Search This Blog

Sunday, December 17, 2023

Study finds clinicians rank patient views as least important in diagnosis

 More value should be given to patients' "lived experiences" as a study of over 1,000 patients and clinicians found multiple examples of patient reports being under-valued.

Research led by a team at the University of Cambridge and Kings' College London, found that  ranked patient self-assessments as least important in diagnostic decisions, and said that patients both over- and under-played their symptoms more often than patients reported doing so.

One patient shared the common feeling of being disbelieved as "degrading and dehumanizing" and added, "If I had continued to have regard for clinicians' expertise over mine, I would be dead. When I enter a medical appointment and my body is being treated as if I don't have any authority over it and what I'm feeling isn't valid then that is a very unsafe environment. I'll tell them my symptoms and they'll tell me that symptom is wrong, or I can't feel pain there, or in that way."

In a study published in Rheumatology, researchers used the example of neuropsychiatric lupus, an incurable autoimmune  that is particularly challenging to diagnose, to examine the different value given by clinicians to 13 different types of evidence used in diagnoses. This included evidence such as brain scans, patient views, and the observations of family and friends.

Fewer than 4% of clinicians ranked patient's self-assessments in the top three types of evidence. Clinicians ranked their own assessments highest, despite acknowledging that they often were not confident in diagnoses involving often invisible symptoms, such as headache, hallucinations, and depression. Such 'neuropsychiatric' symptoms can lead to low quality of life and earlier death and were reported to be more often misdiagnosed—and therefore not correctly treated—than visible ones such as rashes.Sue Farrington, Co-Chair of the Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Alliance, said, "It's time to move on from the paternalistic, and often dangerous, 'doctor knows best' to a more equal relationship where the patients with lived experiences and the doctors with learned experiences work more collaboratively."

Almost half (46%) of the 676 patients reported never or rarely having been asked for their self-assessments of their disease, although others discussed very positive experiences. Some clinicians, particularly psychiatrists and nurses, valued patient opinions highly, as a psychiatrist from Wales explained, "Patients often arrive in clinic having had multiple assessments, having researched their own condition to a very high level and having worked hard to understand what is going on with their own body… they are often expert diagnosticians in their own right."

Lead author, Dr. Melanie Sloan from the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Cambridge, said, "It's incredibly important that we listen to and value patients' insights and their own interpretations of their symptoms, particularly those with long-standing diseases—after all, they are the people that know what it is like to live with their condition. But we also need to make sure that clinicians have the time to fully explore each patient's symptoms, something that is challenging within the constraints of current health systems."

Patients' and clinicians' personal characteristics such as ethnicity and gender were felt to sometimes influence diagnosis, particularly a perception that females are more likely to be told their symptoms are psychosomatic. The data showed that male clinicians were statistically more likely to state that patients overplayed symptoms. Patients were more likely than clinicians to say that symptoms were directly caused by the disease.

The study authors acknowledged that patient reasoning will be inaccurate at times, but concluded that there were likely to be many  (including diagnostic accuracy, fewer misdiagnoses, and greater patient satisfaction) to including patients' "attributional insights" and experiences into decisions about diagnosis. This is particularly important when  in neuropsychiatric lupus are widely known to be "unenlightening," according to one neurologist, in common with many other autoimmune diseases and long COVID.

Dr. Tom Pollak, senior study author from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, said, "No human being is always going to be able to accurately pinpoint the cause of symptoms, and  and clinicians can both get this wrong. But combining and valuing both views, especially when the diagnostic tests aren't advanced enough to always detect these diseases, may reduce misdiagnoses and improve clinician and patient relationships, which in turn leads to more trust and more openness in  reporting."

More information: Melanie Sloan et al, Attribution of neuropsychiatric symptoms and prioritisation of evidence in the diagnosis of neuropsychiatric lupus: a mixed method study, Rheumatology (2023). DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead685academic.oup.com/rheumatology/ … rheumatology/kead685


https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-12-clinicians-patient-views-important-diagnosis.html

Britain's National Grid drops China-based supplier over cyber security fears

Britain's National Grid has started removing components supplied by a unit of China-backed Nari Technology's from the electricity transmission network over cyber security fears, the Financial Times reported on Sunday.

