We are the recipients of the curse, “may you live in interesting times.” With the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, climate change, a global pandemic, urban gun violence, racial reckoning, the Dobbs decision, and economic disparities, among other issues, we have our share of “interesting” and divisive topics on our mind these days.
Starting in 2020, the ACP started lying prostrate before the latest political-porn du jour. A position paper would come out, interestingly enough, in lock step with the zeitgeist as espoused on CNN. The DEI mafia flooded my inbox with messages reminding me I had no business practicing medicine without a dark cloud of racial guilt over my head.
Screw that. Stay in your lane, bruh. Turns out there's diversity in medicine when the primary focus is the practice and advancement of diagnosis/treatment. Forced diversity is fake diversity, and no mealy-mouthed statements with fancy letterheads will ever prove otherwise.
Strange that you feel compelled to write this story. Individuals in positions of power and influence seek to wield that power and influence over members of their organizations and even the wider community. Is that not what you are doing here? Using your position to set a norm of refraining from political commentary by others? Proclaiming such statements to be anathema to the core mission of said organizations?
But that ignores the very appeal and nature of being in a powerful position. I find it the exception that individuals in high positions posses a degree of humility that would temper the urge to make grandiose statements and to direct/influence the thinking and behavior of others. After all, if these “thought leaders” were not so intelligent and insightful, then they would not occupy the august position.
So, ask the wind not to blow. Ask the sun not to shine. Ask the waves not to crash on the shore. The effect will be the same.
Dunning Krueger. We know a lot….about very little. We should stay in our lane unless an externality directly infringes into our lane, such as the examples you gave. Otherwise what particular learned insight does an “MD” degree confer on geopolitical affairs in general? I would submit “extremely little”….and probably even less that deserves having other people hear it or listen to it.
If you really need to beak off, do it in your own name, and not on behalf of an organization…since a hospital CEO was not put there to speak on anyone’s behalf regarding geopolitics. He or she has no qualifications to represent anyone but themselves on a non-hospital/ non-medical issue….and if they strip it down to motherhood statements, then what is the point anyway beyond hearing the sound of their own voice.
As with many things these days, it’s merely posturing and useless signalling. Another useless talking point; another useless email. Just so happens that the CEO of my health authority in Canada has been cranking these banalities out on the regular. Really the only positive is I know I can delete emails from her without opening.
I certainly agree that medical groups and organizations should stay out of contentious issues that have nothing to do with medicine. But the doctors here list two exceptions: 1) Freedom of speech issues 2) Gun violence.
Involvement in free speech and expression issues should still be restricted to those that are relevant to medical issues. For example, it would have been nice to come to the defense of medical practitioners that had their licenses revoked and their careers ruined because they didn't hew to the party line on a fictional pandemic. Unfortunately, it was precisely those medical organizations that initiated much of this.
Number two is much more problematic. First of all, gun violence is an oxymoron. Guns are incapable of initiating violence although some people that wield them certainly can. More people are killed with hammers each year than are killed by rifles. More people are killed with knives, tire irons, and other implements than guns of all types. We don't refer to those killed in auto accidents as victims of automobile violence. But most importantly, none of these things have anything to do with medicine and there is no medical issue on either side of the debate.
It is hard to kill with “other implements” at a distance. I guess however to appease instead of “gun violence”” we could say “violence caused by bullets from guns wielded by humans.” Half dozen one and 6 of other.
That is why I led off with the comparison of hammers and rifles. It is not to say that there are lots of killings done with hammers but to show how rare it is with rifles. And hitting anything from distance has to be done with a rifle. I don't know of any statistics on the subject but I suspect that more than 95% of murders are done up close and personal. Anyone who is familiar with guns will confirm that it is easy to miss a fairly large target 10 feet away.
As several years on his own stack have shown, Vinay never reads user comments...never. Adam and John sometimes do and may respond. This is a good idea but as several other subscribers have noted, the stack authors generally hew to the ideas of those they know for ideas. The stack is still of high quality -- but one would not call it responsive.
What is the deal with Depakote? It seems common knowledge that it is a mood stabilizer; but when you read the DOJ settlement from 2012 (which includes many internal emails and communications) it seems they were never able to show that feature in a clinical trial. Furthermore, the bipolar trial hit its target, but too many people committed suicide in the depakote arm compared to the lithium arm. (Some people wrote articles at the time that were critical about the design of that trial.)
It is worth noting that depakote seems effective for seizure control. But aside from epilepsy, should it be used a general mood stabilizer?
