Imperial College model Britain used to justify lockdown a ‘buggy mess’, ‘total unreliable’, experts claim

Imperial College model Britain used to justify lockdown a ‘buggy mess’, ‘total unreliable’, experts claim

https://www.foxnews.com/world/imperial-college-britain-coronavirus-lockdown-buggy-mess-unreliable

The heralded model United Kingdom experts have largely used to guide their coronavirus policies is “totally unreliable,” according to experts.

The criticisms follow a series of policy turnabouts, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to extend the national lockdown. The United States also used the model, which predicted upwards of 2.2 million deaths in the US without proper action. The prediction helped influence the White House to adopt a more serious approach to the pandemic.

Experts have derided the coding from Professor Neil Ferguson, warning that it is a “buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming.”

“In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust,” David Richards, co-founder of British data technology company WANdisco, told the Daily Telegraph.

Ferguson, the virus modeler from Imperial College London and a scientific adviser to the government, warned on March 16 that 500,000 people could die from the pandemic without significant action. Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded by imposing a national lockdown, which has only been loosened within the last week.

The Imperial model works by using code to simulate transport links, population size, social networks and healthcare provisions to predict how coronavirus would spread. Researchers released the code behind it, which developers have criticized as being unreadable.

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh have further claimed that it is impossible to reproduce the same results from the same data using the model. The team got different results when they used different machines, and even different results from the same machines.

“There appears to be a bug in either the creation or re-use of the network file. If we attempt two completely identical runs, only varying in that the second should use the network file produced by the first, the results are quite different,” the Edinburgh researchers wrote on the Github file.

A fix was provided, but it was the first of many bugs found within the program.

“Models must be capable of passing the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters…otherwise, there is simply no way of knowing whether they will be reliable,” said Michael Bonsall, Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University.

A spokesperson for the Imperial College COVID19 Response Team said: “The U.K. Government has never relied on a single disease model to inform decision-making. As has been repeatedly stated, decision-making around lockdown was based on a consensus view of the scientific evidence, including several modelling studies by different academic groups.”

“Epidemiology is not a branch of computer science and the conclusions around lockdown rely not on any mathematical model but on the scientific consensus that COVID-19 is a highly transmissible virus with an infection fatality ratio exceeding 0.5pc in the UK.”

As of Saturday, the United Kingdom has confirmed 241,455 cases of coronavirus, behind only the U.S. and Russia; and 34,546 deaths, behind the U.S.

Ferguson himself resigned from his advisory role earlier this month after reports emerged that he defied his own lockdown advice by letting his married lover visit him on two occasions.

 

TWO MONTHS after everyone started sheltering in place because of COVID-19… DOL…comes out with guidelines to protect pharmacy staff

U.S. Department of Labor Issues Alert to Help Keep Retail Pharmacy Workers Safe During the Coronavirus Pandemic

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osha/osha20200514-0

WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued an alert listing safety tips employers can follow to help protect retail pharmacy workers from exposure to the coronavirus.

Safety measures for retail pharmacies include:

  • Encourage customers to submit prescriptions online or by phone. Allow customers to provide their insurance information verbally or virtually (e.g., through mobile apps or the pharmacy’s website);
  • Increase the use of self-serve checkouts to minimize worker interaction with customers;
  • Frequently clean and disinfect checkout and customer service counters;
  • Install clear plastic barriers between workers and customers at order/pickup counters;
  • Use signage and floor markers to keep waiting customers at least 6 feet from the counter, other customers and pharmacy staff; and
  • Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns. It is illegal to retaliate against workers for reporting illnesses or for reporting unsafe or unhealthful working conditions.

The new alert is available for download in English and Spanish.

Visit OSHA’s Publications webpage for other useful workplace safety information.

The alert is the latest effort by OSHA to educate and protect America’s workers and employers during the coronavirus pandemic. OSHA has also published Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19, a document aimed at helping workers and employers learn about ways to protect themselves and their workplaces during the ongoing pandemic.

Visit OSHA’s COVID-19 webpage frequently for updates. For further information about the coronavirus, please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

The mission of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. If an employer denies equal opportunities, it’s important to take action. Contacting an employment lawyer can help you understand your rights and options, ensuring fair treatment and access to opportunities for all workers.

Agency
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Date
May 14, 2020
Release Number
20-856-NAT
Contact: Department of Labor National Contact Center
Email
This is part of the same government that is going to get us a treatment and/or vaccine for COVID-19 ?  Hopefully this year ?

Neurosurgeon Says Face Masks Pose Serious Risk to Healthy People

Neurosurgeon Says Face Masks Pose Serious Risk to Healthy People

Every Karen on Facebook is shaming her neighbors for not wearing a face mask. We are being told by governors that if we don’t wear masks we are selfish, horrible human beings with no souls who want Grandma to die a horrible death. Police are tackling people who don’t wear face masks properly in the subway. Grocery stores are throwing maskless people out and denying them service.