The decision came in April after the utility sought advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, a branch of the nation's signals intelligence agency GCHQ, the newspaper quoted a Whitehall official as saying.

An employee at the Nari subsidiary NR Electric UK said the company no longer had access to sites where the components were installed and that National Grid did not disclose a reason for terminating the contracts, the FT said.

It quoted another person it did not name as saying the decision was based on NR Electric UK components that help control and balance the grid and minimise the risk of blackouts.

It was unclear whether the components remained in the electricity transmission network, the report said.

NR Electric UK, National Grid, GCHQ, Britain's energy security department and the Chinese Embassy in London did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment outside business hours.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britains-national-grid-drops-china-061808535.html

'Biden migrants proposal proves US border crisis could end tomorrow'

What on earth is the congressional GOP thinking?

Reports indicate the White House and Republicans in Congress are at work on a deal that would tighten border security in exchange for OK’ing aid to Ukraine  and that a major bone of contention is whether to set a trigger point for expedited migrant removals when illegal crossings hit 3,000 or 5,000 per day. 

Huh?

If Washington can tell border agents to stop waving in illegals when the total hits some arbitrary threshold, then it can tell them to do it from the jump. 

In other words, by dickering over just how many illegal migrants can come through in a day before the door slams shut, the Biden administration has at long last said the quiet part out loud: The law doesn’t actually require treating the word “asylum” as a magic “open sesame.”

Yes, the border can be closed

It’s open because Biden opted to appease the left wing of the Democratic Party, which wants open borders however it can get them

Look: The law says every illegal entrant must be detained until “final determination” of their status; all the evidence indicates the vast majority don’t have legitimate asylum claims. 

GOP efforts to “compromise” here (in order to reduce the overall time) would endorse the plainly illegal policy that Biden adopted on Day 1 of his administration. 

And even the 3,000-in-a-day trigger would still add more than 1 million to the country per year — people without employment, shelter or other key resources. 

So adopting real border security would not be Biden “selling out,” as disgraced Sen. Bob Menendez called it last week (and he really should know better, given the pile of gold bars that show how for-sale he is).

Rather, Biden is selling out the whole country with his “wave them in” policy. 

He and his flunkies invite millions in and leave inundated border towns and big cities to fend for themselves

Getting that aid to Ukraine (and to Israel, along with funds to beef up US defense procurement) is vital, but so is ending the border madness.

If Republicans can’t get Biden to take the obvious deal, they must at least avoid any “compromise” that codifies his twisting of the law.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/17/opinion/biden-migrants-move-proves-us-border-crisis-could-end-now/

Biden’s ‘violent settler’ Israeli visa ban would bar those who simply disagree with his terrible policies

 Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced visa restrictions on Israelis in response to “settler violence.”

Britain and Belgium plan to follow suit, and other European Union countries will likely jump on the blacklist bandwagon.

The United States frequently uses such visa restrictions to block those guilty of gross human-rights abuses, tyrannical foreign despots and nationals of state sponsors of terrorism.

But this is a far cry from that — it’s simply a big step in the Obama-Biden administrations’ deep delegitimization of those who oppose a “two-state solution.”

The president has broad power to deny entry to foreign nationals — despite the furor over President Donald Trump’s executive orders in this area.

Barring those guilty of crimes is certainly an excellent reason for exclusion, and the Biden administration should enforce such limits far more vigorously at the porous southern border, where millions are coming from the world’s most violent countries.

But the new “violent settler” ban is in fact not about settlers or even violence.

It is instead a vastly vague prohibition that gives the administration discretion to exclude Israelis whose mere beliefs, place of residence or religious practices don’t comport with the Bidenites’ foreign-policy views.

The administration can ban anyone “involved in undermining of peace, security or stability in the West Bank.”

The restrictions are not limited to criminal or violent acts.

Team Biden considers Jews living in the West Bank — especially building or buying homes there — an “obstacle to peace,” despite the US position that such communities are not illegal.

