atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#7163: "No evidence of strangulation".

I've said it until I'm blue in the face: if you have the breath to scream "I can't breathe," you are lying.

It's like, if you're angrily stomping around and hollering at people that you have a migraine? You don't have a migraine.

What are the preliminary findings of the medical examiner, besides no evidence of strangulation?
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease," said the complaint from the Hennepin County Attorney. "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
So, let's start with the cardiac conditions. "Hypertensive heart disease" means the heart can be enlarged and its walls thicker than normal. This is not good for you. If submitted to sudden, extreme stress (such as trying to escape from police and then having a cretinous cop kneel on your neck for eight minutes) things can go very, very wrong for you in a short period of time.

"Coronary artery disease" is (or can be) a symptom of hypertensive heart disease, but it basically means "artheriosclerosis". Narrowing of the arteries that supply blood to the heart. The thing they have stents and angioplasty and-and-and to treat. The thing that causes heart attacks.

So right there--the guy is not in great physical condition and should not be fighting police (or anyone, really).

"Any potential intoxicants" likely means the tox screen hasn't come back yet. About the only things he could be on that would be any help at all in that situation would be alcohol or marajuana; they're depressants and will tend to relax the user. If the guy were on drugs, it's more likely he'd be on a stimulant like meth, which is (relatively) cheap and easy to obtain.

The guy was able to breathe. He might have felt like he could not, because he was having a heart attack, but he wasn't being strangled. Cop should not have been kneeling on his neck, but that did not impede his ability to breathe, and if you get tangled up with the law because you resisted arrest, guess who's fault it is?

The cop absolutely needs to be fired. I just don't think that there will be much else done to him. He didn't kill the guy, not even accidentally. His restraint method led to a condition where the guy's own existing heart condition got the better of him. It's bad training, bad execution of his duties. And the guy was resisting arrest.

Most courts of law would find the cop "not guilty" of even manslaughter. Which means, as the article says, you can expect more "mostly peaceful protests" that only become "violent" when they threaten a news organization's building.

Literally! Ace posted this last night. When did CNN say "protests turn violent"? When CNN's building was being vandalized. "Demonstrators turn violent at CNN center," said the title card on CNN. Not before then, oh, no! The vandalism and arson and looting, that was a protest before it got to CNN plaza. Only then did it turn violent. "Why are they attacking us? We're on their side!" Fools.

NYT has been fanning the flames of race violence and now they've got what they want.

Strangely enough, the "protests" are always "infiltrated" by right-wingers. Never by the left.

* * *

Minnesota is a failed state! Interesting comparison. Also more dire than "protesting".

* * *

This kind of thing is why the Democrats opposed Kavanaugh with such vigor.
US Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh ordered Fatass [aka Illinois governor J.B Pritzker] to have a brief before him no later than 31 May explaining in detail how Fatass's "executive orders" weren't in direct violation of the First Amendment of United States Constitution.
They have managed to tax the shit out of us with the barest of nods towards representation, but religious liberty was another of the founding principles of this country, and it's a hell of a lot more important than avoiding "taxation without representation".

The founding fathers understood the importance of civil rights before they were called such, and I think it was the touch of divine providence that led them to pair religious liberty with freedom of expression. I mean, it all fits together, but with it set up like this, opponents of religious freedom can't just repeal the First Amendment; they've got to repeal parts of it, which is more difficult to accomplish.

Freedom of the press, freedom of worship, freedom of expression--all guaranteed by the First Amendment--and you cannot remove one without seriously endangering the others. The left would like very much to be rid of all three, because "freedom of the press" guarantees that I can sit here and spout my very very NOT politically correct opinions, as often and voluminously as I care to. (And "freedom of expression", as well.)