But now, there’s another doctor weighing in—besides Dr. Fauci, bonafide sex god and ruler of us all, who also said face masks are largely security theater and of no use to the healthy. Dr. Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon, has written an editorial saying that “masks pose serious risks to the healthy.”

First, Blaylock says, there is no scientific evidence that masks are effective against COVID-19 transmission. Pro-science people should care about this.

As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “ None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”   Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.

It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history.

Beyond the lack of scientific data to support wearing a mask as a deterrent to a virus, Blaylock says the more pressing concern is what can and will happen to the wearer.

Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.

There are studies to back that claim up.

In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.

They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause.

That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries.

I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Blaylock says studies have also shown that face masks impair oxygen intake dramatically, potentially leading to serious problems.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte.

This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.

In other words, if you wear a face mask and contract some sickness, you will not be able to fight it off as effectively as if you had normal blood oxygen levels. The mask could make you sicker. It could also create a “deadly cytokine storm” in some.

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath.

If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

How about cancer, heart attacks, and strokes? Blaylock says face masks can make all of those conditions worse.

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers. Repeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.

If that’s not bad enough, how would you like COVID-19 in your brain?

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.

Why is it that we only listen to dire predictions from Dr. Fauci and we don’t consult other experts in the field of medicine? Is Anthony Fauci the only qualified person to talk about this virus? Furthermore, if he is, he agrees with Dr. Blaylock that only sick people should wear them and he said so on 60 Minutes. So why aren’t we listening to him?

Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can keep telling the truth about China and the virus they unleashed on the world? Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off your VIP membership.

When we had our independent pharmacy,  we developed a very large home medical equipment business which included a couple of hundred home oxygen pt.  If a pt switched from a nasal cannula to a oxygen mask..  it was necessary to increase their oxygen from from the normal 2 LPM up to 5-6 LPM.. so that the mask was being “flushed out” of the exhaled carbon dioxide with each exhaled breath.

Failing to increase the oxygen flow when a pt switched to a mask, resulting in the pt inhaling some carbon dioxide.. which is heavier that ambient air and would settle in the bottom of the lungs and block the lung’s alveoli where oxygen is absorbed by the lungs from the ambient air and the pt’s oxygen saturation in the blood drops.  Resulting in increased hypoxia.

There has been studies of people wearing some form of “mask” for extended periods are experiencing some degree of hypoxia, which can cause certain bodily function to deteriorate.

Check your stash: This Edmond medical marijuana product is being recalled after failing state tests for pesticides

Check your stash: This Edmond medical marijuana product is being recalled after failing state tests for pesticides

https://oklahoman.com/article/5662413/check-your-stash-this-medical-marijuana-product-is-being-recalled-after-failing-state-tests-for-pesticides

Some medical marijuana products made by Moon Mix in Edmond are being recalled after failing required testing for pesticides. These products may not be safe for consumers.

The Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority is issuing its first recall of medical marijuana products sold in the state.

Some medical marijuana products made by Moon Mix, a processor in Edmond, failed required state testing for pesticides, and may not be safe for consumers, according to the OMMA.

Products include mints and vape cartridges showing batch number 158 on the labeling.

Patients or caregivers with these products in their possession should contact the dispensary where the products were purchased for information on recall procedures.

Financial reimbursement between patients and dispensaries is to be determined by the dispensaries, an OMMA spokeswoman said.

Moon Mix owner and CEO Austin Fielding could not be reached at the time of publication to determine whether the company would issue refunds for the products to dispensaries.

Dispensaries that carried the product are being asked to assist with the recall and notify patients or caregivers who purchased the Moon Mix items from batch number 158.

Of the 14 COVIS-19 tests, only three delivered consistently reliable results. Even the best had some flaws

Coronavirus (Covid-19) antibody tests: Do you really want one? Think hard about it. Maybe not.

https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2020/05/coronavirus-covid-19-antibody-tests-do-you-really-want-one-think-hard-about-it-maybe-not/

Coronavirus testing: It has long been hard to get. Now suddenly in the New York area, tests are freely available.

The test will tell me truly if I have had coronavirus and am therefore immune, right? Or if I was exposed to the virus and magically skipped through, with few symptoms?

The expert opinions are in: Maybe. Maybe not.

We’ve been doing a lot of research about coronavirus (Covid-19), and particularly about testing. I live in the center of the pandemic. Also, I recently tested positive for coronavirus antibodies twice, and negative once, and I’ve been exploring what it means.

First: There are two kinds of tests. Both the respiratory test (nasal swab) and the antibody test have problems as far as accuracy. Beyond that, if the results are correct, experts disagree on what the results mean. If you have a positive respiratory test, that’s pretty clear: You’ve got it. But if you test negative, because of the high error rate, if you have with symptoms, most doctors will say you should still act like you have it.  With the antibody test, same problem: Positive probably means positive, but false positives are clearly possible.

