You may have heard we are seeing more early, dangerous flu this year. Not true. Look at CDC's own figures

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

No need to run and get that flu shot, the one that is reported to be only 10% effective this year. Yes, the same flu shot that will get me 10% off my grocery bill, if I get vaccinated at the supermarket.

When you consider that a shot this year would likely make shots less effective in the next year, there is no reason at all to get it.

While the flu season is starting early this year, comparable to 2014 (see first CDC graph), deaths from flu and pneumonia are considerably lower than at this time of year in 2014, 2015 and 2016 (second CDC graph).  So:  is it really a bad flu season?

Jordan Grumet: I Have to Admit It: I Don't Love Being a Doctor Any More

Here is a short article, by a doctor I don't know, which explains how the medical 'system', which changed during the Obama administration with a bucketload of new demands, has ruined the profession of medicine for doctors, and brought it to its knees for patients.--Meryl

I'll never leave, but the joy is gone, says Jordan Grumet, MD

• SAVESAVED

• by Jordan Grumet MDJanuary 26, 2017

I have a breathtakingly difficult confession to make. A confession that on its face seems rather innocuous but in many ways shakes the foundations of who I always thought I was, and how I identify myself.

I no longer love being a physician.

There -- I said it. I winced even as I strung the words together to write the sentence. You see, to admit this is almost inconceivable. So much of who I was and who I have become is enmeshed in this intricate quilt of a profession. I view most every aspect of my life through this lens.

How could I not? Wanting to be a doctor is the first cognition I can recall from childhood. A childhood marked by a learning disability which brought into contention the idea of being a professional at all. A childhood in which a father's death became a precursor, a foreshadowing of who I was fated to become. I would follow in my father's footsteps. I would finish the work that was prematurely wrenched from his clutches. There was never a question whether I would succeed. The calling was too great, the pull too strong.

To deny my profession is to deny my father's legacy and to deny my own reflection.

Yet, here I stand. It didn't happen all at once. Medical school was difficult and time-consuming, but it didn't happen there. Residency was strenuous and terrifying, but it didn't happen there. My first days as an attending were grueling and sometimes awful, but also energizing.

I suppose the change happened sometime after we started using electronic medical records. It happened with meaningful use. And MACRA. And Medicare audits. And ICD-10. And face-to-face encounters. And attestations. And PQRS. And QAPI. And the ACA. 

What I do today is no longer practicing medicine. Instead it's like dancing the waltz, tango, and salsa simultaneously to a double-timed techno beat. It's sloppy, rushed, unpleasant to look at, and often leaves my partner more confused and anxious than when we started.

I have become ineffective. Not by the weight of ever-expanding medical knowledge or even the complexity of the human body. Instead, my hard drive is being spammed by thousands of outside servers.

But make no mistake, I'll never leave. My love for taking care of people is unwavering.

As for the joy and utter exhilaration of what used to be -- frankly, it's all been legislated out.

Jordan Grumet is an internal medicine physician who blogs at In My Humble Opinion. 

Ex-Spy Chief Admits Role In 'Deep State' Intelligence War On Trump/ Zero Hedge

TwitterFaceboReddiAn ex-spy chief who spoke out publicly against Trump while inspiring other career intelligence figures to follow suit has admitted his leading role in the intelligence community waging political war against the president, describing his actions as something he didn't "fully think through". In a surprisingly frank interview, the CIA's Michael Morell - who was longtime Deputy Director and former Acting Director of the nation's most powerful intelligence agency - said that it wasn't a great idea to leak against and bash a new president.Morell had the dubious distinction of being George W. Bush's personal daily briefer for the agency before and after 9/11, and also served under Obama until his retirement. In the summer of 2016 he took the unusual step (for a former intelligence chief) of openly endorsing Hillary Clinton in a New York Times op-ed entitled, I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton [4], after which he continued to be both an outspoken critic of Trump and an early CIA voice promoting the Russian collusion and election meddling narrative.

 [5]
 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-11/ex-spy-chief-admits-role-deep-state-intelligence-war-trump

Acting director of the CIA Michael Morell with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
in 2013. Image source: Wiki Commons, DoD
As Politico's Susan Glasser put in a newly published interview, Morell "has emerged out of the shadows of the deep state" to become one of Trump's foremost critics speaking within the intel community. However, Politico summarizes the interview as follows [6]:

But in a revealingly self-critical and at times surprising interview for this week’s Global POLITICO, Morell acknowledges that he and other spy-world critics of the president failed to fully “think through” the negative backlash generated by their going political. “There was a significant downside,” Morell said in the interview.

