles outcome—for example, fever-related seizures, while understandably scary to watch, fortunately often don’t require hospitalization or result in long-term problems. 

At the community level, the benefits of measles vaccination far outweigh the risks. Fighting against infectious diseases is a team sport. 

“Could you comment on babies getting the Hep B vaccine even if they aren’t high risk?”

The highest risk factor for Hep B (or HBV) is a history of sexually transmitted infections or multiple sex partners. So, if you’ve only had one partner for a decade, is this even applicable to your baby? 

Yes, because the hep B virus is a tricky booger:

  1. The majority of people with HBV globally are unaware they have it. Many who do have it don’t know how they contracted it. If we only give it to people who believe they are high-risk, we will miss many cases.
  2. Hep B virus requires only a very tiny dose to cause infections, which means that even though it is bloodborne and sexually transmitted, it can be spread casually, like through sharing a toothbrush. 
  3. It’s very stable in the environment, capable of remaining infectious for weeks and even months on surfaces. 
  4. The outcomes can be severe. Mother-to-baby transmission at birth is the most common cause of chronic HBV infection, which can lead to liver cancer, liver failure, and death. If babies contract Hepatitis B disease near birth, 95% develop the chronic form.

The HBV vaccine induces protective immune responses in nearly everyone (80-100%). The vaccine risks are extremely low—the only safety signal found is rare allergic reactions (1 severe allergic reaction for every 2-3 million doses). 

“Are there any long-term studies on whether HPV vaccine impacts infertility?”

Some of these concerns stemmed from a case series that was published in 2012, describing six girls who developed primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) from 8 months to 2 years after they received the first human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine dose. This stirred public concern that the HPV vaccine could cause infertility. 

However, case series often generate more questions than answers because they can’t assess causality (correlation doesn’t equal causation). Fortunately, no rigorous lab or epidemiological follow-up studies have found a link:

  • No effect of HPV vaccination on fertility has been found in 3 studies in rodents.
  • A strong study in North America followed women planning on getting pregnant. Some of the women (and their partners) had their HPV vaccines, some of them didn’t. The scientists found no difference in infertility. In fact, in some groups, vaccinated women had higher fertility. 
  • Another large study found that 120 of 199,078 female patients at hospitals had POI. There was no difference between those with the HPV vaccine and those without.

“Why does the U.S. have sweeping recommendations when other countries have more targeted vaccine recommendations?”

It’s fair to wonder why. We are all high-income countries. We all have the same vaccines. We are all looking at the same data. How could public health officials come to different conclusions across countries?

Three main reasons: 

  1. Behavioral: Universal vaccination recommendations work better than targeted vaccinations because of convenience and education. The U.S. used to have targeted Hep B vaccine recommendations, but uptake was poor. After a universal recommendation, there was a big decline in disease, and many lives (and livers) were saved. The same thing happened with the flu vaccine; universal recommendations increased uptake among high-risk groups. For this reason, in 2025, the U.K. is moving to universal flu vaccinations.  
  • Financial: Many countries’ governments pay for vaccines, so the cost-benefit analysis is a big consideration when making policy decisions—for some countries, it would be too expensive for the government to vaccinate everyone, so they try to find where the money will have the biggest impact. 
  • Safety net: The U.S. has much less wiggle room because of worse healthcare access, social support, healthcare capacity, and health. Casting a larger net through universal vaccine recommendations is more critical than in other countries. I’ve covered this in another YLE post here. 

Bottom line

The effect of vaccines is often invisible—infections prevented, childhood deaths that never happened. It’s important to look back and remember why we do what we do. Thank you for your questions, and keep them coming! We’re here to answer them.

Posted in Health | Leave a comment

So the water’s turned off, so fix me a drink!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Heart of the Debate

By Diana Butler Bass from The Cottage – Thanks to Pam P.

Tonight is debate night in America. This might be the only meeting between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris before our November elections.

I was dreading the Trump-Biden debate. And, I confess: I’m sort of dreading this one, too.

Mostly because I dread politics right now.

For me, that’s unusual. It hasn’t always been that way.

Since mid-June, I’ve stayed in a few places where there was little or no internet access. That means for more than two months, I’ve largely avoided social media and watched the news only in small doses. During my sabbatical time, I read books and poetry, wrote in my journal, walked, and spent time in meditation and prayer.

I didn’t ignore the world, but the pace in which I engaged it slowed, was more considered, and offered the opportunity for thought. The time was reflective, spiritual, and humane. I felt more connected to — and relaxed with — both nature and my neighbors.

As I’ve moved back toward a more regular schedule of work and speaking, I upped my news consumption to be better informed and to address important concerns facing Americans in this election season.

And, sadly, since doing so, I’ve felt stressed and off-balance — and caught my heart racing. I mentioned this to a friend. She suggested that I should stay away from politics.

Actually, a lot of people have been saying to stay away from politics including some readers here.

Instead of avoiding the subject, however, those feelings of dread drove me back to an older book that helped me when it was first written — Parker Palmer’s work on democracy and the heart.

The below quote caught my attention:

When all of our talk about politics is either technical or strategic, to say nothing of partisan and polarizing, we loosen or sever the human connections on which empathy, accountability, and democracy itself depend.

If we cannot talk about politics in the language of the heart — if we cannot be publicly heartbroken, for example, that the wealthiest nation on earth is unable to summon the political will to end childhood hunger at home — how can we create a politics worthy of the human spirit, one that has a chance to serve the common good?

Parker J. Palmer, “Healing the Heart of Democracy” (continued)

Posted in Essays, Politics, Spiritual | 1 Comment

First Atlantic cover with no typography or headline in 167 years

Thanks to Mike C.

Posted in Government, Politics | Leave a comment

Also, there’s the web feet

Thanks to Bob P.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Now, what was just about to do?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My Grandma Has Dementia. Should I Help Her Vote?

By Kwame Anthony Appiah, The Ethicist in the NYT

My grandma has relatively advanced Alzheimer’s disease and hearing loss. At 97, she’s still present enough to recognize her loved ones and enjoy our company, but it’s becoming nearly impossible to communicate with her.

In the 2020 general election, she obtained an absentee ballot, and her immediate family members, including me, helped her fill it out. (Her cognition was in decline four years ago, but it was not as degraded as it is now.) As I remember it, she held the pen while we did our best to explain each office and issue. If there was any confusion, we would tell her how we voted, and she would do the same.

Is it unethical to help her vote again this November? I foresee things playing out similarly to the last general election, in which she performs the mechanics of voting while we advise her. Though she’s not exactly an ideologue, my grandma has always been a voter. Before her illness, we were familiar enough with her political opinions to be reasonably confident about whom and what she would vote for. But I’m also conscious of the fact that the line between assistance and coercion is blurred in this situation. — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

Anyone may seek — and act on — advice about how to vote. That includes asking other people how they have voted and choosing to do likewise. If your grandmother is still able to check the boxes and sign the ballot as an expression of her choices, she’s just doing what anybody else does. Under those circumstances, she’s entitled to vote with your assistance. If she doesn’t understand what she’s doing, though, she isn’t really voting; voting is the expression of a political choice, and it would be wrong to record a vote that didn’t reflect her actual choices.

What to do when it’s simply unclear whether she’s expressing a view? Various states exclude citizens from voting when they are under guardianship or have been judged to be incompetent, but it won’t do to shut out people with mild cognitive impairments. After all, there’s a great distance between the ideal of civic responsibility (in which you reflect carefully on how an electoral outcome would affect the district, the state, the country, the world) and what you’re entitled to do when voting. Political scientists can marvel at what so-called low-information voters don’t know without thinking that such people should be disenfranchised.

When the situation is hazy, my inclination would be to err on the side of helping someone to vote, because voting is such a central form of civic participation. I’ll also note that in our polarized polity, many people aligned with either of the two major parties think that the choices of people aligned with the other one are not merely ill considered but make no rational sense. From their perspective, your grandmother, however impaired, would be far from an outlier. It remains the case that a broad franchise and regular elections are better for social peace than any available alternative. And for your grandmother, as for so many people around the world, the simple act of voting may have greater significance than whatever choices it conveys.

Posted in Advocacy, Dementia, Ethics, Government, Voting | 1 Comment

Modern parenting

Keep your eye on the ball, then catch it. Then obsessively develop your skills to land a baseball scholarship, get recruited to a major-league team, and finally make me happy.

Posted in Humor, Satire | Leave a comment

Remembering and honoring New York City heroes from 9/11

Ed note: I can remember watching with numbing disbelief as the 2nd plane plowed into the south tower of the World Trade Center –the north tower already aflame from the 1st hit. Please, if you have time, watch the 60 minute segment below. It’s tough to watch, but it reminds us of the heroism of so many that day.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/september-11-fdny-world-trade-center-60-minutes-video-2024-09-08

Posted in terrorism | Leave a comment

Under the lid

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Incoherent Rantings – Essay by Heather Cox Richardson

Ed note: How can voters, in good conscience, cast their ballot for a man who no longer makes sense, demonstrates paranoia and megalomania, and rambles suggesting that violence and bloodshed it needed for the MAGA movement to succeed?

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab
Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Memory Hub Newsletter – September

Ed Note: Please read about the first artist in residence at the nearby Memory Hub

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab
Posted in Advocacy, Dementia, Education, In the Neighborhood | Leave a comment

Preview

Thanks to Mike C.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lewis Thomas on Aging

From The Fragile Species: “Florida Scott Maxwell, a successful British actress, a scholar, and always a writer, wrote: ‘Age puzzles me.  I thought it was a quite time. My seventies were interesting and serene, but my eighties were passionate. I grow more intense with age. To my own surprise, I burst out in hot conviction. I have to calm down. I am too frail to indulge in moral fervor.’ Living alone in a London flat after the departure of her grandchildren for Australia and nearing her nineties, she wrote: ‘We who are old know that age is more than a disability. It is an intense and varied experience almost beyond our capacity at times but something to be carried high. If it is a long defeat, it is also a victory, meaningful for the initiates of time, if not for those who have come less far.’ She also wrote: ‘When a new disability arrives, I look about me to see if death has come, and I call quietly, ‘Death, is that you? Are you there?’ and so far the disability has answered, ‘Don’t be silly. It’s me.'”

Posted in Aging Sites, Essays, Health | Leave a comment