TheMillerCircle.org

When I began my training in medical school in the 1960s, many of the drugs that would become the mainstay, front-line agents in the fight against cancer and other diseases, were just coming into play and some of them, such as methotrexate, which was initially used to treat leukemia, have remained viable drugs for treatment of cancer, psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. For the past 50 years or so, we have been living in what I refer to as the chemical age of medicine–in which we search for magic chemical compounds that selectively attack only one type of diseased cell or source of viral/bacterial infection, while leaving all others untouched.  In truth, this phase of medicine began during WW II, when large scale fermentation plants in the United States began producing huge quantities of penicillin from the fungus Penicillium chrysogenum, which proved, for many, to be one of the first miracle drugs available. Yet, decades later, we are still searching for the perfect miracle drug, one whose target of action is so selective that it has no side-effects or harmful untoward reactions.  The “better living through chemistry” mentality still grips contemporary  medicine, as it drives the pharmaceutical industry to search for better magic bullets in the form of improved drug design. And, over the decades, we have gotten much better at drug design because we are increasingly able to construct and visualize the three-dimensional structure of a targeted receptor or enzyme we want to modify and design a drug that will fit neatly into the critical key and lock combination leading to a desired pharmacological effect (blocking or enhancing its action). Through very special efforts, we are beginning to target specific cells with drugs by pre-selecting the cell, say a cancerous cell,  for targeted destruction using manufactured minicells that can deliver specific toxins to the wayward cells which can be identified through immunolabeling methods (It’s pretty cool and the link above goes to an article I wrote earlier on the topic).

• Continue reading or Leave a comment... (0)

The latest NYTimes/CBS News Poll should warm the hearts of those intent on making the public option component part of our healthcare reform package. After being distracted by the Republican goons of August, whose mission was to distort and destroy healthcare reform, no matter what the plan, the latest poll provides us with some glimpse of how successful they were in derailing a serious reform effort. The NYT/CBS Poll asked a very straightforward and general question: “Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan–something like Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get–that would compete with private insurance plans?” The beauty of this poll question is that it was phrased generally, without reference to a specific bill. The results indicate that, despite what the press wanted to portray as a mounting healthcare reform failure, the respondents to that question overwhelmingly endorsed the public option plan with 65% in favor of the public option–one like medicare–26% opposed and 9% without an opinion. In short, the support of the public option has grown and must be viewed as a plan favored by most Americans. And, with that level of support, derived from a question that wasn’t linked in some devious way to a confusing healthcare plan subtlety, the NYT/CBS Pollsters will apparently use that same question to follow the debate in the coming months of what is  shaping up to be a modern political food fight.

The Baucus bill that was in the Senate finance committee emerged without any Republican support, turning Obama’s  position of insisting on bipartisan support, into a non-entity: this will be a Democratic bill and we can win the public support option in two ways. First, floor amendments to the Baucus bill will bring up the public option plan, though it is currently unclear whether the Senate will vote their version of the healthcare plan with that component in it. But, this is up to the Democrats and the pressure on conservative Democrats who do not favor the public option plan, will be to face the prospects of not getting a decent bill passed at a time when the Democratic Party controls all three branches of government. Though the planned healthcare bill will not go into force until 2014, a failure to achieve a decent healthcare bill could doom the prospects for Democrats’ re-election bids on any one of a number of legislative failures. Passing a bill in which the public becomes increasingly aware that it favors the for-profit insurance companies, as analysis trickles in over the next few years,  could be the single greatest element of destruction for the Democratic Party in the election of 2010. All Democratic Senators are aware of this dilemma and we should continue to remind those conservative Democrats that the NYT/CBS polling data favors a solution with the public option plan as a major component.

The second pathway to insure the public option is through the House, where several bills have already come out of committees that have a public option plan. Nancy Pelosi insists that a healthcare reform bill that lacks the public plan cannot pass the House because of pressure by progressive democrats and union support.  By increasing our pressure on Democrats who are wavering on this issue (again, we are unlikely to see any Republican votes in the House, unless we apply pressure and keep the poll numbers pointing in the direction of the public plan as an essential element to healthcare reform), a strongly endorsed healthcare plan coming out of the House with the public option intact, will force acceptance of that component in the House/Senate conference meeting–the Senate will not be able to avoid it. So the margin of victory in the House now becomes an important component of our reform prospects.  Now is the time to write to your Senators and House legislators, to keep the pressure and drive the issue into a state of redundant acceptance. I believe that the public option plan is more achievable now than at any other time in the last few months. We may have passed through the dimly lit tunnel of the goons into a brighter light of new hope for decent healthcare reform. The lobbying against the public option is running out of gas and it’s time to energize our legislators and force our news media to talk about the new polling data and explore the ethical failure of our current healthcare system. For the past two months, opponents of healthcare overhaul have outspent those supporting the bill, but that tide has now shifted, with more advertising money spent on support of the legislation, even though we don’t yet have a specific bill to fight over. One can almost predict that the Senate/House conference committee  will be the site at which the public option succeeds or fails and, if so, no conference in history will be in the public spotlight more than that one. Energize yourself–the battle for healthcare supremacy is about to begin!

RFM

• Leave a comment... (0)

For many young people in America today, their only knowledge of a passionate, progressive liberal politician is what they know and hear about Ted Kennedy. During the years of the Reagan revolution, Ted Kennedy manned the tiller for liberal causes: he won some and lost some, but he always had his eye on pursuing issues  that served the interests of America as a country, with special reference to the disenfranchised. In many ways, I grew up with Ted Kennedy, though I never met him. He was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, successfully running for the seat vacated by his older brother John, who won the Presidency in 1960. The year Teddy won his Senate seat in 1962, was the year I entered medical school. When he died yesterday at age 77,  he had been a Senator for 47 years. More than any other Senator, with the possible exception of Paul Wellstone, I resonated with Ted Kennedy and relied on him to make sound policy decisions. He had a great knack for attracting and assembling a bright, hard-working staff, but he was also hard-working and led by his example of great oratory skills, combined with his capacity to also be a policy wonk. With Ted, you got a twofer! It was always a pleasure to watch him in the Senate on C-Span, grilling a witness giving testimony related to a bill, where he could quote verse and line and knew far more about the details of the bill than anyone of the experts that were called to testify. He and his staff knew how to craft a bill better than any other Senator.

It was always clear that the Kennedy’s were a special family, even though they were not without controversy, including Ted’s accident at Chappaquiddick which probably sealed Ted’s fate as a Presidential candidate. Father Joseph had created a huge base of wealth through his dealings in the stock market, liquor distribution and as a Hollywood movie mogul. As a result,  his children didn’t have to worry about financial security; they all seemed liberated and energetic to pursue interests that didn’t require the generation of substantial  independent wealth. Their patriarch, Joseph Kennedy, had once considered running for the Presidency himself, but dashed those prospects when he supported appeasement with Germany as Hitler’s war machine was building up (Joseph was then ambassador to England). Nevertheless, what Joseph Kennedy instilled in his children was a zeal for public life and a passion for not losing elections.

• Continue reading or Leave a comment... (0)