Not only had Morell during his previous NYT op-ed [4] stated that he was committed to doing "everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president" but he went so far as to call then candidate Trump "a threat to our national security" - while making the extraordinary claim that "in the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Curiously, Morell in his latest Politico interview indicates when asked about his "public profile" and activism so soon after leaving the agency (something that was relatively unusual prior to Trump taking office) that his post-retirement media appearances have been approved and/or received some level of oversight by the CIA. In the interview Morell states, "I did a 60 Minutes interview about my life inside CIA, and it’s something the agency thought that was a good thing to do, and I taped most of it before I left the agency." 
While such CIA review of former employees' publications and media interaction is nothing new, in Morell's case was an unprecedented example of a very high profile intelligence figure explicitly campaigning for a presidential candidate and against another while specifically invoking his role at the CIA (he began his NYT column with, "During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats..." followed by a litany of key national security events he was central to).
The other important confirmation to come out of the discussion is the clear guiding assumption of the interview - that the intelligence "deep state" did in fact go to war with Trump - which has now been confirmed by Morell himself, which is essentially to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The key exchange in the Politico interview [11] begins as follows:

Glasser: Okay, so, flash-forward a year. Was that a mistake?

Morell: So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time. I was concerned about what is the impact it would have on the agency, right? Very concerned about that, thought that through. But I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.

And one of the ways I’ve thought about that, Susan, is—okay, how did Donald Trump see this? Right? And from—it’s very important—one of the things we do as intelligence analysts is make sure that our guy—the president—understands the other guy. Right?

So, let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes. So, what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden, who I have the greatest respect for, criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, “Huh, what’s going on with these intelligence guys?” Right?

Morell here seems to confirm Trump's narrative of events concerning Russiagate "fake news" and willful intelligence leaks intended to damage the president, despite his opening obfuscation of "I don't think it was a mistake" (so he's essentially admitting the negative consequences but with no regrets).
Surprisingly, Morell even implicates himself with the words, "And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent."  The interview continues [11]:

Glasser: It embroiders his narrative.

Morell: Exactly. And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent.And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.

And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, “What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?”The current director at the time, John Brennan, during the campaign occasionally would push back on things that Donald Trump had said.

So, when Trump talked about the Iran nuclear deal being the worst deal in the history of American diplomacy, and he was going to tear it up on the first day—John Brennan came out publicly and said, “That would be an act of folly.” So, he sees current sitting director pushing back on him. Right?

Then he becomes president, and he’s supposed to be getting a daily brief from the moment he becomes the president-elect. Right? And he doesn’t. And within a few days, there’s leaks about how he’s not taking his briefing. So, he must have thought—right?—that, “Who are these guys? Are these guys out to get me? Is this a political organization? Can I think about them as a political organization when I become president?”

So, I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political in that moment. So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Despite Morell's attempts to mitigate his own significant contributions toward creating a climate of distrust between the White House and the intelligence bureaucracy, it seems clear to the interviewee that Morell's admissions lend credence to Trump's side.
Indeed, Susan Glasser reasons, based on Morell's unexpected confessions, that "you or others who spoke out and have continued to speak out actually tend to underscore his feeling that there’s a political divide."

Glasser: Well, it’s very interesting, because of course, there are so many things you don’t know at that moment in time, including, of course, I’m sure you assumed, along with everybody else, that Hillary Clinton was likely to be elected, and you saw this as contributing to that in some way. But it’s certainly relevant in the context of the situation we find ourselves in a year later. And, if it tends to embolden Trump in his critique of your former colleagues who are still serving in the intelligence agencies, and not only has this been a theme that he has struck repeatedly to criticize—but also to politicize this.

And inadvertently, perhaps, you or others who spoke out and have continued to speak out actually tend to underscore his feeling that there’s a political divide, and now you and others are on one side of it, and potentially all your former colleagues, and then he’s on the other side of it...

Morell: Yeah, and you can’t pick and choose like that. And when people in the intelligence community—particularly people in CIA, because for every other part of the intelligence community except CIA, you’re working for a cabinet member. At CIA, you are working for the president of the United States. That is your customer. Right? 00:08:03 So, when you see your customer questioning what it is that you are providing to him or her, and that person seems to be cherry-picking what they accept and what they don’t accept, it’s demoralizing. And when it’s demoralizing, people take actions, right? So, I live pretty close to the agency, and there’s a coffee shop between me and the agency, and I’ve met a number of agency officers in that coffee shop who have said to me, “I’m thinking about leaving.”

Yet Morell in a round about way previously admitted that he is personally one of the chief authors of precisely this "demoralizing" scenario in which the president doesn't fully trust his intelligence briefers.
But we should all remember that this is a man who on the one hand described [14] "Russia's hacking is the political equivalent of 9/11" and constantly hyped "Russian propaganda", while on the other he went on a lengthy RT News segment [15] in order to promote his newly published book.

Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-11/ex-spy-chief-admits-role-deep-state-intelligence-war-trump

Links:
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
[2] http://www.zerohedge.com/printmail/608956
[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/print/608956
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html
[5] http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2017/11/30/cia1.jpg
[6] https://t.co/PVHYTe6y8u
[7] https://twitter.com/sbg1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[8] https://t.co/JyJ3SyTXz5
[9] https://t.co/nPAe8ePwCg
[10] https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/940194623351414784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[11] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/11/the-full-transcript-michael-morell-216061?platform=hootsuite
[12] https://t.co/unnJfsbFRE
[13] https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/940205252455702530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[14] http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310005-former-cia-chief-russias-hacking-political-equivalent-of-9-11
[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY9S-ksTmbQ&t=10s

Turning over Public Health to Industry: the UK leaps ahead/ BMJ

from today's BMJ (British Medical Journal)

Tom Jefferson: The UK turns to Witty, Vallance, and Van Tam for leadership: revolving doors?

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/12/06/tom-jefferson-the-uk-turns-to-witty-vallance-and-van-tam-for-leadership-revolving-doors/

December 6, 20173Revolving doors are used to facilitate entry or exit into a building. The trick with using these doors is always to get your timing right. Too fast or too slow and you get stuck. 

The analogy seems apposite for a brace of recent announcements of important pharmaceutical industry figures taking over parts of UK operations in key aspects of healthcare planning and delivery. 

Andrew Witty, who left the helm of GSK in April, is going to head up the UK government’s Accelerated Access Review (AAR) programme. The AAR is said to be aimed at helping NHS patients “get quicker access to innovative new diagnostic tools, treatments, and medical technologies.”Meanwhile Patrick Vallance is leaving his post of head of research and development at GSK as part of a re-shuffle by the new CEO Emma Walmsley. Vallance is taking up a senior position in the UK government, as Chief Scientific Adviser. His job will be “improving the quality and use of scientific evidence in government as head of the Government Office for Science.”Last but not least, another academic with extensive ties to industry over influenza and pandemic planning (and another ex-employee of GSK, Roche and Aventis Pasteur MSD), Jonathan Van Tam has been appointed Deputy Chief Medical Officer responsible for emergency preparedness and pandemic planning. This is a similarly senior position which holds great power and will potentially involve committing huge quantities of taxpayers’ money to projects preparing for future emergencies, which may or may not come about. It is also a very delicate role as the amount of lobbying and corporate pressure applied on governments before the 2009 influenza pandemic shows. 

What are we to make of all this?The lowering of regulatory and HTA standards is in full swing and its main driver is the pharmaceutical industry. The general rhetoric of rushing drugs and devices through to needy patients willing to accept substantial risk rests on very thin evidence of benefit and unclear public support. 

Improving the quality of evidence is desperately needed as shown by the scores of examples of clinical trials that have been abandoned or distorted that have come to light in the last decade. Pandemic planning also requires some rethinking as the millions of pounds spent on a dubious pandemic with equally dubious fixes has shown. The close space of time of these “revolving doors” makes me wonder whether the government has objectively and properly overseen the decision making which has led to such important public positions being filled by senior industry figures. Can one walk away from leading industry, or rubbing shoulders with it, and perform an important public health function with impartiality? HM Government seems to think so, but if you are unsure (as I am) you may be given pause for thought. 

A career spent working in pharma usually means a commensurate share and farewell package. We are told that Andrew Witty is also engaged in a venture capital company, so his commercial life is still very much alive. We have not been told whether they have either sold their shares, or put them in a blind trust or in general how they are to behave when advising HM government on interventions such as drugs, biologics, or diagnostics which they helped develop and market.Professor Van Tam’s track record as an ex-employee of Roche, Aventis Pasteur MSD and SmithKline Beecham (now GSK) has been excluded from the official DH press release, which is interesting, but hardly confidence-building. He frequently attends events organised by the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), a well know industry-funded lobbying group. His predecessor in the CMO post, John Watson, was a founding member of ESWI. Van Tam has been a consistent supporter of pharmacological measures to address influenza and as head of the Pandemic Influenza Office at the UK Health Protection Agency in 2004-2007 bears responsibility for decisions which have been heavily criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. Van Tam went to the department of health from the University of Nottingham, the Chancellor of which is none other than Witty. 

In my view it is time that the government and the public took a close look at what is going on in the upper echelons of healthcare planning and delivery in this country and considered imposing a substantial time moratorium on hiring workers with close ties to industry. Should such senior appointments not be subject to parliamentary committee scrutiny? 

It’s no consolation but, doors seem to be spinning full time in the USA too, the latest being the appointment of the former boss of Eli Lilly to head the Department of Health and Social Services. 

EMA’s imminent move to Amsterdam from London may have been a factor in the UK appointments and may generate more revolving door activity with a rush of regulators unwilling to relocate, or the Government might be trying to reassure industry that it’s still in the driving seat. Another reason for watching events closely.  With so much movement the revolving door will eventually get stuck and cease to work the way it was intended.  What the decision makers seem to have forgotten is that the success of public health depends on the public having full trust and confidence in leadership. 

Tom Jefferson, Senior Associate Tutor, University of Oxford.