The administration has even called visits of Jews to their holy sites “provocative.”

By such standards, a Jew merely building a house or engaging in prayer at holy sites in Judea and Samaria could be “undermining peace” and subject to banning.

Indeed, a memo from President Biden before the ban was issued described it as partly targeted at those who “disrupt or prevent efforts to achieve a two-state solution,” which could make disagreement with the Democratic Party grounds for visa denial.

The policy says nothing about how such alleged peace-underminers will be identified nor what kind of evidence can be used.

The State Department draws its allegations on “settler violence” unquestioningly from reports by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, a United Nations agency known for its hostility to Israel, which in turn appears to adopt uncritically allegations by foreign-government-funded anti-Israel groups and Palestinian activists.

In short, the State Department may be outsourcing US border policy to anti-Israel organizations just two months after the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

The policy will put many Israelis in fear of being barred from America simply because of their nonviolent, noncriminal conduct.

Others may be banned for using force in self-defense, which also shows up as “settler violence” in UN reports.

By contrast, the administration this year lifted visa restrictions on those who provide material support to terrorism “indirectly.”

Team Biden has been ratcheting up its rhetoric about alleged growing settler violence.

Yet according to Israeli police data, in October there were no “serious incidents” by Israelis and only 97 total incidents, primarily vandalism and property crime.

All these get lumped together under the ominous label “settler violence.”

Palestinian terrorists from the West Bank alone have murdered 31 Israelis in 2023. It’s not clear if any Palestinians have been murdered by Israeli civilians this year.

Any Israeli crimes against Palestinians should be prosecuted, but to elevate property crimes and hooliganism to the kind of systemic governmental human-rights abuses that typically result in visa sanctions is gross, especially after Oct. 7.

The administration claims it will apply its standard evenhandedly to West Bank Israelis and Palestinians. But it’s already clear this is not the case.

The Palestinian Authority funds a systematic system of what US law describes as “incentive to commit acts of terror.”

This surely “undermines peace,” which should result in the policy applying to the entire leadership.

Yet so far only “settlers” have been blacklisted.

Perhaps one should call it a Jew ban.

Pulling out the visa-restriction tool in the wake of Oct. 7 is a form of moral equivalence, of “bothsidesism.”

The policy may be an attempt to appease the progressive base, including State Department staffers who want a cease-fire that would allow Hamas to survive.

It comes at the expense of moral clarity, equitable administration of the law and intelligible visa policy.

Eugene Kontorovich is the director of the Center for the Middle East and International Law at George Mason University Scalia Law School.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/17/opinion/bidens-violent-settler-israeli-visa-ban-would-bar-those-who-simply-disagree-with-his-terrible-policies/

FBI secretly taped James Biden as it probed attorney who paid $100K to his consulting firm: report

 President Biden’s brother James was secretly recorded by the FBI during a bribery investigation into a Mississippi trial attorney who shelled out $100,000 to his consulting firm in the late 1990s, a report said on Sunday.

Richard Scruggs, the trial attorney, hired James and Sara Biden’s DC consulting firm while seeking to gin up support for tobacco legislation being contemplated by Congress in 1998, the Washington Post reported.

Neither James, 74, nor his brother President Joe Biden, 81, were implicated in any major criminal wrongdoing in the case. But the revelation comes amid an impeachment probe into alleged influence-peddling by the president’s family members.

“I probably wouldn’t have hired him if he wasn’t the senator’s brother,” Scruggs told the Washington Post about why he forked over cash to James Biden’s firm.

“Jim was never untoward about his influence,” he added. “He didn’t brag about it or talk about it. He didn’t have to. He was the man’s brother.”

Scruggs, who was later sent to prison over a separate bribery scheme, had been closing in on a deal to push the tobacco companies to cough up billions of dollars in a lawsuit alleging they withheld information that their products were addictive.

Richard ‘Dickie’ Scruggs served roughly five years in prison.NBC

Seeking some $368 billion, Scruggs needed Congress to waive antitrust provisions as part of a settlement deal. Joe Biden in 1997, initially said, he was “not yet convinced that this settlement is a good deal.”

