#University of Maryland surgeons | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tooth-fairy-vinni · 8 months

Text

Why Dentistry Is Separate From Medicine

The divide sometimes has devastating consequences.

By Julie Beck

Doctors are doctors, and dentists are dentists, and never the twain shall meet. Whether you have health insurance is one thing, whether you have dental insurance is another. Your doctor doesn’t ask you if you’re flossing, and your dentist doesn’t ask you if you’re exercising. In America, we treat the mouth separately from the rest of the body, a bizarre situation that Mary Otto explores in her new book, Teeth: The Story of Beauty, Inequality, and the Struggle for Oral Health in America.

Specializing in one part of the body isn’t what’s weird—it would be one thing if dentists were like dermatologists or cardiologists. The weird thing is that oral care is divorced from medicine’s education system, physician networks, medical records, and payment systems, so that a dentist is not just a special kind of doctor, but another profession entirely.

But the body didn’t sign on for this arrangement, and teeth don’t know that they’re supposed to keep their problems confined to the mouth. This separation leads to real consequences: Dental insurance is often even harder to get than health insurance (which is not known for being a cakewalk), and dental problems left untreated worsen, and sometimes kill. Anchoring Otto’s book is the story of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old boy from Maryland who died from an untreated tooth infection that spread to his brain. His family did not have dental benefits, and he ended up being rushed to the hospital for emergency brain surgery, which wasn’t enough to save him.

I spoke with Otto about how the dentistry/medicine divide came to be, why it’s stuck around, and what its consequences have been. A lightly edited and condensed transcript of our conversation is below.

Julie Beck: Let’s go back to the origin of how dentistry and medicine became separate in the first place. It’s something we take for granted now, right? But it’s actually really weird. Was there ever a time when dental care was integrated with medical care?

Mary Otto: It stayed generally separate. Taking care of the teeth became kind of a trade. In the barber-surgeon days, dentist skills were among one of the many personal services that barber surgeons provided, like leeching and cupping and tooth extractions. They approached it as a mechanical challenge, to repair and extract teeth. Barber surgery was practiced in the very early part of our country's history. And Paul Revere was a denturist—he was a jeweler and he made dentures too.

But the dental profession really became a profession in 1840 in Baltimore. That was when the first dental college in the world was opened, I found out, and that was thanks to the efforts of a couple of dentists who were kind of self-trained. Their names were Chapin Harris and Horace Hayden. They approached the physicians at the college of medicine at the University of Maryland in Baltimore with the idea of adding dental instruction to the medical course there, because they really believed that dentistry was more than a mechanical challenge, that it deserved status as a profession, and a course of study, and licensing, and peer-reviewed scientific consideration. But the physicians, the story goes, rejected their proposal and said the subject of dentistry was of little consequence.

That event is remembered as the “historic rebuff.” It's still talked about sometimes, not a lot, but it’s seen as a symbolic event and it’s continued to define the relationships between medical and dental education and medical and dental healthcare systems in funny ways. Dentists still drill and fill teeth and physicians still look at the body from the tonsils south. Medical and dental education is still provided separately almost everywhere in this country and our two systems have grown up to provide care separately, too.

Beck: It seems like since the historic rebuff, dentists have really wanted to stay separate. Why is that, do you think?

Otto: People have raised questions about the system over the years, and they’ve called for reforms periodically. Nearly a century ago, in the 1920s, this biological chemist named William Gies was a kind of prophet. He visited every dental school in the country and in Canada for the Carnegie Foundation, for this big report, and he called for dentistry to be considered an essential part of the healthcare system. He said: “Dentistry can no longer be accepted as mere tooth technology.” He wanted oral health and overall health to be integrated into the same system, but organized dentistry fought to keep dental schools separate. [Dentists] emerged as defenders of the professional autonomy and professional independence of the private practice system that we have here. David Satcher, the [former] surgeon general, he kind of said the same thing when he issued this “Oral Health in America” report in 2000. He said we must recognize that oral health and general health are inseparable. And that too, was a kind of challenge. And it seems like things are changing, but very slowly.

Beck: So you think the reason they wanted to stay separate was really just a matter of professional independence?

Otto: Yeah. It’s a marketplace issue. It’s a formidable thing, professional autonomy.

Beck: It’s interesting to hear this separation traced back to one moment because it has shaped so many things—insurance, access to care, all these things. Can you give an overview of what the effects have been of carving dentistry out of medicine?

Otto: One of the most dramatic examples is that more than a million people a year go to emergency rooms with dental problems. Not like they’ve had a car accident, but like a toothache or some kind of problem you could treat in a dental office. It costs the system more than a billion dollars a year for these visits. And the patients very seldom get the kind of dental care they need for their underlying dental problems because dentists don’t work in emergency rooms very often. The patient gets maybe a prescription for an antibiotic and a pain medicine and is told to go visit his or her dentist. But a lot of these patients don’t have dentists. So there’s this dramatic reminder here that your oral health is part of your overall health, that drives you to the emergency room but you get to this gap where there’s no care.

There’s also the fact that our medical records and our dental records are kept separately. Dentistry has treatment codes, but it doesn’t really have a commonly accepted diagnostic code language which makes it hard to integrate medical and dental records and harder to do research on the commonalities between oral health and overall health.

One dental researcher said at a meeting I was at, “Back in the days of the bubonic plague, medicine captured why people die. We don’t capture why teeth die.” There’s this gap in the way we understand oral diseases and the way we approach tooth decay. We still approach it like it’s a surgical problem that needs to be fixed, rather than a disease that needs to be prevented and treated. And we see tooth decay through a moral lens, almost. We judge people who have oral disease as moral failures, rather than people who are suffering from a disease.

Beck: Insurance is all separated out as well, and a lot of times it’s optional. How, politically, did dental care come to be seen as optional?

Otto: There were discussions all through the 20th century, periodically, about this subject. Organized dentistry, like organized medicine, fought nationalized health care on a lot of fronts and testified against the practicality of extending benefits to everyone in the country. And all the healthcare programs that we’ve come up with as a nation have on some level or another left oral health out, or given it sort of an auxiliary status as a fringe benefit. Private insurance has also treated it that way.

Beck: It’s interesting, on one hand, dental care is treated as “optional,” but on the other hand, as you note in the book, there’s this social pressure to have perfect teeth, especially in America, especially among the rich. And so there’s a lot of money to be made in cosmetic dentistry. Do you think that social pressure to have perfect teeth is kind of exacerbating the inequality?

Otto: I think on some level it must. We do put so much emphasis on perfect smiles and there is a lot of money to be made in that field. One dentist I talked to as I was working on this project said “Nobody wants to do the low-end stuff anymore.” Of course there is a lot more money to be made with some of these really high-end procedures. But on the other hand there’s this vast need for just basic basic care. A third of the country faces barriers in getting just the most routine preventive and restorative procedures that can keep people healthy.“There’s this kind of feast and famine aspect to dental care that’s striking.”

Beck: I wonder if the value put on that perfect Hollywood smile is in part because so many people don’t have access to dental care, so perfect teeth are a very clear way of signaling your wealth. More clear than if everyone had access to good care and had decent teeth.

Otto: It could be. It’s very interesting. This whole “perfect American smile” did have its origins in Depression-era Hollywood. Filmed movies were still pretty new at that point. There was this young dentist named Charles Pincus who had this dental office that opened on Hollywood and Vine and he went to the movies too. And he saw these movie actors who didn’t have perfect teeth up on the silver screen, like James Dean, who actually grew up on a farm and had dentures, and Judy Garland, and Shirley Temple. He started working with the studios. He created these little snap-on veneers for Shirley Temple so we never saw her lose her baby teeth. Over all the years she had a perfect little set of pearly whites.

