House of Guns

January, 2014

There was an ER doc at The Med in Memphis, Tn. and later at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga. that was nationally famous for his anti-gun stand. Athur Kellerman had published some anti-gun articles in prestigious medical publications that I (and many others) challenged and thought was basically false.

I scared them. They sent out “spies” to check me out and invited me to speak on subjects to small audiences to see what I would say. Two such instances come to mind.

I was asked to give a lecture to trauma surgery residents on ballistics and gun shot wounds in humans. You have to understand my theory of Medicine first. Doctors are assholes. Surgeons are really big assholes and trauma surgeons are really, really big arrogant assholes (there are exceptions). That said, one might understand that I wondered why they would ask a Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician to talk to a group that obviously knew more on most subjects than I.

But I persevered and researched the subject, but from a perspective they had not entertained. The audacity I showed shocked them all. I even used resources such as the NRA, the Marine and Army armorers data and gun magazines. Sources they didn’t even know existed. I started with a brief review of the types of firearms, from the blunderbuss to the M-16, rifles and pistols and then discussed bullets, powder, the flight of a lead projectile through air, ballistics “jello”, watermelons and flesh. Some of what I said contradicted what they had been taught in their training. Man was it a quiet audience.

The second encounter involved the spy issue and was much more obvious. The media staff for the Department of Pediatrics set up an interview with me to discuss the dangers of having a gun in the house if there was a child in the home. It was almost humorous, if it hadn’t been so sad. The interviewer used leading questions, Kellerman’s publications and anti-gun sources in such an obvious attempt to get me to join their hysteria. Leading questions are adroitly formed questions meant to lead the responder to a desired answer such as, “Don’t you agree, Doctor, that if there is a gun in the home, there is always the possibility a child could get it and harm himself or others?” You can’t disagree with the statement, but you can construct your answer in a way that brings its relevance to the fore front.

Well, the interviewer got distressed after the 3d or 4th question. Her questions came more rapidly, she cut off my answer before I had finished and finally snapped her notebook closed stood up and said that the interview was over. I’m sure she meant to thank me for my time, but just forgot. Anyway, my interview never made any official publication or saw the light of day anywhere.

Today I read on Fox News about ABC presenting almost the exact same data that Kellerman started way back then. ABC did what Kellerman did frequently; cherry picked statistics, falsely represented data and lied about the results.

Back in the day, we did not have Fox News or any other media avenue for our opinion to be heard.

Proudly posted by your grumpy Uncle/Brother Dave.

Steven Milloy, “Gun Control Science Misfires”, Fox News, 10/31/2002, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/10/31/gun-control-science-misfires.html

John R. Lott, “ABC News reports on guns mislead Americans”, Fox News, 1/07/14, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/07/abc-news-reports-on-guns-mislead-americans.html

Ebola Hysteria

October 2014

Ebola

There is enough chatter about Ebola virus in the news lately to sound like a bunch of cackling hens. There are a lot of experts saying things that are just plain wrong about Ebola.

Ebola hasn’t been around that long and there have only been a few thousand cases. With a mortality rate approaching 80-90%, it is hard to find human test subjects to develop good data or vaccines. In order to understand a disease, we need hundreds of thousands of subjects from which to use data for analysis. For instance, coronary artery disease is well managed and understood because millions of subjects in many studies have provided the data over a 60 plus year time period from which we have determined the best treatment.

Catching Ebola

One thing that is glaringly obvious is that these experts are lying by omission. Respiratory transmission means that an infected and contagious individual might cough or breath hard causing microdroplets of saliva and mucous to aerosolize in the air. This contagion laden “mist” is then breathed in by a susceptible host and if that host’s immune system is thwarted, the infection is transmitted. The experts are allowing the public to think that contagion laden air just exists out there like a naturally occurring gaseous vapor.

Some idiot has spread the false concept that Ebola is not transmitted by the respiratory route. This is absolutely false. Ebola is transmitted by contact with body fluids. That means coming in contact with feces, urine, vomit, saliva or mucous (we can disregard the other body fluids for all practical purposes). Coughing is one of the symptoms of Ebola. During the cough, blood, mucous and saliva are aerosolized and spewed from the infected patient’s mouth and nose into the atmosphere and anyone standing close enough will be exposed. Now, Ebola may not be as contagious as, say, influenza, but contact with body fluids will occur in a respiratory manner to anyone in the vicinity.