Despite initially being reluctant, Joe Biden, who sat on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee as the ranking member, ultimately became one of its most significant backers.

Ultimately, the bill failed to clear Congress. Biden, at the time, cited an intense campaign by the tobacco industry that he claimed swayed Republicans.

Lion Hall

While seeking support from the then-Delaware senator, Scruggs made multiple $10,000 payments to Lion Hall, James and Sara Biden’s consulting firm, over roughly a year, according to the Washington Post.

Scruggs was unsure if James convinced his brother to back the bill, but told The Washington Post, “I hope he did.”

A lawyer for James Biden was adamant that his “work has never involved speaking with or providing access to his brother.” The lawyer has not responded to requests for additional comment from The Post.

Sara and James Biden’s financial machinations have drawn attention from House GOP investigators.AP

Lion Hall has come into focus for Republican congressional investigators looking into whether the president’s brother has used the company to filter money to the rest of the Biden family.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has flagged a $40,000 check marked as a “loan repayment” from James to Joe in 2017.

Comer alleges that the payment was “laundered” money from the Chinese government-linked CEFC. As evidence, Comer points to a series of transactions to the president’s brother’s account.

James Comer and Jim Jordan have been investigating the Biden family’s business dealings.Getty Images

The White House, however, has forcefully rejected that notion and highlighted bank records that indicate the president did indeed make a loan to his brother.

In November House GOP impeachment inquiry subpoenaed both James and Hunter Biden for testimony this month, but both men skipped it. Hunter Biden offered to testify publicly, but Republicans slapped that down, insisting that he appear behind closed doors.

Last week, the GOP-led House voted to formally authorize the impeachment probe into Biden over the alleged dealings.

Republicans have been mulling the possibility of holding Hunter Biden in contempt, which would then go to the Justice Department to decide whether or not to press charges.

The taping

Years after the tobacco bill hubbub, FBI authorities began to investigate Scruggs over an alleged bribery scheme involving supposed plans to funnel $40,000 to a local judge.

During that investigation, agents recorded phone calls, including ones from James Biden, according to the report. At the time, James Biden was reportedly attempting to create a firm with Scruggs partners.

Although James Biden was never implicated in the bribery scheme, Scruggs and some of his partners were ultimately sent to jail.

A lawyer for the president’s brother insisted he was never aware of that scheme and nascent plans for a partnership “never got off the ground.”

President Biden has reportedly been deeply bothered by the attacks on his family.Corbis via Getty Images

Recordings reviewed by the Washington Post showed much of the recorded calls James Biden was on, discussed the potential partnership.

“I told him we had formalized our relationship with you guys,” lawyer Tim Balducci told him during one call.

“I told him about the real Washington presence, that this was not going to be a bulls––, you know, a shingle hung somewhere in the window,” he added. “That this was a real deal, that Sara was coming on, you know, as a named partner, an equity share in the venture, that we were changing the name of the firm to include her.”

“Hunter was going to be involved, and you were going to be involved.”

Scruggs told the Washington Post that he never really intended to be part of that potential venture.

How Scruggs met the Bidens

Scruggs became chummy with Biden’s brother due to his ties with Steve Patterson, an aide to former Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss.), the Washington Post reported.

Stennis was a segregationist who differed dramatically from Biden during his early days in the upper chamber.

The eventual president became friendly with Patterson in the years that followed, as did his brother James. Patterson reportedly connected James and Scruggs during the 1990s.

“Biden wouldn’t have known anybody in Mississippi if not for me. That’s just a fact. I take ownership of that,” Patterson told the outlet. “Biden loved Mississippi.”

The president has insisted he was not ensnared in the financial maneuverings of his family.AP
The Post contacted the White House for comment. Scruggs was not available for comment.

The White House has contended there isn’t sufficient evidence to launch an impeachment probe and amplified several Republicans who have publicly aired their misgivings about the inquiry

https://nypost.com/2023/12/17/news/fbi-bribery-inquiry-taped-james-biden-who-took-money-from-attorney-pursuing-tobacco-bill-in-congress/