But you’re right, there’s this kind of feast and famine aspect to this that’s striking. They call the [top] front six teeth “The Social Six,” and the perfect set of veneers for these front six teeth are not just a status symbol here in this country—they’re sought around the world as a marker of success.

Beck: I guess partially because of this market for cosmetic dentistry, dentists tend to cluster in rich areas, and there are often shortages in rural areas or poorer areas. But at the same time, you write about a lot of instances where dentists were really resistant to allowing anyone else to provide that preventive care, like training hygienists to do cleanings in schools. Why is that so controversial?

Otto: There’s been a long history of that and it really came home to me with some of the stories I heard, like the story of Tammi Byrd, this dental hygienist in South Carolina. There’s about a quarter million children living in the rural areas of the state who weren’t getting care, and she and some other dental hygienists fought to get the law changed so they could go out and see children without being first examined by a dentist. The dental association just fought back, they got an emergency regulation passed to stop her from doing her work and finally the Federal Trade Commission came in and took her case and won it for her, in the interest of getting economical preventive care to all these children who lacked it.

But, yeah, there’s this marketplace issue. Private organized dentistry protects the marketplace for care and the power of private practitioners to provide it but that leaves a lot of people out. Stories like the battle of this dental hygienist in South Carolina, or the battle that’s going on over these midlevel providers called dental therapists in a number of states, really illustrate how fiercely that terrain is protected.

Organized dentistry continues to say the current supply of dentists can meet the need, that if the system paid more for the care, more providers would locate in these poorer areas. That we Americans need to value our care more and go out and find care more aggressively. They see the fault as being with society at large.

Beck: This opposition to hygienists stepping up and filling that role, does that have anything to do with the fact that hygienists are mostly women? You quoted some old-timey dentists who were like, “Ah yes, the best assistant for a dentist is a woman because she won’t be ambitious and take over our patients." And it kind of sounds like that attitude is still around in some ways.

Otto: You could say that there might be a sense of that still. There’s certainly a deep sense among the powers of organized dentistry that only dentists are qualified to do the lion’s share of dentistry.

Beck: Are there other plans proposed to fill the gap in dental care, if not letting the hygienists or the dental therapists do it? Is there another plan that would be more pleasing to dentists?

Otto: They have their own alternative model. It's kind of a health navigator who connects people with existing dentists, a community-health-worker type of model. [The navigator] helps divert people from ERs into existing dental offices, helps people make dental appointments, educates them about maintaining oral health, and taking care of their children. But it’s guiding people to existing dentists, rather than expanding the dental workforce.

Beck: And if they don’t have insurance then it’s not going to help very much?

Otto: It’s not as helpful. Unless there’s a philanthropy or some kind of group that’s raising money to pay for the care.

Beck: The separation between dental and medical care is pretty entrenched at this point. Do you think it can be overcome, that it should be overcome, that the two could be integrated a little more? What might that look like, do you think it would help?

Otto: Something that was talked about in the medical world during the work going into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was the “Triple Aim”: bending the cost curve toward prevention, expanding care more broadly and more cheaply, and [creating] a better quality of care. It’s something that needs to be discussed in the oral health world too, and I think it’s being discussed more.

Beck: Do you think it would be like a parallel reform in dentistry or would it be more integrating them back together somewhat?

Otto: It seems like it’s going to have to involve both. There’s been work being done in this area, there’ve been efforts to put dental hygienists into these federally qualified health centers that are part of our public-health safety net, which serve poor rural communities. It seems like it’s capturing an increasing amount of attention from state lawmakers, governors, and public health officials who are interested in bringing costs down for all kinds of health care and seeing that these things show promise. They're saying we’re spending too much on emergency rooms, we're spending too much on hospitalization for these preventable problems, so there are cost incentives to get more preventive and timely routine restorative care to people.

Beck: Trying to undo some of the damage of the historic rebuff.

Otto: Yeah, isn’t it funny?

this is from The Atlantic...interview is from like seven years ago, though, so no guilt about bringing it out from the paywall.

#dental health #dentistry #diy health #healthcare access

0 notes

back-and-totheleft · 9 months

Text

Democracy Now

Nearly five decades later, a new poll has found a clear majority of Americans still suspect there was a conspiracy behind the assassination. However, according to the Associated Press JFK poll, the percentage of those who believe accused shooter Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is at its highest level since the mid-’60s. The survey, conducted in mid-April, said 59 percent of Americans think multiple people were involved in a conspiracy to kill the president, while 24 percent think Oswald acted alone, 16 percent are still unsure. A 2003 Gallup poll found 75 percent of Americans felt there was a conspiracy.

We’re joined for the hour by three-time Academy Award-winning director, producer, screenwriter, Oliver Stone. A Vietnam War veteran, he’s made around two dozen acclaimed Hollywood films, including Platoon, Wall Street, Salvador, Born on the Fourth of July, JFK, Nixon, W., South of the Border and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. A commemorative edition of JFK comes out on Blu-ray next week as the 50th anniversary of his assassination approaches on November 22nd. Most recently, Stone has co-written a multi-part Showtime series called Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States, which is also available on Blu-ray and includes a companion book with the same name.

We’re also joined by Peter Kuznick, a professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, co-author of The Untold History of the United States.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Oliver Stone, let’s begin with you. As we move into this 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, your thoughts?

OLIVER STONE: Thank you, Amy, for having me back. It’s nice to see you again. Hello, Peter.

PETER KUZNICK: Hi, Oliver.

OLIVER STONE: My thoughts. I saw the film inside these last few days, and I’ve been able to assess it again, and I’ve followed the cases more or less from the outside. I haven’t been inside. It’s amazing to me that people still deny it. As you know, I was in the infantry in Vietnam. I had a fair amount of combat experience. I saw people blown away in action. When you look once again at the basics of the film—the bullets, the autopsy, the forensics, the shooting path—and stay away from all the other stuff—Oswald’s background and Garrison, etc.—just follow the meat, the evidence, what you see with your own eyes in those six seconds, it’s an amazing—it’s all there. It doesn’t need to be elaborated upon. You can see it with your own eyes.

You see Kennedy make his—get a hit in the throat. Then you see Kennedy get a hit in the back. Then you see him essentially get a hit from the front. When he gets the hit from the front, which is the fourth or the fifth or the sixth shot, he goes back and to the left. That’s the basic evidence. You see a man fly back because he gets hit right here. Many witnesses at Parkland and at the autopsy in Bethesda saw a massive exit wound to the rear of his skull, to the right side. The people at Parkland, including the young doctor, McClelland, saw his cerebellum, his brain, go out the—almost falling out of the back of his skull. Later, when he gets taken—illegally—to the—to Bethesda, Maryland, the military—

AMY GOODMAN: Why illegal?

OLIVER STONE: Via what?

AMY GOODMAN: You said when he was taken illegally.

OLIVER STONE: He was taken immediately, I mean, within an hour or two, he start—but it takes four hours to fly there, plus the autopsy doesn’t go off until later that evening. And it’s manipulated. It’s—the doctors at the autopsy are not in charge of the autopsy. They’re naval—naval technicians, surgeons. The military is telling them what to do.

And when this whole thing emerges, what we have are weird shots of—the back of his head is patched up, basically. And the shot—they’re trying to justify the shot from the rear to the front. So they’re saying that the shot from the back came into his back and hit Connally. There’s—they talk about three bullets. One missed. The magic bullet, that was devised by Arlen Specter and others, devises a path that’s impossible. It’s seven wounds in two people, in Kennedy and in Connally. The bullet hits Kennedy—

AMY GOODMAN: This was John Connally.