Screening for Ebola

So the experts are going to “screen” for Ebola in people leaving one of the endemic areas by taking their temperature. A febrile illness (any illness where fever is a component) is not febrile every second of the illness. The fever usually occurs cyclically about every 2-6 hours for 12-72 hours of the peak of the illness. So, let us presume the unfortunate patient that recently died in Dallas was allowed to come to America because he didn’t have a fever. Well, he didn’t when they checked. But it takes 10-12 hours to get from West Africa to the US and he could have had a fever at any time during his travel. Our patient was spreading the infection to any and all of his fellow travelers.

Looking for Ebola in the US

The CDC and other “experts” are scrambling to provide health care workers, like me, with white papers on how to screen our patients for possible Ebola, so that if we have forgotten how to research an unusual disease or illness, we won’t be out there treating blindly. But, there is a problem with their offerings.

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and the ASPR (Assistant Secretary for Preparedness Response) have identified persons with the following as being suspicious for Ebola virus disease.

1. Fever, headache, joint and muscle aches, fatigue, diarrhea, vomiting and lack of appetite and
2. Travel to West Africa within the last 21 days

One doesn’t have to read too closely to see that those are the exact same symptoms as influenza and several other illnesses. We are told to quarantine suspect patients who have been to or been exposed to persons who have been to West Africa and have any of the symptoms of the flu. Since influenza has a penetrance of about 90% of the population, anyone that has been to or been in contact with anyone who has been to West Africa will be quarantined.

About 100-150 people per week come to the US from West Africa. They get here on an airplane that holds about 100-200 people. They walk through airports that have about 50-3000 or more people in them at any one time. They commute through cities that have populations of…

I hope you get the picture by now. Health care facilities are expected to provide private rooms with separate bathroom facilities from the moment we identify their risk. We have to provide reverse isolation for contact (and in my opinion respiratory) contagion. That means that anyone entering the room must dress in an impermeable covering of their entire body and remove this gear on exiting into an isolation container to be burned upon disposal. Every time they enter the room. It is impossible for the healthcare facilities to quarantine all these patients in any efficient manner.

You Can’t Come Here

We are being told that restricting travel among suspects with a deadly contagious disease is impossible, therefore if the contact of an Ebola patient or someone with suspected Ebola virus disease is here in the US, they will be quarantined. If the subject tries to not obey the quarantine, law enforcement will enforce the quarantine. Is that not restricting travel?

In 1918, a pandemic of H1N1 influenza devastated the population. It was traced back to 2 farm boys from Kansas that joined the Army and traveled to training camp and on to the front lines in Europe. Allowing that emigration caused the deaths of more than the entire loss to combat in WWI. There was more economic loss and imposition on every faction of life and disruption of living standards than any epidemic known to man. The death toll of the 1817 influenza epidemic was about 45%, as opposed to 80-90% for Ebola.

There are several states in the US that will not let you bring certain plants or animals into the state. California and Hawaii come to mind. I can remember being stopped at a border inspection station (California Department of Agriculture) and interrogated as to whether or not I was transporting certain contraband, every time I drove to California.

It is against the law to transport fine scotch whiskey from Scotland into the US if it hasn’t been through inspection and, more importantly, the taxing process. Somehow, the choice is not that hard for me. On the one hand, is Ebola with an 80-90% mortality and a good scotch with 80-90% chance of enjoying the hell out of it regardless of the outcome.

Bet you never thought about any of this.

From your favorite grumpy Uncle/Brother Dave.

Weary

Drug Deal Gone Good

2/4/2018

A guy was on a motorcycle, evading capture by the county sheriff’s deputies for suspected drug offenses.  In his hasty, not-so-reckless and excessively speedy operation of the vehicle, he wrecked the motorcycle which he had stolen and ran on foot to evade capture.  He jumped a fence, lost his footing, slid and rolled down a hill to the edge of the interstate highway.  He jumped up and tried to run across the freeway.