Realize this: if freedom of the press were treated the same as the right to keep and bear firearms? I'd have had apply for a "BOID card" (Blog Operator's ID) and renew it every five years. I couldn't write my blog anywhere except at home and in designated circumstances, like internet cafes or while engaging in licensed and permitted social activism. The kind of browser and text editor I could use would be limited, too. To be able to blog wherever I wanted to, I'd have to get an additional permission slip from the government--and even then I couldn't blog about bars, churches, or any place that put a "no blogs allowed" sticker on their door.

...there is probably a limit to how far this analogy can go, so I'll stop there.

Freedom of worship: notice how quickly they acted to shut down Christian churches. Were the mosques shut down too? Somehow I doubt it.

* * *

Hydroxychloroquine is being talked down because it's cheap, generic, and public domain. It's not a brand-new drug on which one company has a patent. It was invented decades ago--scores of years ago--and has been off-patent longer than most people have been alive. Anyone can make it and sell it (as long as they have the right permits etcetera) and there's no exclusive rights for anyone, no way to limit the supply so that obscenely high prices can be charged for it.

1955 was when it was approved for use in the USA. A month's worth of the drug is $25 and I'd expect that less is actually needed to successfully treat COVID-19. No one is going to get rich selling hydroxychloroquine, but it's a well-known and long-understood drug, easy to make, and cheap. But Remdesivir, now, was originally developed to work on Hepatitis C, and wasn't much good against it, so if Gilead can push it as the drug to treat COVID-19, then they have a winner on their hands after all. Now that one costs $4,460 per patient, and now we're talking real money!

Of course it is still on-patent, but Gilead has generously licensed the patent to some other companies so that demand can be met...and so that they can still make money on each dose, even the ones they don't manufacture themselves.

I used to support drug companies. I used to acknowledge that drugs cost a lot, but that much of that cost came from having to develop so many candidates and test, test, test, and then pay for FDA approval, and-and-and. R&D is expensive, medical researchers need Porsches too, and the high price of new drugs is part of paying for the costs to invent them and make them available.

And then, for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than the fact that they were the only people making the thing, Pfizer raised the price of their EpiPen some 400%.

It did not become 400% more expensive to manufacture. The drug contained in the thing, epinephrine, is a hormone first isolated in 1895 and synthesized in 1904. It's the stress hormone adrenaline and it can be synthesized using late 19th century technology, so it's not difficult to make, and the reagents used to synthesize it are likewise neither high-tech nor rare. The delivery system is a single-use gas-powered injector. You pull the cap off, you slap the thing into your thigh, and it pushes the dose into your body. People with severe allergies need to keep adrenaline injectors on hand for emergencies, so that they can keep breathing when they have a reaction to something. Bee sting, shellfish, peanut butter, rap music, whatever. If you're the kind of person whose throat closes up when you contact an allergen, you need to have an adrenaline injector somewhere nearby.

Because it's to help you deal with a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction, you can't wait until you need one to buy it. You have to have it there--it can take seconds for your throat to close up. And of course they expire, so even if you don't use it, you need to replace it every so often. And so Pfizer--realizing they basically had the market sewn up--increased the price on the thing four times over.

Oh, sure, there are generics. But your doctor has to prescribe epinephrine autoinjector rather than epipen. Thanks to some peculiarities in the regulations, if your doctor writes "epipen", that's what the pharmacist has to fill, even if doc checked "generic ok" on the RX form.

And around that time there were some other cases of this kind of profiteering that came to light--and I realized that drug companies are gouging Americans solely because they can.

The one thing I cannot stand about the medical industry is that it charges whatever the market will bear. It's the only industry which is not subject to the laws that regulate all other service industries. A doctor doesn't have to give you an estimate, doesn't have to post his prices, doesn't even have to charge different people the same price for the same procedure. While a mechanic could lose his business license for charging one customer $30 for an oil change and another customer $89 for the exact same service on the exact same kind of car, a doctor won't.

"Oh, I charged Mr. Smith $90 for that ear canal irrigation because he's got an irregular morphology and [biscuit coffepot hatstand]. Mr. Jones' irrigation was $30 because it was uncomplicated."