OLIVER STONE: —in the back, goes out his throat, zigs to the right, hits Connally in the left, goes down to Connally’s right wrist. It bounces back into his left knee. It’s a farce. And they got away with it, because it’s a lot of mumbo-jumbo, and they used scientific evidence. But when people are in combat, they see things. They see people—they go with the bullet wound. It’s essential. And this was a—Kennedy was shot right before Connally in the back. Connally gets shot. Then Kennedy—

AMY GOODMAN: Governor Connally.

OLIVER STONE: —gets the head shot. So there’s at least five shots here. And this is what you have to go in—look at the Zapruder film over and over again, even if they altered it, which—

AMY GOODMAN: And for young people who don’t know who Zapruder was, and the film—

OLIVER STONE: Oh, Zapruder was a—was a local man who shot this film, that was taken by the CIA and the Secret Service, and it was altered a bit, I think. There’s a lot of evidence to that effect. You have to—you’re getting into scientific now. But the Zapruder film, even now, is the best signpost. It’s the timing of the—it’s the timing. It shows you the, how do you call, the time frame of the assassination.

And we have a scene in the movie where you see the man trying to do what Oswald did with a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from World War II, which is a very bad weapon, Italian weapon, infantryman rifle. And you have to fire the shot, through a tree, at a moving—at a target moving away from you. You can’t do it. Two teams of FBI experts tried to do it, plus CBS, I believe, and various other organizations have tried to simulate that shooting in less than six seconds. It’s not possible. So, this was a sophisticated ambush. There had to be a shot from the front, from that—from that front, that fence, and at least one shooter from the front. At least one.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to a clip from your film, JFK, when former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison watches a TV news report about Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged killer. Then he makes a phone call to his associate and tells him to investigate Oswald’s connection to New Orleans a little bit further.

REPORTER: … of Lee Harvey Oswald.

MATTIE: [played by Pat Perkins] A fine man.

REPORTER: After a stint in the Marines, he apparently became fascinated by communism.

BOB: He is still believed to be a dedicated Marxist and a fanatical supporter of Fidel Castro and ultra-left-wing causes. He spent last summer in New Orleans and was arrested there in a brawl with anti-Castro Cuban exiles.

REPORTER: And apparently, Bob, Oswald had been passing out pro-Castro pamphlets for an organization …

JIM GARRISON: Hello, Lou? Yeah, sorry to disturb you this late.

LOU IVON: [played by Jay O. Sanders] That’s all right. I’m watching it, too.

JIM GARRISON: Yeah, a matter of routine, but we better get on this Oswald connection to New Orleans right away.

LOU IVON: Mm-hmm.

JIM GARRISON: All right, I want you to check out his record, find any friends or associates from last summer. Let’s meet with the senior assistants and investigators day after tomorrow, all right?

LOU IVON: That be on Sunday?

JIM GARRISON: Sunday, yeah, at 11:00.

LOU IVON: All right.

JIM GARRISON: All right, thanks, Lou.

LOU IVON: Mm-hmm.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Kevin Costner, who played Jim Garrison, who is actually the central figure in your film. Why Jim Garrison, the DA?

OLIVER STONE: Well, Jim Garrison was the only public official who brought charges in the case. He started this case. It was a very difficult thing to bring charges against the covert operations of a U.S. government, which he thought it was. You know, now that we’ve lived a little longer and we’re older, we know about how difficult that is. We know Snowden’s case. We know WikiLeaks’s case. We know Manning’s case. All these people have been—can’t get it out. I mean, they had trouble. People disbelieve it. When Garrison believed the story, as I did—I was younger—years go by, three years later Garrison—Garrison calls in David Ferrie. He—very suspicious things happened in New Orleans. But he was suspicious , but the FBI dismissed all—dismissed all the witnesses he called. Three years later, he got into the case because Senator Russell Long of Georgia told him that he didn’t believe this—this Warren—

AMY GOODMAN: Of Louisiana.

OLIVER STONE: So, Garrison started to read the whole Warren Commission, and he started to see all the inconsistencies of it, and he started to call in the witnesses. He got into some hot water. The CIA watched this thing very closely. We now know that they had files on Jim. They bugged his offices. They stole the files. They had informants on his staff. It was an impossible case. Three of his witnesses died. Others—others just were not called. They were—the subpoenas were denied, etc. He called Allen Dulles. He called several members of the CIA. That was not allowed.

AMY GOODMAN: Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA.

OLIVER STONE: Yeah, Allen Dulles had been the head of the CIA, had been fired by Kennedy and was the head of the Warren Commission and ran the commission, which is a very bizarre—

AMY GOODMAN: And the Warren Commission is the one that had investigated—

OLIVER STONE: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —done the so-called independent investigation.

OLIVER STONE: Yeah, you’re asking me to go through the whole case here. Yeah, the Warren Commission is the—is the Rosetta Stone of this country. It’s another one of these mists that covers up.

You know, look, this case is very similar, that scene you showed—when Snowden was first described as a lone, fame-seeking narcissist, you find very much the similarities to the Oswald case. Oswald was identified right away, on that Friday afternoon. They had the profile ready. This is a lone nut, Marxist sympathizer, who obviously was not only alienated, but disliked Kennedy—none of which is true, because he was none of these things. And we go—you can find that out by reading or looking at the movie. But the first label seems to stick, whether it was the WMD in Iraq, when you put that first story out there. And there’s something about that, whether it’s the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that kicks off the Vietnam War or the—for that matter, the blowing up of the Maine in the Spanish harbor. These stories spread, and that first impression stays. And that’s—it’s a shame. It’s like the Reichstag fire in Germany.

And Oswald has been—what bothers me the most is that people who are intelligent, The New York Times, the Vanity Fair fellow, the guy in The New Yorker, they write these long pieces, and they just—and they say, essentially, in the article, “Well, we—history has sort of shown us that Oswald is the—the consensus is that Oswald did it alone.” Well, but they don’t read the books by Bob Groden or Cyril Wecht or James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, or they don’t deal with the ballistics, which is very important because the argument—Bob Groden has done the best photographic analysis of the bullet wounds and the photography. And he can show, in his last book—his most recent book is called Absolute Proof. It’s coming out right now. Bob Groden has done—has been on this thing 30 years. He’s the best. Talk to the people who really have studied pathology, autopsies and photo evidence.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Oliver Stone, why does this matter 50 years later?

OLIVER STONE: Ah, good question. Good question. What was Kennedy doing? Peter and I address this in a larger text in our Untold History of the United States. A very important president. Keep in mind, this is 13 years after the national security state starts. We are massively armed. Between 1947, Truman, and Eisenhower in 1960, we go from 1,000 nuclear weapons to 30,000 nuclear weapons. By 1960, we are supreme. We are the sole superpower, truly. We have the ability at this point, after many crises with the Soviet Union, many nuclear threats made by Eisenhower—several, five, six—John Foster Dulles believed in brinksmanship—you remember that policy?—taking things to the brink. We called it a containment of communism, but really we were forcing back, rolling back. We were aggressive. We wanted a war, basically, because we knew that the Soviets would arm up after 1960, they would catch up with us eventually. We feared that. They never did, but we feared it. We knew in 1960 that in a first-strike situation we could win, and we could—we could sustain the retaliation. So we had a very hopped-up Pentagon.

We saw in Berlin there was an anger at Kennedy for what they called being soft on communism, which meant that he allowed the wall to be built. Remember when the Berlin Wall went up, Kennedy had a great quote. He said, “I’d rather have a wall than a war.” And he was looked—he was looked on as a young man, not up to Eisenhower’s military status, not up to snuff. When Cuba came around, he failed to support the Bay of Pigs invasion. And then he failed to go into Laos, which was expected of him. And then, when the October crisis rolled around in ’62, he backed down. That was their viewpoint of it. He backed down, and he said no to invading Cuba, to going in and bombing the missile sites.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting, Oliver, when we put out yesterday that you were coming on, we were just inundated with questions and—

OLIVER STONE: It’s a very important issue.

AMY GOODMAN: On our Facebook page, Ronan Duggan posted this question to you: “Would you agree that much of the history of JFK has been romanticized and he has been transformed into a sort of liberal hero? The truth is he was a horrific warmonger,” said this person on Facebook.

OLIVER STONE: No, no. Kennedy, on the contrary, he did—had to—you could not become president in 1960, I mean, by being soft on communism. You had to be a hardliner. It was the only way to get elected. Yeah, he went to the right of Nixon at that point, true, and—but he did not know the missile gap. He believed the missile gap existed, that was being talked about. When he got into office, within six weeks, he hired Bob McNamara, an outsider from Ford, to be his defense secretary. He had McNamara go into the Pentagon and find out where we were. And he found out that it was all a myth, that in fact we were way ahead of the Soviets, on every level—on every level—and that we could have, unfortunately, a first strike against the Soviet Union. He realized, in that atmosphere, that his generals were up to—were really gearing up for a war, because if they didn’t fight the Soviets in 1960, their thinking was that the Soviets are going to catch up, and we’re going to have these crises in Berlin, Vietnam, Laos for the rest—it will—there will be a war sometime in the near future, by 1970. So they’re thinking about let’s do it, let’s do it now. And you remember the Dr. Strangelove movie about the whole thing about the retaliation? You remember Jack Ripper, the Sterling Hayden character? That’s based on Curtis LeMay, who was the chief of staff of the Air Force, and Thomas Power also, who was later the chief of staff. He was an Air Force general. These people wanted war. Or Arleigh Burke of the Navy, Lemnitzer, who was the chief of the—the head of the whole thing, chief of staff at the beginning. This new book, Bob Dallek, who’s an establishment historian, doesn’t agree with our assassination concept, he goes into detail in Camelot’s Court, this new book, about how Kennedy was fighting, for those years, with the military on all fronts.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going break and then come back. Our guest is Oliver Stone, three-time Academy Award-winning director, producer, screenwriter. Among his films, JFK. This month is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. When we come back, we’ll also be joined by Peter Kuznick, history professor at American University. Together, they did Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Our guests for the hour, Oliver Stone, many-time Academy Award-winning director, producer, screenwriter; Peter Kuznick, history professor at American University. They co-authored the many-part series, The Untold History of the United States. It’s in both book form as well as DVD. It’s a Showtime series. I want to go right now to this clip from Untold History of the United States, which recalls a close call that happened October 27, 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, when it was ultimately a Soviet colonel who averted nuclear war.

OLIVER STONE: On October 27th, an incident occurred that Schlesinger described as not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War, it was “the most dangerous moment in human history.” The Russian ships were heading toward the quarantine line. One of four Soviet submarines sent to protect the ships was being hunted all day by the carrier, USS Randolph. More than a hundred miles outside the blockade, the Randolph began dropping depth charges, unaware the sub was carrying nuclear weapons. The explosion rocked the submarine, which went dark except for emergency lights. The temperature rose sharply. The carbon dioxide in the air reached near-lethal levels, and people could barely breathe. Men began to faint and fall down. The suffering went on for four hours. Then, the Americans hit us with something stronger. We thought, “That’s it. The end.” Panic ensued.

Commander Valentin Savitsky tried, without success, to reach the general staff. He assumed the war had already started, and they were going to die in disgrace for having done nothing. He ordered the nuclear torpedo to be prepared for firing. He turned to the other two officers aboard. Fortunately for mankind, the political officer, Vasili Arkhipov, was able to calm him down and convince him not to launch—probably single-handedly preventing nuclear war.

AMY GOODMAN: Oliver Stone narrating The Untold History of the United States, which was co-written by Oliver Stone and our guest, Peter Kuznick, as well, history professor at American University. Just continue on this 1962 moment and how—

OLIVER STONE: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —nuclear war was averted, Oliver.

OLIVER STONE: Well, it was during this crisis in October, it—Eisenhower told Kennedy, through an intermediary, to go, to bomb. But we had no concept of what the Russians—there was 40,000 Russian troops, hardened troops, under the command of the commander of the—of Stalingrad during World War II. There were a rough, tough unit. They would have gone the distance. They had a hundred nuclear—battlefield nuclear weapons. A hundred. We didn’t know that. McNamara admitted all this much later in his life. The Cubans were armed, like 200,000 Cubans, so that we would have faced far more significant casualties going in there than we thought. It would have evolved into a real nuclear confrontation in the Caribbean, and it probably would have spread, most likely spread quickly, because we had bombers armed to go over China, drop bombs on China, from Okinawa. We were ready to blow off the Soviet Union. That was Eisenhower’s plan, was essentially—because what Eisenhower did in his eight years of office was to make nuclear weapons a alternative to conventional weapons, because we didn’t have the size of the conventional weapons of the Soviets, so we were ready to use nuclear. We were ready to go, and Washington was in the sights. The whole world, I don’t—I think, would have gone up.

Khrushchev and Kennedy, at the last second, through their—through Dobrynin and his brother Robert, said no, basically, to their hardliners. And it cost both men dearly. The generals were furious with Kennedy. LeMay was raging at the meeting that was described by McNamara and others. They thought—LeMay said, “We lost. We lost. This was our moment.” And Khrushchev was criticized by his own people, but the Soviets were inferior in strength. And they—but they built up after that crisis. They built up significantly, so by the late 1970s they were almost achieving parity. So, in other words, Kennedy and Khrushchev saved—what we’re saying is Kennedy and Khrushchev saved the world at a very key moment. We owe him a lot.

AMY GOODMAN: Peter Kuznick, this is also the beginning of the Cuban embargo that exists to this day, 1962. Can you explain how that happened?

PETER KUZNICK: Well, the United States policy was really to overthrow the Castro government, to do everything it could to sabotage, undermine, overthrow the Castro government. The fear was that you were going to have similar kinds of revolutionary movements throughout Latin America, that they would stand as an example. The United States policy since that time has been not only to isolate the Cuban government, but to attempt to prevent similar kind of left-wing uprisings from occurring elsewhere.

We do overthrow other governments down there. For example, the way we treat Vietnam in our Vietnam episode, episode seven, is we put it in a different context. We want to show that Vietnam is not an aberration, so we begin with the overthrow of the government in Brazil in 1964. We then go to the overthrow in the Dominican Republic in 1965. We show the U.S. role in the bloodbath in Indonesia in 1965. We talk about the escalation of Vietnam. And we also talk about U.S. overthrow of the Allende government in Chile.

The big concern for the United States was not Cuba itself; it was the possibility throughout Latin America, in our own backyard, for a series of communist revolutions and for radical movements down there. We work, under Kissinger, with the right-wing governments in Latin America in something called Operation Condor, which was basically an operation to set up death squads throughout Latin America to kill not only revolutionaries, but reformers and dissidents. We see this policy continue through the 1980s under the Reagan administration throughout Central America, the U.S. working with the right-wing government in El Salvador, the U.S. role in Guatemala, the U.S. support for the Contras in Nicaragua. So Cuba is only a small piece in it.

But as Oliver is saying, the Cuban missile crisis is a crucial turning point, and it’s a crucial turning point in Kennedy’s mind and in Khrushchev’s mind. Khrushchev, afterwards, writes a letter to Kennedy in which he says, “Evil has done some good. Our people have felt the flames of thermonuclear war. Let’s take an advantage of this.” He said, “Let’s remove every possible area of conflict between us that can lead to another crisis. Let’s stop all nuclear testing. Let’s remove all the problems between us.” So, Khrushchev then says, “Let’s get rid of the military blocks. Let’s get rid of NATO. Let’s get rid of the Warsaw Pact.” He reaches out to Kennedy. This is actually a moment, as he says that, evil can bring some good, because what Kennedy and Khrushchev both understood from the Cuban missile crisis was that despite all of their efforts to prevent a nuclear war, when a crisis like this occurs, they actually lose control. They both—we came very close to nuclear war despite the fact that both of them were doing everything they could to avert it at that point. So Khrushchev says, “Let’s get rid of anything that could cause another conflict.”

And what happens over the next year, until Kennedy’s assassination, is they do begin to cooperate on a number of issues. As Oliver was saying before, Kennedy had a lot of enemies. And the reason why he had so many enemies is because he stood up to the generals, to the joint chiefs, to the intelligence community, to the establishment, time after time after time. And then, in this period, we reach out. We conclude the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. The joint chiefs were furious about the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. It was the first nuclear arms control treaty we had. He begins to reach out to Cuba for rapprochement with Cuba at the end of his life. Castro was very, very disappointed when Kennedy was assassinated. He talks about pulling the U.S. forces out of Vietnam. In NSAM 263, he wants to pull a thousand troops out by the end of the year, get all the troops out by 1965. His signature initiative, in many people’s mind, is the space race. Kennedy says, “Why should we be competing with the Soviet Union for who’s going to be first to get into space? We should work together jointly for a joint mission of space exploration and putting a man jointly on the moon.” And in his American University commencement address, he basically calls for an end to the Cold War.

So, the Kennedy of 1963, in response to that person who posted on Facebook, Kennedy of 1963 was really very much of a visionary. And Oliver and I believe that this was the last time we had an American president who was really willing to—wanted to change the direction of the country, stand up to the militarists, stand up to the intelligence community, and take the United States in a very different direction. So, the tragedy of Kennedy’s assassination is not just that we lost this one man, but it’s that the United States and the Soviet Union were both looking to take the world in a very, very different direction. And Kennedy is assassinated. Khrushchev is ousted the next year. And as we say—Kennedy, in his inauguration, says we’re going to pass the torch forward to a new generation, and we say that now the torch has been passed back to the old generation, the generation of Johnson, Nixon, Eisenhower, and the world goes back very heavily into Cold War.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back—

PETER KUZNICK: Johnson wastes little time.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a clip from The Untold History of the United States, where you look at the transition from JFK to LBJ.

OLIVER STONE: With the ascension of Vice President Lyndon Johnson, there would be important changes in many of Kennedy’s policies, particularly towards the Soviet Union and Vietnam.

PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON: I will do my best. That is all I can do.

OLIVER STONE: In his inaugural address in the morning of that decade in January 1961—

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: Let the word go forth, from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.

OLIVER STONE: But with his murder, the torch was passed back to an old generation, the generation of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Reagan, leaders who would systematically destroy the promise of Kennedy’s last year, as they returned the country to war and repression. Though the vision Khrushchev and Kennedy had expressed would fall with them, it would not die. The seeds they had planted would germinate and sprout again long after their deaths.

AMY GOODMAN: Oliver Stone narrating The Untold History of the United States.

OLIVER STONE: Yes, yeah. It’s five years of my life. It’s perhaps my most ambitious project.

AMY GOODMAN: Why is this so important to you? It begins actually in what, 1898? The year after my grandmother was born.

OLIVER STONE: It begins with—it begins with the Spanish-American War and the first, really, effort overseas by America to expand. We take the Philippines, and we basically take Cuba. This whole series, from 1898 to 2013 is—in a sense, it’s a mourning. It’s a mourning for a country that could, after World War II, have taken another direction. And if Roosevelt had lived a little longer, it may well have, or if Henry Wallace had been the—had been the real vice president. And when I think—what we’re doing, Peter and I, is we’re really—after George Bush had been in office two terms in 2008, we said, “What is—is he an aberration, or is he a continuation of a pattern?” So we went back to our early lives in the 1940s and studied this whole pattern. And we see a pattern. If you look at all chapters together quickly, in 12 hours, you feel the dream, the fever dream, the aggression, the militarism, the racism towards the Third World—it doesn’t end—the exploitation.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact—

OLIVER STONE: There’s good things, too. I’m not saying only bad things. We try to point out the hopes.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, didn’t this project start around you wanting to tell the story of Henry Wallace? Most people who are watching right now don’t even know who Henry Wallace was.

OLIVER STONE: Henry Wallace is a wonderful character, but not the only character in this thing. No, the—what for me was the important thing—I was born right after it—was the atomic bomb. I always had accepted, like I accepted the story of Kennedy’s assassination, I accepted that we needed to drop the bomb to win World War II, because the Japanese were fanatics. Well, we’ve got to go back to that myth, and we explore it in depth. And we have it—I think we show that our use of the bomb was criminal and immoral. And we proved to the Soviet Union, as well as to the world, that we could be as barbaric as the Nazis were.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain why you think the world would be a very different place if this vice president in the 1940s—

OLIVER STONE: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: —Henry Wallace, had actually continued to be the vice president under FDR?

OLIVER STONE: Yeah. Well, because he was a—he was a peace seeker. He was a man of international vision. He spoke of the century of the common man in—it was a counter to Henry Luce of Time magazine that made a speech about this is the American century. Luce talks a lot like Hillary Clinton these days. So, Wallace countered with, “No, America should stand for the common man throughout the world.” He was very much an internationalist—women’s rights, labor rights, believed in—hated colonialism, hated the British Empire and all of what Winston Churchill was fighting for in World War II. They were enemies. Roosevelt agreed with a lot of them, but Roosevelt was sickening and weakening, and the country was becoming more fearful of postwar issues. Wallace hung in there, although he had been robbed of the vice presidency by a fixed convention in ’44. He hung in there as secretary of commerce under Truman for as long as he could, fighting for peace after the war. Of course, he was called a communist and all that stuff, but he was really a liberal. And—

AMY GOODMAN: He ran for president in 1948.

OLIVER STONE: Yeah, as a third party.

AMY GOODMAN: But in ’44, he was knocked out, and Truman was the vice-presidential candidate of FDR.

OLIVER STONE: Yeah, and Wallace was the most popular man in the—at the Democratic convention. He had 65 percent of the Democratic voters liked him. And he almost won that first night, but he was blocked. The convention was closed down. Fire exits were closed, or something like that. Truman had 2 percent of the vote. Truman was a nonentity who overnight became—and didn’t know much about what Roosevelt’s plans were. But the—the Grand Alliance—

AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the ascension of Truman after FDR died in office?

OLIVER STONE: Yes. And he—

AMY GOODMAN: He is the one who dropped the bomb.

OLIVER STONE: Truman, within two weeks of becoming president after Roosevelt’s death, insulted the Soviet foreign minister. I mean, it was—within 11 days, our policy towards the Soviet Union shifted and stayed that way. And, you know, if you read all the revisionist historians who have written about this in depth, the United States took a hostile—Roosevelt had a vision, and it was a Grand Alliance between the Soviets and the British. Perhaps that was very hard to maintain. It takes a big man. Roosevelt was that kind of thinker. Wallace was. And we’re saying Kennedy was. And I urge you to rethink your—the fellow who said he was a warmonger, please, rethink Kennedy and look at everything here we’re talking about. This is a big issue. But we’ve lost that Grand Alliance. We’ve lost that—we’ve lost that leadership that’s bigger than simply ideological economic factions, is what we have in the United States. We’ve given in to what Peter called militarism, as you know very well.

AMY GOODMAN: When we come back from break, I want to ask you about this next chapter of American history, about surveillance and drones, about President Obama and where you think he stands, and also about this next project that you’ll be working on around Dr. King.

OLIVER STONE: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! We’re with Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour, three-time Academy Award-winning director, producer, screenwriter, Oliver Stone, did Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon and Wall Street and Salvador and JFK, as well as a 10-part series for Showtime called The Untold History of the United States, now out in DVD form with two extra chapters. Our guest also, Peter Kuznick, who co-wrote the book and worked—co-authored the series, a history professor at American University. Peter Kuznick, what this next chapter looks like today, what we are experiencing today in the United States?

PETER KUZNICK: It’s a continuation of the trends that Oliver and I were talking about from the 1890s up to the present. We had a lot of hope for Obama when he was elected in 2008. I guess we were somewhat naive, because Obama, rather than breaking with the patterns of American empire and American militarism, has continued most of them. Ari Fleischer, Bush’s press secretary, said that this is actually George W. Bush’s fourth term that we’re experiencing now. And in some ways that’s true, and disappointingly so. Obama, from the beginning, surrounded himself with very, very conservative advisers. His economic team was considered — The New York Times called them a constellation of Rubinites, followers of Robert Rubin. His military team, his defense policy, foreign policy, were mostly hawks—people like Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, General Jones—and his policies have reflected that.

Oliver and I see him as simply a more efficient manager of the American empire, not somebody who’s breaking with the empire. He doesn’t even think in different terms. For example, he recently called for a 13-year commemoration of the Vietnam War, in which we’re going to reposition our understanding of the Vietnam War. And that’s very, very dangerous. A recent poll showed that 51 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds now think that the Vietnam War was worth fighting, see the Vietnam War as an American interest. Those people our age, about 70 percent say the Vietnam War was a mistake or even worse. But the fact that younger people are not learning history and are seeing the Vietnam War in more positive light is symptomatic of what Oliver and are concerned about, that people’s understanding of history is distorted in such a way as to perpetuate the trends that we find very, very objectionable.

Video link. From November 5, 2013.

#oliver stone #democracy now #jfk #untold history of the united states #video #audio #amy goodman #peter kuznick

0 notes

knowldege · 11 months

Text

Best Medical Colleges in the US as per the Latest Rankings

Pursuing a medical degree in the United States is a dream for many aspiring healthcare professionals worldwide. The US is renowned for its cutting-edge medical education, world-class research facilities, and a commitment to producing top-tier medical practitioners. In this guide, we'll explore some of the best medical colleges in the US according to the latest rankings. If you're considering studying medicine in the US, the information below, in collaboration with experienced study abroad consultants in Delhi like GoToUniversity, will help you make informed decisions.

Harvard Medical School

Harvard Medical School consistently ranks among the top medical schools globally. Located in Boston, Massachusetts, it boasts a rich history of medical education and groundbreaking research. Harvard Medical School offers a comprehensive medical curriculum and numerous opportunities for clinical experience in top-tier hospitals.

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Johns Hopkins is renowned for its pioneering contributions to healthcare. Its School of Medicine, located in Baltimore, Maryland, is no exception. With cutting-edge research centers, state-of-the-art facilities, and a focus on patient care, it consistently ranks among the best medical colleges in the US.

Stanford University School of Medicine

Situated in Stanford, California, the Stanford University School of Medicine is known for its innovative approach to medical education and research. It offers a unique curriculum that encourages hands-on experience and interdisciplinary collaboration, making it an attractive choice for aspiring medical professionals.

Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine

The Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, located in Rochester, Minnesota, is synonymous with excellence in patient care and medical research. Its smaller class sizes and close-knit community foster a supportive learning environment, making it a standout choice for medical students.

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

The Perelman School of Medicine, part of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, emphasizes innovation in education and research. It boasts strong connections to world-renowned hospitals and provides students with ample clinical exposure.

Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, offers a medical program that combines classroom learning with extensive clinical experience. Its commitment to research and patient care is evident in its consistent top-tier rankings.

University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine

UCSF School of Medicine, situated in the heart of San Francisco, is known for its focus on healthcare disparities and community service. It offers a diverse range of clinical experiences and is highly regarded for its commitment to social justice in healthcare.

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Located in New York City, Columbia University's medical school is renowned for its exceptional faculty and state-of-the-art facilities. Its curriculum emphasizes research and clinical practice, making it a top choice for those seeking a well-rounded medical education.

Study Medicine in the US with GoToUniversity

Studying medicine in the US is a significant decision, and it's essential to choose the right institution that aligns with your academic and career goals. This is where study abroad consultants in Delhi, like GoToUniversity, can be invaluable. They provide expert guidance, helping you navigate the complex application process, select the best colleges in the US, and secure financial aid if needed.

In conclusion, the US offers some of the best medical colleges in the world, each with its unique strengths and focus areas. Whether you aspire to become a physician, surgeon, researcher, or healthcare leader, these top-ranked institutions provide the education, resources, and opportunities needed to excel in the field of medicine. Collaborate with study abroad consultants like GoToUniversity to turn your dream of studying medicine in the US into a reality. Your journey to a rewarding medical career begins with the right choice of college.

#studyabroad #gotouniversity #studyinusa #medicalstudent

0 notes

recentlyheardcom · 11 months

Text

WASHINGTON (AP) — The second person to receive a transplanted heart from a pig has died, nearly six weeks after the highly experimental surgery, his Maryland doctors announced Tuesday.Lawrence Faucette, 58, was dying from heart failure and ineligible for a traditional heart transplant when he received the genetically modified pig heart on Sept. 20.According to the University of Maryland School of Medicine, the heart had seemed healthy for the first month but began showing signs of rejection in recent days. Faucette died Monday.In a statement released by the hospital, Faucette’s wife, Ann, said her husband “knew his time with us was short and this was his last chance to do for others. He never imagined he would survive as long as he did."The Maryland team last year performed the world’s first transplant of a heart from a genetically altered pig into another dying man. David Bennett survived two months before that heart failed, for reasons that aren’t completely clear although signs of a pig virus later were found inside the organ. Lessons from that first experiment led to changes, including better virus testing, before the second attempt.“Mr. Faucette's last wish was for us to make the most of what we have learned from our experience,” Dr. Bartley Griffith, the surgeon who led the transplant at the University of Maryland Medical Center, said in a statement.Attempts at animal-to-human organ transplants — called xenotransplants — have failed for decades, as people’s immune systems immediately destroyed the foreign tissue. Now scientists are trying again using pigs genetically modified to make their organs more humanlike.Faucette, a Navy veteran and father of two from Frederick, Maryland, had been turned down for a traditional heart transplant because of other health problems when he came to the Maryland hospital, out of options and expressing a wish to spend a little more time with his family.In mid-October, the hospital said Faucette had been able to stand and released video showing him working hard in physical therapy to regain the strength needed to attempt walking.Cardiac xenotransplant chief Dr. Muhammad Mohiuddin said the team will analyze what happened with the heart as they continue studying pig organs.Many scientists hope xenotransplants one day could compensate for the huge shortage of human organ donations. More than 100,000 people are on the nation’s list for a transplant, most awaiting kidneys, and thousands will die waiting.A handful of scientific teams have tested pig kidneys and hearts in monkeys and in donated human bodies, hoping to learn enough for the Food and Drug Administration to allow formal xenotransplant studies.___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

0 notes

dwuerch-blog · 1 year

Text

New Life from a Pig's Heart

Breaking news! On September 20th, surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore announced that they transplanted the heart of a genetically altered pig into a man with terminal heart disease who had no other hope for treatment. Lawrence Faucette, 58, a Navy veteran and married father of two had terminal heart disease and other complicated medical conditions and was so sick…

View On WordPress

0 notes

jjbizconsult · 1 year

Text

Pig Heart Transplant: Second Patient ever in Breakthrough Surgery

Pig Heart Transplant: Second Patient ever in Breakthrough Surgery. In a groundbreaking medical milestone, surgeons have successfully transplanted a pig’s heart into a terminally ill patient, marking only the second instance of such an experimental procedure. This remarkable achievement, performed at the University of Maryland Medicine, offers newfound hope to individuals facing dire…

View On WordPress

#FDAApproval #GeneticModification #HealthcareInnovation #HeartFailure #HopeforPatients #MedicalAdvancements #MedicalBreakthrough #MedicalResearch #MedicalScience #OrganDonation #OrganTransplant #PigHeartTransplant #Surgery #UniversityofMarylandMedicine #Xenotransplantation

0 notes

shahananasrin-blog · 1 year

Link

[ad_1] US surgeons have transplanted a pig’s heart into a dying man in a bid to prolong his life in only the second operation of its kind. Two days later, the man was cracking jokes and able to sit in a chair, Maryland doctors said on Friday. The 58-year-old Navy veteran was facing near-certain death from heart failure but other health problems meant he was not eligible for a traditional heart transplant, according to doctors at University of Maryland Medicine. While the next few weeks will be critical, doctors were thrilled at Lawrence Faucette’s early response to the pig organ. Surgeons prepare for the pig heart transplant (Mark Teske/University of Maryland School of Medicine via AP) “You know, I just keep shaking my head – how am I talking to someone who has a pig heart?” Dr Bartley Griffith, who performed the transplant, told The Associated Press. He said doctors are feeling “a great privilege but, you know, a lot of pressure”. The same Maryland team last year performed the world’s first transplant of a genetically modified pig heart into another dying man, David Bennett, who survived two months. Mr Faucette knew about the first case but decided the transplant was his best shot. “Nobody knows from this point forward. At least now I have hope and I have a chance,” Mr Faucette, from Frederick, Maryland, said in a video recorded by the hospital before the operation. In a statement, his wife, Ann Faucette said: “We have no expectations other than hoping for more time together. That could be as simple as sitting on the front porch and having coffee together.” There is a huge shortage of human organs donated for transplant. Last year, there were just over 4,100 heart transplants in the US, a record number but the supply is so tight that only patients with the best chance of long-term survival get offered one. Attempts at animal-to-human organ transplants have failed for decades, as people’s immune systems immediately destroyed the foreign tissue.Now scientists are trying again using pigs genetically modified to make their organs more humanlike. Doctors at University of Maryland School of Medicine carried out the experimental surgery (Mark Teske/University of Maryland School of Medicine via AP) Recently, scientists at other hospitals have tested pig kidneys and hearts in donated human bodies, hoping to learn enough to begin formal studies of what are called xenotransplants. The University of Maryland attempt required special permission from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat Mr Faucette outside of a rigorous trial, because he was out of other options. It took over 300 pages of documents filed with FDA but the Maryland researchers made their case that they had learned enough from their first attempt last year – even though that patient died for reasons that are not fully understood – that it made sense to try again. And Mr Faucette, who retired as a lab technician at the National Institutes of Health, had to agree that he understood the procedure’s risks. After last year’s transplant scientists discovered signs of a pig virus lurking inside the heart – and they now have better tests to look for hidden viruses. They also learned to avoid certain medications. Possibly more important, while Mr Faucette has end-stage heart failure and was out of other options, he was not as near death as the prior patient. By Friday, his new heart was functioning well without any supportive machinery, the hospital said. “It’s just an amazing feeling to see this pig heart work in a human,” said Dr Muhammad Mohiuddin, the Maryland team’s xenotransplantation expert. But, he cautioned: “We don’t want to predict anything. We will take every day as a victory and move forward.” The pig heart has 10 genetic modifications, knocking out some pig genes and adding some human ones to make it more acceptable to the human immune system. [ad_2]

0 notes

infosnack · 1 year

Text

Genetically altered pig heart transplanted into a human for the second time

Genetically altered pig heart transplanted into a human for the second time https://www.statnews.com/2023/09/22/pig-heart-transplant-university-of-maryland/?utm_campaign=rss In a new test of xenotransplantation, a medical team at the University of Maryland Medical Center announced Friday that, for only the second time in history, it had transplanted a heart from a genetically engineered pig into a human. The surgeons performed the eight-hour procedure Wednesday without complications. As of Friday afternoon, the organ recipient, a Navy veteran and former vaccine researcher at the National Institutes of Health named Lawrence Faucette, is awake, able to sit in a chair and breathe on his own, and his new heart is pumping without help from supportive devices, hospital officials said in a statement. Read the rest… via STAT Health - Science, medicine and healthcare news https://www.statnews.com/category/health/ September 22, 2023 at 02:35PM

#IFTTT #STAT Health - Science #medicine and healthcare news

0 notes

lboogie1906 · 4 months

Text

Robert Jones Abele (June 2, 1875 - February 25, 1929) was one of six founding members of Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. The five others were Henry Minton, Algernon Jackson, Edwin Howard, Eugene Theodore Hinson, and Richard John Warrick, Jr. He was born in Philadelphia. One of his ancestors, Absalom Jones, was a founder of the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas. He is descended from Clayton Durham, a co-founder with Richard Allen of the African Methodist Episcopal Church Conference.

His younger brother, Julian Francis Abele, was the first African American graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s Architecture Department. Julian became a prominent architect famous for designing the campus of Duke University.

He was a graduate of the Institute for Colored Youth. He taught school at Belair, Maryland, for one year and matriculated to the Hahnemann Medical College.

He graduated at the top of his class at Hahnemann. He was the first Black graduate of the institution and finished on the “Distinguished List.” He earned the highest score ever awarded at that point on the state’s medical certification test, the Pennsylvania State Qualifying Examination for Physicians, in 1897. His score was 97.3% out of 100%.

He began the practice of medicine in Philadelphia at his home but was appointed one of the assistant surgeons at his Alma Mater. He was the first African American to serve on the institution’s faculty. He was a Founder of Mercy Hospital in 1909, while his private practice was one of the largest and most lucrative in Philadelphia.

His interests included art, music, books, and photography. He was a regular contributor to many scientific journals.

He married Rachel A. Walls, the daughter of Edward G. Wall and Lucy Ann Elbert. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #sigmapiphi

0 notes

informationhospital · 1 year

Text

Johns Hopkins Hospital Address, Doctors, Appointment, Specialties, Treatment Methods

New Post has been published on https://www.informationhospital.com/johns-hopkins-hospital-address-doctors-appointment-specialties-treatment-methods/

Johns Hopkins Hospital Address, Doctors, Appointment, Specialties, Treatment Methods

Johns Hopkins Hospital Address

Johns Hopkins Hospital, situated in Baltimore, Maryland, is an iconic institution renowned for its unwavering commitment to excellence in healthcare. Founded in 1889, it has a rich history of pioneering medical breakthroughs, patient-centered care, and groundbreaking research. As one of the leading healthcare facilities globally, Johns Hopkins Hospital consistently earns its place among the top hospitals in various national and international rankings.

One of the hospital’s distinguishing features is its affiliation with Johns Hopkins University, one of the world’s foremost research universities. This close partnership fosters a unique environment where medical practitioners collaborate with leading scientists and researchers, allowing for the seamless integration of cutting-edge research findings into patient care.

Johns Hopkins Hospital is home to a diverse team of healthcare professionals, including highly skilled physicians, surgeons, nurses, and support staff. These dedicated individuals work tirelessly to provide patients with the best possible care, adhering to the hospital’s mission of improving the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research, and clinical care.

In addition to its commitment to patient care, Johns Hopkins Hospital has a long history of medical innovation. Many groundbreaking medical discoveries have originated within its walls, including the development of the first male-to-female sex reassignment surgery and the discovery of restriction enzymes used in genetic engineering. These innovations underscore the hospital’s role as a global leader in advancing medical science.

Moreover, the hospital’s commitment to community outreach and engagement is evident through various programs and initiatives aimed at improving healthcare access and education. It extends its expertise beyond its physical location, positively impacting health outcomes worldwide.