Yup, tried.

A car, traveling at about 70 mph and he collided.  Not a full impact.  The passenger mirror hit his elbow and left torso in a glancing blow.

As the deputy inventoried his possessions, they found brass knuckles, a loaded gun, methamphetamine and wads of cash.

This was a drug deal that didn’t go well for the guy but did go well for everyone else.

But, he does get the opportunity to add to his collection of big house tats.

From your grumpy Uncle/Brother Dave.

Weary

Turtle Beer Rings and Other Edible Thoughts

February 6, 2017

One can immediately see the benefits of using crop byproducts to make beer rings that are edible by both turtles and humans.  Consider the boost to the sagging agriculture industry in the Midwest.  Newly elected President Trump is looking to bring jobs back to America and specifically from the Pacific Rim.  Let’s look at this a little closer.

These edible beer rings, as a novelty, are sure to become a fad.  What do Americans need more than a fad food?  Right!  This will just contribute to the problem of obesity in Americans (despite popular belief the largest consumers of canned beer in the world), and turtles.  So now we have to tackle the problem of turtle obesity.

In my ongoing discussion with my nurse friend about saving the sea turtles, we have a new development.  I’ve written about this before, how I got slammed because I tossed a 6 pack-canned-diet-drink-plastic-ring into the trash without breaking all of the rings.  I was responsible for the death of thousands of sea turtles by just that one act.  Well, she sent me this link to show that maybe I would be off the hook if this invention came to fruition.

http://time.com/4341726/saltwater-brewery-edible-six-pack-rings/

If you scroll down it tells you that a microbrewery in Florida is developing an edible retaining ring thingy for canned drinks that is palatable to humans as well as turtles.  I just had to respond… .

These edible products are made of the fibrous portion of the most commonly grown grains in the Midwest.  Of course, these polysacchsrides are known to cause flatulence and will thereby increase CO2 production doing untold damage to our precious ozone layer.  Think sunburned turtles.  Don’t worry about humans because the smart ones already use sunscreen and the others never have and never will.

But as to the science of this new product, I want to know how many turtles were sacrificed to find just the right product that is a biodegradable substance that is edible for humans and turtles.  If you’ve taken comparative physiology, you know that the differences in the function and physiology of the gastrointestinal tract of Homo sapiens and those of Chelonioideais differ vastly.  Or, maybe you didn’t.

Consider yet, if humans wore ready-to-eat clothing, well it would be embarrassing.  I mean, chewing on your belt is much easier, faster and maybe even better than a Snickers and Diet Coke.  So, now what is going to hold your pants up?  Oh well, they are edible, too.

Lastly, we all know that there isn’t a good deed that can’t be improved upon or expanded.  Consider Reefer Beer that is made out of marijuana and it is essentially legal everywhere.  The munchies are sure to come, the beer rings are edible, cause flatulence and a hunger that is insatiable.  And, the clothes are edible also!

Need I ask the question?

Where ‘o where is our culture going?

More food for thought (pun intended) from your grumpy Uncle/Brother Dave.

Weary

Fatherhood

6/19/17

Conveniently, it’s time to explore the institution of fatherhood.

Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines father as;

1: a man who has begotten a child (not related to gotten, like, “I gotten real drunk last night.”)
2: the founder of something, like America
3a : one acting to another in a way suggesting that of father to child
3b : an old man —used as a respectful form of address
4: a prototype, like the father of all hangovers (more often the mother of…)
5: a priest of the regular clergy
6: one of the leading men (as of a city)

And, of course, father can be a noun, a verb or adjective (paternal, maternal).

A father can be adoptive, biological or associative (stepfather).

The origin is Middle English fader, from Old English fæder; akin to Old High German fater, Latin pater and Greek patēr.

Synonyms (also used as terms of endearment) are dad, daddy, old man, pa, papa (also poppa), pater [chiefly British], pop and sire.

The first known use of father was in the 15th century (I think as a verb, not a noun.)

A biological father determines the sex of a child by donating either an X or Y sex chromosome.  Mothers can’t donate Y chromosomes because they don’t have any, for all practical purposes.

The paternity rights of a father with regard to his children differ widely from country to country (read culture to culture, state to state, city to city, family to family, father to father) often reflecting the level of involvement and roles expected by that country.

The beginning of recognition that the act of sex and the role of a male in procreation occurred somewhere between 10,200 BC and 2000 BC when humans began to develop agriculture and animal husbandry.  For centuries, the act of sex was a satisfaction of pleasure and not linked to procreation, cognitively.  This concept took a long time to develop under often extreme pressures of primitive rituals, religion, politics, economy and society.

If one were to look at the Wikipedia post for “Father”, they would find the cumulative effect of liberal, new age wimp-hood.  As in wimp the social slur, not WIMP the nuclear physicist’s definition of Weakly Interactive Massive Particles. But I digress too early.  Allow me to continue in a more orderly fashion.

In more primitive days and sometimes more modern days, a woman may have sexual contact with more than one man during the time in which she is capable of conception.  This made/makes the determination of paternity difficult.  Today, paternity can sometimes be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty with very expensive genetic analysis as well as cheaper, less accurate over-the-counter testing available at your local pharmacy or mail-in-sample services like “23andMe”.  Otherwise, the “father” of a child is determined by guess and by golly.

In fact, the common designation of father as the sire of a child is probably more likely wrong than right in terms of the history of the world.

I haven’t even come close to discussing the whole picture.  Consider the concepts of mix-ups at birth, stolen children, adoptive fathers, men who raise children of other men, women who intentionally deceive true paternity, human trafficking, war babies, royalty babies, babies conceived from rape and on and on.

Closer to the interests of our group here, the American concept of fathers has/is changed(ing) even as I write.

At various times:

A father was a man that found a fertile woman to bear as many male children as possible.  When she faltered or died, he would replace her with a younger/more fertile replacement.  The children were to stock the family labor pool and enlarge the family holdings and standing in the community.

A father was the head of the household, the wage earner, the provider, the leader of family values and the outwardly-seen decision maker for the clan.

A father was the sperm donor for the woman to provide children for social, economic, religious and self-aggrandizement of the mother.  In some cultures, the children were little more than fodder to increase political strength for the mother.

A father was a wallet, a paycheck, financial support for the family.

A father was a representative in the community providing respect, power and status to the family.

A father was a caretaker of the children, the house and an errand boy for the wage-earner mother.

A father was a source for vehicles of terrorist bombs.

Wikipedia opens their discussion of fathers with this statement, “In almost all cultures fathers are regarded as secondary caregivers [implying as the daily hands-on nurturer].  This perception is slowly changing with more and more fathers becoming primary caregivers, while mothers go to work or in single parenting situations, male same-sex parenting couples.”

The concept of a father as the natural loving, nurturing parent is ludicrous.  I’m not saying that fathers can’t be, but that they aren’t predisposed to be.  Father’s have abused their children in innumerable ways.  They have sold their children into slavery, bartered them for economic or political power, given them to causes such as being raised in a pedophile community to be used as whores for the tribal males until adulthood.  They have been abandoned to destitute mothers, to the streets and to society to survive or not.  They have been killed to lessen the burden of survival on the family, to lessen the tax burden and to otherwise sculpt the gender makeup of the brood.

Fathers of the 1950s America were idolized.  American TV had Father Knows Best, My 3 Sons and Make Room for Daddy as examples of the father’s role in the family.  In the 60s and 70s, not only did fatherhood take a nose dive in status but the whole concept of family started to fall apart.  The Mary Tyler Moore Show (a single adult woman without child, husband or family) and All in the Family introduced concepts that were new or spoofs on American culture.  By the 1980s, the concept of fatherhood was blatantly confrontational.  Divorce began to soar and the presumption was that the man was at fault.  Public billboards by the United Way featured fathers as the devil, with horns and all.  In the 1990s, fathers became more useful as whipping posts or dunces that were useful only to watch the kids while Mom worked or hung out with friends.  Now, fathers are continuing to be portrayed as incompetent dunces but with a more effeminate persona.

Now, I really only have two questions.

Are you a father and are you the father?  Just asking.

From your grumpy Uncle/Brother Dave.

Weary