(Thank you for responding to my earlier post, Dr. Cifu. I hope you have a nice Thanksgiving. I thought this Depakote thing might be fun, because the Abbot Lab internal emails have such anguish about the clinical trial designs.)
I think the biggest impact is the internal influence of a medical journal, university or hospital that takes on a political stand, whether they announce it publicly or not. Individuals within the organization are then screwed if they won’t be controlled by the prescribed narrative and that is how a lot of our cultural norms are being shifted toward the liberal/ leftist/ globalist agenda. Sadly, we no longer have appropriate boundaries within our places of employment, educational systems or even most basic of social networks because they’re all infiltrated by, prerequisite: controlled acceptable belief system. There’s no longer different lanes and multiple directions. There’s only one lane, and it’s one way. Leaders in all areas are each acting to implement a new thought system to all those under their umbrella. Un-coincidentally, it’s the same thought system.
I know I’m really expanding your point here but ultimately this explains everything:
All absolutely spot on points. I for one would like to see Doctors, Nurses, and anyone who has been intimately involved in direct patient care as CEO’s and “top tier” leaders instead of people who are “good businessmen” and those who are more concerned with profit and prestige. Oh, and toeing the current DEI or whatever political flavor of the day line. It was exhausting to see the incredible amount of money wasted on “branding” versus supporting staff. I could go on, but it’s best for patient care to be focused on just that.
I agree with every point made by the authors. When professional organizations subvert their primary mission to tackle controversial and contentious social justice issues or, worse, embrace an illiberal, divisive ideology they inevitably cause internal dissension and risk destroying their legitimacy as a professional organization. When the leadership that has done this resorts to silencing and cancellation of members who object, the transformation from a professional organization to committed advocate of a radical group espousing an ideology is complete. The mission of the American College of Surgeons for over one hundred years has been "To Heal All With Skill and Fidelity." Now, the leadership has made it a promoter of critical race theory, antiracism, and DEI and silences its own members who disagree. https://www.sensible-med.com/p/a-surgeon-turns-activist?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1000397&post_id=138917351&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=lpzv5&utm_medium=email
I favor this post’s recommendations.
Starting in 2020, the ACP started lying prostrate before the latest political-porn du jour. A position paper would come out, interestingly enough, in lock step with the zeitgeist as espoused on CNN. The DEI mafia flooded my inbox with messages reminding me I had no business practicing medicine without a dark cloud of racial guilt over my head.
Screw that. Stay in your lane, bruh. Turns out there's diversity in medicine when the primary focus is the practice and advancement of diagnosis/treatment. Forced diversity is fake diversity, and no mealy-mouthed statements with fancy letterheads will ever prove otherwise.
Strange that you feel compelled to write this story. Individuals in positions of power and influence seek to wield that power and influence over members of their organizations and even the wider community. Is that not what you are doing here? Using your position to set a norm of refraining from political commentary by others? Proclaiming such statements to be anathema to the core mission of said organizations?
But that ignores the very appeal and nature of being in a powerful position. I find it the exception that individuals in high positions posses a degree of humility that would temper the urge to make grandiose statements and to direct/influence the thinking and behavior of others. After all, if these “thought leaders” were not so intelligent and insightful, then they would not occupy the august position.
So, ask the wind not to blow. Ask the sun not to shine. Ask the waves not to crash on the shore. The effect will be the same.
It doesn’t hurt to ask. 😉
Spot on.
Dunning Krueger. We know a lot….about very little. We should stay in our lane unless an externality directly infringes into our lane, such as the examples you gave. Otherwise what particular learned insight does an “MD” degree confer on geopolitical affairs in general? I would submit “extremely little”….and probably even less that deserves having other people hear it or listen to it.
If you really need to beak off, do it in your own name, and not on behalf of an organization…since a hospital CEO was not put there to speak on anyone’s behalf regarding geopolitics. He or she has no qualifications to represent anyone but themselves on a non-hospital/ non-medical issue….and if they strip it down to motherhood statements, then what is the point anyway beyond hearing the sound of their own voice.
As with many things these days, it’s merely posturing and useless signalling. Another useless talking point; another useless email. Just so happens that the CEO of my health authority in Canada has been cranking these banalities out on the regular. Really the only positive is I know I can delete emails from her without opening.
That's exactly what the mail rules in Outlook are for. :-).
I certainly agree that medical groups and organizations should stay out of contentious issues that have nothing to do with medicine. But the doctors here list two exceptions: 1) Freedom of speech issues 2) Gun violence.
Involvement in free speech and expression issues should still be restricted to those that are relevant to medical issues. For example, it would have been nice to come to the defense of medical practitioners that had their licenses revoked and their careers ruined because they didn't hew to the party line on a fictional pandemic. Unfortunately, it was precisely those medical organizations that initiated much of this.
Number two is much more problematic. First of all, gun violence is an oxymoron. Guns are incapable of initiating violence although some people that wield them certainly can. More people are killed with hammers each year than are killed by rifles. More people are killed with knives, tire irons, and other implements than guns of all types. We don't refer to those killed in auto accidents as victims of automobile violence. But most importantly, none of these things have anything to do with medicine and there is no medical issue on either side of the debate.
It is hard to kill with “other implements” at a distance. I guess however to appease instead of “gun violence”” we could say “violence caused by bullets from guns wielded by humans.” Half dozen one and 6 of other.
That is why I led off with the comparison of hammers and rifles. It is not to say that there are lots of killings done with hammers but to show how rare it is with rifles. And hitting anything from distance has to be done with a rifle. I don't know of any statistics on the subject but I suspect that more than 95% of murders are done up close and personal. Anyone who is familiar with guns will confirm that it is easy to miss a fairly large target 10 feet away.
I would like to see doctors condemn starving patients to death, especially disabled ones.
But while this is happening in hospitals across the US , making public statements against wars across the world is hypocritical.
Can we please have a thread where the listeners suggest topics?
We are absolutely open to suggestions or anyone writing a piece and submitting. Please email me.
How can we find your email address?
adam.cifu@gmail.com
As several years on his own stack have shown, Vinay never reads user comments...never. Adam and John sometimes do and may respond. This is a good idea but as several other subscribers have noted, the stack authors generally hew to the ideas of those they know for ideas. The stack is still of high quality -- but one would not call it responsive.
Here is the question I am going to send Dr. Cifu:
What is the deal with Depakote? It seems common knowledge that it is a mood stabilizer; but when you read the DOJ settlement from 2012 (which includes many internal emails and communications) it seems they were never able to show that feature in a clinical trial. Furthermore, the bipolar trial hit its target, but too many people committed suicide in the depakote arm compared to the lithium arm. (Some people wrote articles at the time that were critical about the design of that trial.)
It is worth noting that depakote seems effective for seizure control. But aside from epilepsy, should it be used a general mood stabilizer?
(Thank you for responding to my earlier post, Dr. Cifu. I hope you have a nice Thanksgiving. I thought this Depakote thing might be fun, because the Abbot Lab internal emails have such anguish about the clinical trial designs.)
We are absolutely open to suggestions or anyone writing a piece and submitting. Please email me.
I think the biggest impact is the internal influence of a medical journal, university or hospital that takes on a political stand, whether they announce it publicly or not. Individuals within the organization are then screwed if they won’t be controlled by the prescribed narrative and that is how a lot of our cultural norms are being shifted toward the liberal/ leftist/ globalist agenda. Sadly, we no longer have appropriate boundaries within our places of employment, educational systems or even most basic of social networks because they’re all infiltrated by, prerequisite: controlled acceptable belief system. There’s no longer different lanes and multiple directions. There’s only one lane, and it’s one way. Leaders in all areas are each acting to implement a new thought system to all those under their umbrella. Un-coincidentally, it’s the same thought system.
I know I’m really expanding your point here but ultimately this explains everything:
https://rumble.com/v3g9g6z-agenda-21-exposed.html
All absolutely spot on points. I for one would like to see Doctors, Nurses, and anyone who has been intimately involved in direct patient care as CEO’s and “top tier” leaders instead of people who are “good businessmen” and those who are more concerned with profit and prestige. Oh, and toeing the current DEI or whatever political flavor of the day line. It was exhausting to see the incredible amount of money wasted on “branding” versus supporting staff. I could go on, but it’s best for patient care to be focused on just that.
Completely agree!
Totally agree
Fully agree with every point made in the article.
I agree with every point made by the authors. When professional organizations subvert their primary mission to tackle controversial and contentious social justice issues or, worse, embrace an illiberal, divisive ideology they inevitably cause internal dissension and risk destroying their legitimacy as a professional organization. When the leadership that has done this resorts to silencing and cancellation of members who object, the transformation from a professional organization to committed advocate of a radical group espousing an ideology is complete. The mission of the American College of Surgeons for over one hundred years has been "To Heal All With Skill and Fidelity." Now, the leadership has made it a promoter of critical race theory, antiracism, and DEI and silences its own members who disagree. https://www.sensible-med.com/p/a-surgeon-turns-activist?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1000397&post_id=138917351&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=lpzv5&utm_medium=email
Great point.