Johns Hopkins Hospital’s dedication to excellence, patient-centered care, and continuous innovation ensures that it remains a beacon of hope and healing for individuals in need of exceptional medical services. With its storied history and ongoing contributions to the field of medicine, the hospital continues to uphold its reputation as a world-renowned institution that sets the standard for healthcare excellence.

Johns Hopkins Hospital Doctors

Johns Hopkins Hospital, located in Baltimore, Maryland, stands as one of the most prestigious medical institutions globally, known for its commitment to excellence in patient care, research, and medical education. Founded in 1889 with the vision of redefining healthcare, it has since upheld its reputation as a world-class healthcare provider.

The hospital’s roster of doctors is a remarkable blend of experience and innovation. These medical professionals are not just practitioners but also pioneers in their respective fields, setting the bar high for healthcare globally. At Johns Hopkins, patients benefit from the expertise of physicians who have consistently ranked among the best in the nation by U.S. News & World Report.

One of the distinguishing features of Johns Hopkins Hospital is its unwavering dedication to research. The hospital’s doctors actively engage in groundbreaking studies and clinical trials, with many contributing significantly to medical advancements. This commitment to research ensures that patients have access to cutting-edge treatments and therapies, often long before they become widely available.

Moreover, Johns Hopkins Hospital is deeply connected to Johns Hopkins University, a world-renowned research institution. This synergy between healthcare and academia fosters an environment of continuous learning and collaboration. Doctors at the hospital work hand-in-hand with researchers and scientists, facilitating the swift translation of discoveries into clinical practices that benefit patients directly.

The hospital’s commitment to patient-centered care goes beyond the clinical setting. They prioritize providing comprehensive and compassionate care to patients from diverse backgrounds. This approach has earned Johns Hopkins Hospital recognition not only for its medical expertise but also for its dedication to inclusivity and equity in healthcare.

In summary, Johns Hopkins Hospital’s doctors epitomize excellence in healthcare, contributing to advancements in medicine, patient care, and research. Their unwavering commitment to innovation and patient well-being continues to position Johns Hopkins Hospital as a beacon of hope and healing in the field of medicine.

Johns Hopkins Hospital Appointment

Johns Hopkins Hospital, located in Baltimore, Maryland, stands as a beacon of excellence in the world of healthcare. With a rich history dating back to its founding in 1889, this prestigious institution has consistently pushed the boundaries of medical knowledge, research, and patient care.

One of the defining features of Johns Hopkins Hospital is its exceptional team of doctors. Renowned for their expertise, innovation, and commitment to patient well-being, these physicians are at the forefront of medical advancements. From primary care physicians to specialists in various fields, patients can trust that they are in capable hands.

Securing an appointment at Johns Hopkins Hospital is a streamlined process designed to prioritize patient convenience and timely care. Patients can easily schedule appointments through their website, by phone, or through the MyChart patient portal, ensuring that they receive the necessary medical attention when they need it.

Johns Hopkins Hospital’s dedication to research is another aspect that sets it apart. The hospital is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, a world leader in scientific exploration. This close connection allows for groundbreaking research that often translates into new treatments and therapies for patients.

Beyond its clinical and research missions, Johns Hopkins Hospital is also deeply committed to education. It serves as a teaching hospital, providing hands-on training to the next generation of healthcare professionals. This commitment to education ensures a legacy of excellence in patient care and medical innovation.

In conclusion, Johns Hopkins Hospital is not just a healthcare institution; it’s a symbol of unwavering dedication to improving the human condition through medicine. Patients who choose Johns Hopkins Hospital are not only accessing top-tier healthcare but also becoming part of a legacy that continues to shape the future of medicine.

Johns Hopkins Hospital Specialties

Johns Hopkins Hospital, located in Baltimore, Maryland, stands as a beacon of excellence in the world of healthcare. Established in 1889, it has consistently been at the forefront of medical innovation, research, and patient care. With a rich history of groundbreaking discoveries and medical firsts, the hospital has earned its place as one of the most prestigious medical institutions globally.

One of the defining features of Johns Hopkins Hospital is its commitment to patient-centered care. The hospital’s mission revolves around delivering the highest quality healthcare services while maintaining a focus on the individual needs of each patient. Whether it’s a routine check-up or a complex surgical procedure, every aspect of care is designed to prioritize patient well-being and comfort.

The hospital’s dedication to research is another hallmark of its legacy. Johns Hopkins researchers have been responsible for numerous medical breakthroughs, including the development of CPR, the discovery of the first effective treatment for sickle cell anemia, and pioneering work in organ transplantation. This commitment to advancing medical knowledge directly benefits patients, as they have access to cutting-edge treatments and therapies.

Johns Hopkins Hospital is also renowned for its exceptional medical staff. The team of doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals includes some of the brightest minds in the medical field. They are not only experts in their respective specialties but also compassionate caregivers who understand the importance of communication and empathy in patient care.

In addition to its clinical services and research endeavors, Johns Hopkins Hospital plays a pivotal role in medical education. It serves as the teaching hospital for Johns Hopkins University, where the next generation of healthcare professionals receives hands-on training under the guidance of experienced mentors.

As a comprehensive medical center, Johns Hopkins Hospital covers a vast array of medical specialties. From cancer care to cardiovascular surgery, neurology to pediatrics, and everything in between, patients have access to a broad spectrum of healthcare services all under one roof.

In conclusion, Johns Hopkins Hospital’s reputation as a leader in healthcare is well-deserved. Its commitment to patient care, groundbreaking research, exceptional staff, and comprehensive medical services make it a beacon of hope and healing for patients from around the world. For those seeking world-class healthcare with a human touch, Johns Hopkins Hospital stands as a symbol of excellence and innovation.

Johns Hopkins Hospital Treatment Methods

Johns Hopkins Hospital stands as a beacon of excellence in the realm of healthcare, known globally for its outstanding treatment methods and unwavering commitment to patient well-being. With a storied history spanning over a century, this institution has consistently pushed the boundaries of medical knowledge, pioneering innovative approaches to healing and disease management.

One of the hallmarks of Johns Hopkins Hospital is its dedication to interdisciplinary collaboration. At the heart of its treatment philosophy lies a belief in the power of collective expertise. The hospital assembles teams of world-class physicians, surgeons, nurses, and support staff who work in harmony to address patients’ unique needs comprehensively. This collaborative spirit ensures that patients benefit from a wide range of perspectives and specialized knowledge, resulting in highly effective and personalized treatment plans.

From groundbreaking surgical interventions to cutting-edge medical therapies, Johns Hopkins Hospital offers an extensive array of treatment options across various medical specialties. Patients can find solutions for complex conditions, including cancer care, cardiovascular diseases, neurological disorders, and much more. The hospital’s commitment to research and innovation means that patients often gain access to the latest advancements in medical science, offering hope where traditional treatments may fall short.

Moreover, patient-centered care is a core value at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Every step of the patient journey is carefully designed to prioritize comfort, convenience, and compassionate support. The hospital strives to create an environment where patients feel heard, valued, and empowered in their healthcare decisions.

In summary, Johns Hopkins Hospital is synonymous with excellence in healthcare. Its innovative treatment methods, dedication to collaboration, and patient-centric approach have solidified its reputation as a world-class medical institution. For those seeking the best in medical care, Johns Hopkins Hospital stands as a beacon of hope and healing.

https://www.informationhospital.com/johns-hopkins-hospital-address-doctors-appointment-specialties-treatment-methods/

#Johns Hopkins Hospital Address #Johns Hopkins Hospital Appointment #Johns Hopkins Hospital Doctors #Johns Hopkins Hospital Specialties #Johns Hopkins Hospital Treatment Methods

0 notes