("[biscuit coffepot hatstand]" is the medical equivalent of Star Trek scriptwriters "[tech tech tech]".)

Other industries have to think about their prices. Okay, my wife and I were just looking at dishwashers; if dishwashers were built and priced like medical care you couldn't know what exact features you were getting, and how much it would cost, until after it was installed and had done its first load of dishes!

I realize that not every case is identical. Okay, two people presenting with appendicitis aren't necessarily going to have the same outcome. But for routine matters, there's absolutely no reason a doctor can't post prices. An annual physical exam, with this and that test, is $X. Being seen for an upper respiratory infection is $Y. Reducing a simple fracture and putting the limb in a cast, $Z, x-rays included.

Instead of the way it's done now: break your arm, go to the hospital, give them your insurance card and sign papers promising to pay. Get the thing set and put in a cast. See doctor, get cast replaced as it heals, do physical therapy--and six months later, get hit with a bill for $2,500, which is your deductible, after which the insurance pays the rest of the $3,800 that this incident cost. But the guy without insurance, who took exactly the same path you did otherwise, pays $11,000 out of pocket.

I didn't used to support the idea of making drug companies charge Americans what they charge people in other countries, but I changed my mind after learning that the cure for Heptatitis C costs $80,000 for the full course in America, but $9 a dose in India.

And that one drug my wife takes--the discounted price of the thing, with insurance, is $50 per tablet; thank God we don't have to pay that much because it's available at a further discount for something reasonable. Why is list price more than $50 a tablet? Because it can be. They for damn sure are making money on it, even at the low price we're paying for it.

There is, after all, such a thing as "obscene profit".

The terminal paragraph of that article makes manifest what's going on:
I can’t avoid wondering if the revolving door between Big Pharma and the NIH and CDC which corrupts US public health decisions also operates in France, Belgium and Italy. Are European health officials elevating themselves by climbing over the dead bodies of their victims?
The revolving door between industry and the government agency that regulates it needs to be stopped.

* * *

There is one issue that I take with this analysis. The thing is, the people who he refers to as "joggers" are by definition thugs. As he puts it, they have, "75-average IQs and minuscule future time awareness,..." They're not smart people and they don't have any consideration for consequences--they literally cannot foresee the consequences of their actions. That's what "miniscule future time awareness" means; all they have is the endless "now" of animals. "Work is boring and I want to get high. What do you mean I'm fired for being high on the job? Aw man! Well, I guess I'll go home and get drunk and have unprotected sex with my girl because it feels better than wearing a rubber. What do you mean she's pregnant? Aw man!" Like that: constantly being surprised by the negative--but entirely predictable--consequences of choices. Instead of saving money, spending your entire paycheck on "getting plastered this weekend!" and then wondering why you never have any money--why it must be because minimum wage should be $15 an hour!

The suburbs, by contrast, typically contain people who have a much better awareness of future time. Not always, but certainly at a much greater rate than does the inner city ghetto. And awareness of future time means understanding that actions have consequences.

Which is not to say that the suburbs are automatically safe from this kind of stupid crap; they're not. But certainly safeer than the inner cities are, at least.

* * *

Quoth Pixy Misa:
Critics--by which we mean idiots--are angry with Facebook for not censoring President Trump. (Tech Crunch)

So simultaneously (a) social networks aren't censoring anyone and especially not conservatives and (b) Facebook is bad for not applying the same censorship as the other networks.
There's a link at his post if you're really curious about the specifics. The fact that both A and B are mutually exclusive is not a problem for a leftist. ORANGEMANBAD trumps (heh) all other considerations. Anyway, consistency is not a virtue they cultivate, or even acknowledge.

* * *

We did go to Menards today, to buy paint, and while there we came within a hair's breadth of buying a new dishwasher. I would have been fine with it, but the estimated delivery date of JULY FIFTEENTH was a bit much for Mrs. Fungus.

Remember, "non-essential" businesses were closed. Making dishwashers is, I guess, "non-essential".

What a crock.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments