A few days back, the West Michigan Whitecaps announced they'd be serving a 4,800 calorie hamburger (equal in calories to about 9 Big Macs - or when broken down to joules of energy, equal to about 1/6 of a gallon of gasoline) at their ballpark. The minor league baseball team claimed the burger would weigh in at nearly 4 pounds, containing 5 burger patties, 5 slices of cheese, and a cup of chili among other elements.

Read the rest of this entry »

I've been having a problem with tendonitis in my wrist. It's been getting worse since I started my new job, so I went to my doctor and he recommended I see a physical therapist at any one of a number of physical therapy clinics in the area and a hand specialist at a satellite sports medicine clinic run by the University of Washington (my doc is at a satellite family practice clinic run by the university).

I was able to choose from a variety of upcoming appointments with the physical therapist. No problem.

When I called the sports medicine clinic, it turned out their hand and wrist person is only in that office on Mondays and has nothing open until 3 weeks from today. "Is November 10th okay for you?"

Sure, I'm a brand new patient with a worsening condition that's driven me to seek treatment from an orthopedic specialist, but I'll just explain to my condition that the doctor isn't available for three weeks and it will happily go into remission until the doctor can see me.

If you're in say Vegas, and you call up a hotel, say "I'm in town, got any rooms," and they're full up, they'll try to help you get booked somewhere else. If you call a doctor, they'll tell you when he/she is available, and if that doesn't work for you, that's too bad.

I know that doctors are not hoteliers, but it would be nice to see an attitude that says: "We understand you may be in pain. If we can't serve you within a reasonable time period, we'll be happy to recommend some other doctors who might have an appointment available sooner."

Best I could do was get waitlisted for a sooner appointment if someone cancels.

Of course, you can bet I'm now going to shop around.

So I've recently been seeing a number of ads on Yahoo.com from Sanofi Pasteur, encouraging new parents to get re-vaccinated for Whooping Cough (pertussis), basically implying you could pick it up and kill your baby. Here's one of the ads...

And even better for trying to scare you that your baby will die is this one...

Now, they could not say these things if they were not true. But the thing the medical industry loves to do is scare the crap out of you by twisting statistics to make it sound like if you don't do what the drug company or public health campaign says, you or your child will definitely die. What they fail to do is put this into perspective.

According to the CDC, the number of Whooping Cough cases in the United States in 2003 were 4 per 100,000 people. Now this is not the number who died, but just the number of reported cases. So, 4 per 100,000 people means that the overall odds of catching it were 1 in 25,000.

But remember that they're bringing the mention of death into the ads. Namely that "nearly all deaths in the United States from whooping cough are reported in infants less than 6 months" and that pertussis "can be fatal to babies." They're trying to get you so scared that your baby will die if you don't get vaccinated. But how likely is that to really happen?

They were citing this CDC report. The report also states that 5,872 cases of pertussis in babies under 6 months were reported in the 3-year study period. Of that 5,872 babies... 51 died... not 51 a year, but 51 in three years. That's an average of about 17 babies per year out of the approximately 3.7 million babies born in each of those years. So the average odds of a baby dying from whooping cough during the three year period was about 1 in 200,000.

So the same report they scare you with, gives other numbers that let you calculate that the odds of your baby getting and dying from pertussis... from anyone... would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 200,000.

So why are they raising such an alarm?

Perhaps a CDC price list, showing pricing for the Tdap (Tetanus Toxoid, Reduced Diphtheria Toxoid and Acellular Pertussis, a.k.a. ADACEL®) vaccine runs between $30.75 for the CDC's bulk discount rate and $37.43 for the average private sector rate. Basically, every person they scare into getting it now is an additional $30 (or more) in sales for them. If they could convince 3.3 million adults to get so scared they ran out and got vaccinated, it would mean $100 million in sales.

What's interesting is that most adults will get the shot anyway over the next few years (and many have already). The CDC recommended switching to a Tdap booster (from a simple Td booster) in 2005. So if you go in for your regular check-ups, your periodic tetanus booster will include pertussis vaccine if your doctor is following CDC recommendations. Seems like Sanofi Pasteur is trying to boost annual revenues by scaring people into getting a booster now instead of when they're scheduled for it.

Last, to show you how much of a scare campaign this is, let's run the numbers of pertussis deaths against the super bogeyman that new parents get attacked with... SIDS. The average baby is over 130 times more likely to die of SIDS than pertussis (based on 2,648 reported SIDS deaths in 1999 vs. an estimated 20 pertussis deaths for infants under one year in 2003). Basically, the average baby is more likely to die of SIDS than to even catch pertussis, and that's before the CDC officially recommended the Tdap booster for adults.

It's amazing how much their ads look like scare tactics when you see the numbers on pertussis in context. Should you make sure that your doctor gives you a Tdap booster instead of a Td booster the next time you're due? It's basically just a booster of a vaccine you've already had, so it probably couldn't hurt and could help, and it's only a few dollars more than the Td booster. Should you run screaming to your doctor, demanding a pertussis vaccine right away like Sanofi Pasteur would have you believe? That's up to you to decide. But every time the news or a drug company ad hits you with alarming statistics, go get some context on those statistics. Once you see them in context, they're usually a LOT less alarming.

Sorry to go off on a medical-related diatribe again, but I am forced by the details of this story to say a couple of things.

There's an old saying that goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So where does the shame get assigned on "fool me six times"?

The story in question is about a dentist who is accused of fondling the breasts of over 27 female patients and the ongoing trials and tribulations. He's claiming he can produce journal articles which discuss massaging the pectorals to treat TMJ disease (a disease of the jaw), but the women are saying it was unwelcome contact of a sexual nature.

Okay, at this point, I'd be ready to call shennanigans on the dentist, call for the revocation of his license, and let that be that. But there was a bit at the end...

Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Phillips gave Lew three new complaints, including one from a 31-year-old woman who said Anderson fondled her at least six times over two years.

She took to wearing tight shirts with high necklines, "and Anderson would still get in under her shirt and bra," according to a police report.

He fondled her six times. She even wore clothing to prevent the fondling and he'd still get in under her shirt and bra. And while some people are thinking this just proves how evil he is, I'm wondering... couldn't she have gone to another dentist? After the first fondling, couldn't she have reported him and moved on to a better dentist? After the second, the third, the fourth? At some time around when she started wearing defensive clothing, couldn't she have thought "maybe I need to switch dentists?"

You can talk about him being an authority figure, in a position of power, etc. But there are two things to consider... your dentist is no different than your housekeeper, your plumber, or your dog groomer. Your dentist is someone you've contracted to provide a service. You hired them and during your appointment, they work for you. Would you tolerate your plumber grabbing your ass?

Second, she's ostensibly an adult, and part of being an adult is taking responsibility for yourself, and that includes reporting non-consensual fondling to the police before it's happened for the sixth time.

Yes, this dentist is bad, evil, wrong, abusive, and a plethora of other negative words. But when I read that quote, my first thought was not about how bad he was, but "Awww, c'mon!!!" At some point, say the fifth or sixth unwelcome fondling, I'm going to lose sympathy for the victim. First or second fondle, I'm totally on her side. But after he's fondled you 3 or 4 times, change dentists or call the cops. Don't put on a tighter shirt and go back! My God, woman!

I know that assaults and fondling can be a very touchy subject for some people (no pun intended), but really: Fondle me once, shame on you. If I actually voluntarily, as an adult and as a person who is paying you, put myself in a situation where a dentist can fondle me a sixth time, that one's 90% my fault.

Sheesh.