I asked Donald G. McNeil Jr., the star New York Times reporter, who’s a friend from long ago: Is this good news? Am I immune?

He said: “I would NOT trust that antibody test. There are about 50 tests, none are validated yet and we know that some give false positives if you have antibodies to the common cold coronaviruses. Also, we don’t know what level of antibodies confers immunity. So although it’s potentially good news, I would not assume you are immune. Better tests are on the way.”

My negative test from CityMD followed two positive tests, one from the New York State Department of Health, see here, and one at Stony Brook University Medical Center, see here.

Here’s a negative test from Go Health urgent care, partnered with Northwell Health, from a friend.

The ‘immunity passport’ idea — not so fast

For a while, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and others were talking about using antibody testing as a way to give people an “immunity passport.”

“At the time Cuomo talked up antibody testing, using the procedure to establish immunity was widely perceived as a possibility,” Anna Gronewold and Shannon Young wrote over at Politico on May 5. “But that ambition quickly turned to disappointment as the World Health Organization came out against such strategies, saying there is no evidence that antibodies give immunity. Something that seemed to have been a silver bullet was too good to be true. Cuomo stepped back.”

There are several issues: Does the test (and there are about 170 on the market, of varying degrees of usefulness) actually sense the presence of the actual coronavirus implicated in Covid-19? And does presence of those antibodies confirm immunity? Depends on who you listen to, but the smart money is on “Maybe.”

The situation is changing quickly, also.

On April 20, Anthony Fauci told “Good Morning America,” ‘“The problem is that these are tests that need to be validated and calibrated, and many of the tests out there don’t do that. So even though you hear about companies flooding the market with these antibody tests, a lot of them are not validated.

“There’s an assumption — a reasonable assumption — that when you have an antibody that you are protected against reinfection, but that has not been proven for this particular virus. It’s true for other viruses,” he said.”

Testing the tests

Then a team of scientists reported that they had tested the tests. “These tests are crucial to reopening the economy, but public health experts have raised urgent concerns about their quality,” The New York Times reported on April 24. “The new research, completed just days ago and posted online Friday, confirmed some of those fears: Of the 14 tests, only three delivered consistently reliable results. Even the best had some flaws.”

The scientists who started the test of the tests described the testing environment as “the Wild West.”

The FDA has given “emergency use authorization” to a number of tests, though the FDA’s “approval process” is deeply flawed. Dozens of other tests are being used, even without that light approval. The underlying scientific data on test performance is here. But remember, these are self-reported to the FDA and there hasn’t been enough time to really confirm performance.

What the doctors say

One of my friends asked her pediatrician about the tests; the pediatrician responded with this cautionary note from the Westchester, N.Y., county executive warning against using such testing to make personal decisions about exposure to coronavirus.

At one local Westchester medical group, a friend seeking to schedule a test heard from the nurse, “They will do it but the nurse told him that it is not reliable, as her husband and in-laws had the virus and she was exposed to it and not one of them tested positive for antibodies.”

Another friend had a test at CityMD in New York, after she had a serious bout of respiratory illness. The test came back negative — and she said a friend in the medical profession ridiculed her for seeking a test.

So, after a long time when no one could get tested, now every doctor’s office and a number of national labs have begun to offer these tests. See details here.  But at many of these medical offices, the offer comes with a warning.

It’s logical to ask: why is my medical group offering the test if it does not tell me anything? Why are reputable companies like Quest and Labcorp, national testing giants, offering the test if it isn’t accurate?

The results are not clear or definitive

Most have language about how the results are not clear.

CityMD: “Serum Antibody IgG (Blood Test): Regardless of your results, you should continue to exercise universal precautions such as social distancing, quarantining, frequent hand washing, wearing of a mask or face cloth in public, and other CDC guideline recommendations. Remember, COVID-19 is a new infection, and it is unclear if a positive antibody definitively offers immunity.” CityMD uses the Abbott test. In New York City, testing is free.

Labcorp says: “Your test results may help identify if you were exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19 and, if so, whether or not your body has developed antibodies. Although having antibodies usually gives immunity from further infection, there is not enough evidence at this time to suggest that people who have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, are protected against future infections from the virus. Results from this test also will not provide information on whether you can spread the virus to others and is not used as a basis for diagnosis.” It also notes that false positives are possible.

Why do so many people want tests if the results are not actionable?

People want certainty, especially here in New York in pandemic central.   Also, the nationwide test shortage has meant that people want tests more than ever — a respiratory test or an antibody test.

My thoughts when I got a positive test included: “Yay, I’m home free! I will volunteer for all the trials I can volunteer for, and share my antibodies and genes with anybody!”

But I’m not immune. Also, there’s that one negative test …

According to human nature, we lust for the test — conveniently skipping by the fact that the test seems at this point to be 1) not reliable, whatever test it is, and 2) not proof of immunity.

So why get this test? Why not focus on the things we know are working: Stay home. Wear a mask. Wash hands. Be careful until you know things have changed.

Questions you might have

Should I get a test? Ask your doctor.

No really, should I? What are your reasons for wanting a test? If you want a certain answer about whether you had it or have it, you might not get that. If you’re asking to be given permission to leave self-isolation, do not use these tests for that purpose.

I hear there are two kinds of test — one for active infection and one for the presence of antibodies, which suggests immunities. Can you explain?  The one for active infection is usually done with a swab stuck into your nose or elsewhere in the respiratory tract, and the resulting sample is tested at a lab. Another kind of testing is now being done, serological (blood) testing for the presence of antibodies to the virus.

My work needs me to have a test. What should I do? Ask them why — the truth is that these tests do have errors. Better ones may be on the way. In any case, most scientists will say you should not base your personal behavior on these tests. Also ask your employer what test they need — the one for active infection, or the one for antibodies. Also ask: Will you pay? How do you want me to show you the results? Can you give me written, detailed instructions? Many workplaces have a hard time understanding these subtleties.

I need to have a test to get my sick pay for the days off I took for what I believe to have been coronavirus. My employer requires this before I can get my pay. See above on employers.

I need to get tested to know if I can go see my elderly mom (immunocompromised brother) etc. What should I do? Again, these tests are not going to prove that you are immune or not able to give the virus to someone else. The tests are not that reliable. Remember, the virus can be passed on not just through breathing but also by taking virus particles from, say, a doorknob and delivering them with your mom’s groceries. Stay safe.

My son tested positive on the respiratory test this spring, but now he needs a negative test to volunteer. What should I do? I believe in this scenario, the volunteer organization is looking for a swab or nasal test to confirm that he has no active viruses in his system. Confirm with the volunteer organization, and ask them for detailed, specific instructions in writing. (The nasal test also has a lot of errors.)

My son tested positive this spring, and now he wants to give plasma. What should I do? I believe in this scenario, the organization is looking for presence of antibodies to confirm that he had exposure to the virus in the past. Confirm with the organization, and ask them for detailed, specific instructions. Also, here’s a list of plasma donation and other studies. If you sign up, they’ll get in touch if you fit their criteria.

My doctor said the test was approved by the FDA. Doesn’t that make his test the best? The FDA approval process has been sorely lacking. Read here.  The underlying scientific data on test performance is here.  But remember, these are self-reported to the FDA and there hasn’t been enough time to really confirm performance.

My doctor’s office is offering the test, so isn’t that safe? It depends on what you think of as safe. Again, the results are unreliable, and most doctors will tell you that you should not use the test results to make decisions about where to go and what to do.

My doctor’s offering the test, but his nurse said don’t get it. What should I do? Think carefully about what you expect to gain from a test. Remember, they’re not all that accurate, and results shouldn’t be used to govern personal behavior — a positive antibody test is not a free pass to leave isolation.

I never tested positive but I know I had it. Should I get tested? We’re not doctors. But since we know a little about the reliability of the tests, we suggest that you think carefully about why you want to get tested.

I want one of these “immunity passport” things I’m reading about, certifying that I had it and I’m now safe. What should I do? The “immunity passport” idea has been discarded. First, the tests aren’t that accurate, and second, even if they do confirm that you have antibodies, no one knows whether those antibodies will protect you from another infection.

Some tests are better than others, I hear. I want the best one. What is it? There are a lot of people out there selling tests that have not been authorized by the FDA. Scammers will find ways to scam people. What’s the best one? The science is still out on this one, but Michael Osterholm, a well-respected scientist who runs a center studying pandemics at the University of Minnesota, said he thinks the best one is being used by Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. It’s a two-step process, he said. The Mount Sinai test is not commercially available; scientists there are using that test to qualify potential donors for a convalescent plasma trial.

Wait, there’s an at-home test! Why shouldn’t I use that? At this point the FDA has not authorized any at-home tests. There are a lot of people trying to make money on coronavirus testing, so you should be cautious. For example, LetsGetChecked.com is promising an at-home test. They don’t have one now. They just raised a ton of money, $71 million to be exact. Would you choose them to test you? Why?

 

If it’s not about testing, what is it about? Scientists say testing is an important element of dealing with the pandemic. But other important elements should not be disregarded: Tracing the contacts of infected people, social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, responsible conduct in general.

 

Kolodny: has been an absolute champion for American families in continuing to fight against very powerful interests

Flattery credits Kolodny with helping survivors deal with the devastating effects of their loss. “He has been an absolute champion for American families in continuing to fight against very powerful interests

https://www.brandeis.edu/magazine/2018/spring/featured-stories/opioid.html

In 2003, as a new employee in New York City’s health department, having just completed a psychiatry residency at Mount Sinai, Andrew Kolodny was given a singular charge: Reduce the city’s drug-overdose deaths.

The size of the task felt overwhelming. “How can a psychiatrist in Lower Manhattan prevent somebody from doing too much heroin in the South Bronx?” Kolodny says. “It seemed sort of impossible.”

Still, he was game to try. Buprenorphine, a milder, safer alternative to methadone, then the standard opioid-addiction treatment, had recently come on the market. He started visiting medical clinics across the city to persuade physicians to use buprenorphine to treat heroin-addicted patients. “They’d look at me like I was crazy,” he says. “They said, ‘Why would we want to treat addicts? Why would we want them coming into our office?’”

Kolodny decided to open his own clinical practice in Manhattan, assuming he’d be treating addicted men from poor, predominantly minority neighborhoods. But a funny thing happened. Patients came to see him from as far away as New Jersey and New York’s Westchester County and Staten Island. They were mostly white and middle-class. And they were addicted to prescription painkillers such as oxycodone (OxyContin) and hydrocodone (Vicodin), not heroin.

“That was my first clue we had a really serious problem with prescription opioids,” Kolodny says today, sitting in his office at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, where he is a senior scientist.

One of the first doctors to recognize what has become the deadliest drug epidemic in American history, Kolodny is now arguably the country’s most outspoken expert on a crisis that continues to grow. Opioids — including prescription drugs, heroin and the synthetic drug fentanyl — claimed more than 49,000 lives in 2016, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), up from 28,647 in 2014.

Over the past decade, Kolodny has broken ranks with many physicians by insisting the epidemic is not one of drug abuse but of addiction, borne of the overprescription of extremely addictive painkillers to patients suffering from back and nerve problems, and other kinds of chronic pain. His stance has put him at odds with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture opioids (as well as some pain-patient advocacy groups that receive funding from them), which claim problems with opioids are limited to people who abuse them.

But as the sheer magnitude of the opioid crisis swamps the nation’s medical system, and devastates families and communities alike, Kolodny’s warnings are finally being heeded.

Opioids in every medicine chest

When Kolodny arrived at Brandeis in December 2016, the Heller School’s Institute for Behavioral Health (IBH) already had a national reputation for opioid policy research. IBH director Connie Horgan believed Kolodny would lend a clinical perspective that would give greater urgency to the institute’s research, and made him co-director — alongside senior scientist Peter Kreiner — of IBH’s newly created Opioid Policy Research Collaborative (OPRC), which studies responses to the crisis.

More than 100 people attended the OPRC’s official launch celebration in mid-November. The HBO documentary “Warning: This Drug May Kill You” was screened, followed by a panel discussion moderated by Cynthia McFadden of NBC News and remarks from U.S. Representative Katherine Clark, from Massachusetts’ 5th District. The panel also included Marylou Sudders, Mass­achusetts secretary of health and human services, and Dr. Myechia Minter-Jordan, president and CEO of the Dimock Center, a Boston community health and human-services organization.

BAD MEDICINE: Audience members at the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative launch event watch the HBO documentary "Warning: This Drug May Kill You."

Following the event, President Ron Liebowitz and his wife, Jessica, hosted a dinner. U.S. Senator Edward Markey sent a video message viewed during the dinner. “I pledge my support for your work,” Markey said. “I believe the people here tonight can and will make a difference.”

When Kolodny’s not researching the most effective ways to prevent and treat addiction, he travels the country warning doctors’ groups, the media and policymakers about the crisis. “For years, nobody wanted to hear about it. Now everybody wants to hear about it at exactly the same time,” he sighs.

He’s become an unlikely celebrity. As he talks in his office at Heller, an NBC camera crew keeps interrupting him to line up shots — one crew member swivels around the table with a handheld camera; another shoots through the doorway with her iPhone. “It’s a little distracting,” Kolodny says good-naturedly as the cameraman aims up at him from a kneeling position on the floor. Wearing a puffy vest over his Oxford shirt, his hands awkwardly pushed into his pockets, Kolodny looks every bit the psychiatrist. He exudes a soft-spoken charisma, able to translate policy with passion.

Kolodny grew up on Long Island, where his father was a doctor and everyone assumed he would become one, too. “Jackie Mason used to joke that every Jewish kid’s supposed to be a doctor; or, if their brain doesn’t work too good, a lawyer; or, if their brain doesn’t work at all, an accountant,” he deadpans. After medical school, Kolodny was drawn to psychiatry. “I wasn’t really interested in sticking people with needles or cutting people. You could just talk to someone, which was nice.”

His real interest, however, lay in public health, which had captured his imagination as a kid when he read a book about epidemiologists fighting disease outbreaks. At New York City’s health department, he approached the outbreak of opioid addiction as a puzzle to be solved. The first clue surfaced in a 2006 study by CDC physician Len Paulozzi, which included a neat graph with two rising parallel lines — one the number of opioid painkillers prescribed by doctors, the other the number of deaths from opioid overdoses.

“That was sort of an aha moment for me,” Kolodny says. He naively assumed that, if the graph were true, the policy solution would be straightforward.

Yet almost as soon as Paulozzi’s report came out, pain organizations funded by pharmaceutical companies challenged it, placing the blame for the rising epidemic not on overprescribing doctors but on addicts and criminals who steal or divert legitimate opioid prescriptions to abuse them. The pain organizations argued a reduction in prescribing would penalize pain patients for the bad behavior of drug abusers. Federal agencies fell for this argument.

“Almost everything coming from the federal government was focused on ‘How do we keep kids from getting into grandma’s medicine chest?’” Kolodny says. “Nobody asked, ‘Why does every grandma now have opioids in her medicine chest?’”

Kolodny might have been persuaded by the pain groups if he hadn’t been seeing firsthand the impact of the drugs on patients, many of whom had been legitimately prescribed opioids for pain and were unable to stop taking them.

One opioid survivor, Betts Tully, was prescribed OxyContin in 2001 after two back operations. The medicine never completely eased her pain, so her doctor kept prescribing more — increasing her dosage from 20 mg to 280 mg over six months. Kolodny read about Tully’s ordeal in an Op-Ed she wrote for the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“I was no longer working or talking to friends and family,” she says. “All I did was stay in bed.” When she stopped taking the pills, withdrawal symptoms made her feel even worse. Because the drugs muddled her mind, she couldn’t see the problem clearly. It took an intervention by her daughter for her to get help, then two years of gradually reducing the prescription drug to get all the opiates out of her system.

Kolodny accompanied Tully and other patients to U.S. Food and Drug Administration meetings to advocate for tighter controls on the drug companies. Wherever he went, he found pharmaceutical company representatives with their own patients, begging policymakers not to take measures that could reduce what they said were needed pain medications.

An epidemic of overprescribing doctors

Purdue Pharma, which introduced OxyContin in 1995, aggressively marketed the drug, says Kolodny, deceiving doctors on the safety and effectiveness of its long-term use. (In February, Purdue announced it would no longer market opioid drugs to doctors.)

In 2010, to counter misinformation about opioids, Kolodny, other like-minded doctors, and patients founded Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP). PROP exposed Big Pharma’s marketing efforts by publicizing how pain groups funded by pharmaceutical companies promoted aggressive prescribing as safe and effective.

Meanwhile, peer-reviewed studies were contradicting the safety and efficacy claims. Researchers found that, although opioids could be used to treat short periods of acute pain, pain patients on opioids did not do well over the long term.

In early 2014, actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died from an opioid overdose at age 46, spurring a public reckoning with the drugs’ prevalence. Even then, however, the federal government response was muted.

Kolodny compares President Barack Obama’s neglect of the opioid issue to Ronald Reagan’s lack of action on the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. “I don’t think the opioid crisis was on Obama’s radar,” Kolodny says. “He started to do the right things at the very end but never spoke about the problem publicly until his last year in office.”

Gradually, Kolodny shifted his focus from raising awareness of the crisis to researching how to fight it. “To bring the epidemic to an end, we have to prevent more people from getting addicted,” he says. “And, more than anything, that means cautious prescribing.”

In 2015, Kolodny used a grant and support from IBH to look at the prescription patterns of doctors in New York state, studying data from the state’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), which tracks all opioid prescriptions.

Years earlier, Kreiner had established the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Training and Technical Assistance Center to help improve state PDMPs through a combination of academic research and on-the-ground consultation with former PDMP administrators. In 2011, the CDC approached him about combining prescription data from multiple states.

The CDC was “a little blindsided by the intensity of the opioid problem,” Kreiner says. “A big part of that was the lack of timeliness of getting good data.”

Currently, Kreiner’s database contains data from 12 states. He’s used the information to develop a set of 43 measures of risky patient and prescriber behavior that could increase the risk of addiction.

As of now, 50 different state laboratories struggle with how to monitor and control opioid prescriptions. Some states have passed laws requiring doctors to check PDMP databases before writing a new prescription. Others have limited the number of days before a patient can get a refill. “People are trying things without really knowing what’s going to work,” Kolodny says.

“We have found no effect for even the most comprehensive laws on daily opioid dosage,” says Kreiner.

Perhaps that’s because states that limit the number of days before refills don’t specify limits on the dose, allowing patients to still get dangerous amounts. By drilling down deeper on the relevant data, the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Training and Technical Assistance Center may be able to help states create more-effective laws.

‘It really is Kryptonite’

At the same time, states are investing in treatment for those already suffering from opioid addiction. “The genie is out of the bottle,” says Kolodny. “Doctors’ starting to prescribe cautiously doesn’t mean patients’ addictions are going to go away. It means building out a treatment system that doesn’t exist yet.”

Even before prescriptions began declining in 2011, young people were turning to the black market to buy heroin, often a cheaper alternative to OxyContin. In recent years, opioid overdose deaths among heroin users have risen rapidly. The heroin supply, which often has fentanyl mixed into it, has become more dangerous.

Although evidence shows the best treatment combines counseling with drugs like buprenorphine or methadone, abstinence-only programs predominate at treatment centers. “It’s easier for people who are addicted to buy heroin than it is to find a doctor who will treat their opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” Kolodny says.

The result is stories like Kevin Flattery’s. A member of an affluent Northern Virginia family, Flattery attended a Jesuit prep school, played varsity ice hockey and graduated from the University of Virginia ready to pursue a career as a screenwriter. Once in Hollywood, however, he began experiencing anxiety and depression. Remembering a long-ago treatment with opiates for a sports injury, he started self-medicating with OxyContin. “Like a lot of people, he seriously underestimated its addictive qualities,” his father, Don, says. “It really is Kryptonite.”

After Kevin became addicted, he sought help from his family, returning on a plane from LA in full withdrawal, suffering from fever sweats and looking like he hadn’t slept or eaten in days. His family was able to get him stabilized with buprenorphine and found a residential drug-treatment program to help him detox. The program advocated complete abstinence, releasing him clean after 30 days. Within another 30 days, he had relapsed and fatally overdosed. He was 26.

“We had to learn the hard way that opioid addiction is a chronic disease that affects brain circuitry and chemistry, and it takes a long time to rewire,” says Don Flattery, who is now, along with Kolodny, a committee member in FED UP!, an advocacy group pushing for an increased federal response to the opioid crisis.

Flattery credits Kolodny with helping survivors deal with the devastating effects of their loss. “He has been an absolute champion for American families in continuing to fight against very powerful interests,” Flattery says.

Others at Brandeis are also leaders in the fight. For the past 15 years, Connie Horgan and senior scientist Sharon Reif have examined medical coverage for treatments as part of a larger study on drug, alcohol and mental-health services. They have found that many health plans either neglect to include addiction-treatment drugs on their formularies or place them on the highest-cost tier. “If a medication isn’t on the formulary or you are going to have to pay out of pocket for it, you are not going to get access to it,” says Horgan.

Health insurers often have an attitude that “use of medication means you are not recovered from your addiction — or that it is just a substitute for heroin — which is far, far from the truth,” adds Mady Chalk, Heller PhD’80, an expert on the opioid crisis.

As awareness of the crisis has increased, a growing number of states are enacting policies to treat opioid addiction. “The more states look at their own data to make decisions, the better we’ll be able to address the opioid epidemic,” Chalk says.

Despite the increasing awareness, Kolodny still gets criticism — sometimes from patients who take opioids and fear losing access to their medicine. A group of patients and a few doctors who lost their medical licenses for overprescribing opioids recently signed a letter addressed to President Liebowitz demanding Kolodny be fired. The university has no intention of firing Kolodny, says Horgan, who notes that IBH gets many letters that praise his work.

For his part, Kolodny expresses compassion for his critics. “I think of them as victims of our era of aggressive prescribing,” he says. “Many will have a hard time ever coming off opioids.” Nevertheless, “we need to prevent more pain patients from winding up in their shoes. Compassionate care for patients with pain isn’t jeopardized by more-cautious prescribing — it demands it.”

Though the tide of awareness has started to turn, the U.S. has a long way to go to solve the opioid-addiction epidemic. Unlike Obama, President Donald Trump hasn’t ignored the problem — in fact, he’s often spoken out publicly about the need to address it. When it comes to Trump’s record of action, however, Kolodny sums up his reaction in one word: “disappointed.”

The Trump administration’s declaration last fall that the opioid crisis is a public-health emergency is wholly inadequate, Kolodny says, since it came without any dedicated funds to fight the problem. Trump’s commission on the crisis issued its final report in November, punting the issue back to the states, with a call for Congress to issue an indeterminate amount of money in block grants.

“Trump certainly gets a better grade than Obama on speaking about the problem,” Kolodny says. “But there hasn’t been any action — none, zilch — from the administration. We don’t need another commission that issues recommendations. We need a plan, and we need funding that addresses the crisis.”

If one reads into what this article states… it is not clear if Brandeis is benefiting from what Kolodny is doing or Kolodny is riding on Brandeis’ coattails.  The fact that Kolodny is employed by Heller School’s Institute for Behavioral Health (IBH) at Brandeis University… would suggest that everyone involved with this project suggest that they knew that they were dealing with a mental health issue (addictive personality), but proceeded to proceed blaming various opiates. 

So Kolodny and Brandeis is “marketing” a medication for addiction that is a C-III and until 2014 Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen was a C-III. If one reads the DEA definition of what a C-II med is and what a C-III med is … they don’t vary all that much.  Substituting the dependency on one medication to another medication…can that really be labeled as a means to stop opiate abuse ?

Our Congress in 1999 declared that 2000-2009 was the “decade of pain” and the Joint Commission jumped on that law with “both feet” and declared that pain was a 5th vital sign and made pain management – especially in the hospitals that they accredited – a MAJOR STANDARD.  If a hospital failed meeting a major standard the hospital runs the risk of losing their ability to bill for services provided to Medicare & Medicaid pts.

While Purdue’s printed literature stated that Oxycontin was “less addicting” when prescribed to chronic pain pts and many studies validate that 98%+ of chronic pain pts prescribed routine dosing of any opiates WILL NOT BECOME ADDICTED.  Between Purdue’s marketing and the “decade of pain”.. may have contributed to some careless prescribing of opiates.

If one notices, there seems to be no mention that all of these people who were labeled as “addicts” weren’t already abusing/addicted to the two drugs -Nicotine and Alcohol – since we have some 30-40 million people abusing/addicted to both of these legal drugs.. why is there not some other stats on these opiate addicts/substance abusers on what other mental health addictive personality they may be involved in.

Has Kolodny and IBH had an intentional myopic viewpoint of the entire scope of the various substances that these people are using/abusing ?

Stimulus check — WHERE ARE YOU ?

The much-awaited documentary film—Pain Warriors– will be released on May 25th

Chronic Pain Documentary Set for Release in May

http://nationalpainreport.com/chronic-pain-documentary-set-for-release-in-may-8844122.html

The much-awaited documentary film—Pain Warriors– will be released on May 25th across Video on Demand Platforms, cable tv and other venues.

That’s the word from Tina Petrova of Visionary Films who says that Gravitas Ventures will distribute the film—a key relationship to getting more people to see the film on chronic pain.

As the press release says, those who suffer with intractable pain in North America now outnumber a series of other disease states.

 

The film by Petrova and Eugene Weis examines the “forgotten ones”-pain patients who have been denied life-giving medications by government policies and examines how some are being driven to suicide. They also feature some physicians who fight on despite concerns about their license.

“Would we take away someone’s insulin or beta blocker because a small percentage found a way to monetize these drugs and get high off them?”, she asks.

Chronic pain patients build their lives around managing pain and often struggle to perform simple task each. The chronic pain demographic, which includes millions, is often invisible, shunned and disbelieved.

Gravitas is a Red Arrow Studios Company one of the world’s leading creators and distributors of entertainment content.

So, what can you do between now and late May? Promote this on your social media. Many chronic pain patients and providers complain—rightfully—that not enough people know about chronic pain. Here’s an opportunity to help let not only people who are already sympathetic to the plight of the chronic pain patient but also to people in your networks—family friends and co-workers—who you believe may not understand what chronic pain patients go through.

Put a link to this story in your Facebook, Twitter, Instagram accounts and send it via email. Also tag the social media sites of the film:

FB: Painwarriorsmovie

TWITTER @painwarriorsdoc

Instagram: painwarriorsmovie

It’s an important educational opportunity.

And as always, if you want to follow National Pain Report you can do so at:

TWITTER: @NatPainReport & @edcoghlan

FACEBOOK: @nationalpainreport

Arthritis Foundation Survey

After a prolonged discussions with the Arthritis Foundation I asked them to step up to the CDC and their defunct guidelines.
Anyone suffering from severe Arthritis here is another door that has been opened where your voice can be heard. 
They have finally decided to help us.
Please complete the survey if you are able.,
The Arthritis Foundation’s Live Yes! INSIGHTS℠ Assessment. Learn More Now!

when pts’ health & well being is behind a company’s stock price and bottom line profits ?

Okay, we all heard the rumor that CVS was going to cut R.Ph. hours. Appears it is no longer a rumor. Got a text from a CVS pharmacist that in her area all overlap hours were cut and hours were redistributed so each pharmacist got the same amount of hours. She said they are so busy that the pharmacist still stay after their shifts to try to help out and not get paid! Her store does 6,000 plus scripts per week now with only one pharmacist and at the most 3 techs. Granted they are a 24 hour store. And, she further elaborated, even with this pandemic it is still all about metrics. But, as she further texted me, “wait it gets even better. She was told be glad you have a job because R.Ph. are standing in line waiting for a job and they are starting at $48 an hour.” Also, her health insurance premium is going up for the year because now it is based on your salary

If one does the math on these numbers…. this CVS store is filling – on average – one Rx every 100 SECONDS.. and on their busier days… they would be filling one Rx every 60 SECONDS.  Those numbers presume one pharmacist and 3 techs… and no time allotted for meal breaks and restroom breaks…. and back log of Rxs are so great that Pharmacists tend to hang over at shift break to help the team to try and catch up.

It was recently reported that CVS Health’s 1st quarter gross revenue was up 8.3% and NET PROFIT was up 43%. It is VERY DIFFICULT for a MATURE COMPANY to have net profit to increase – as a percent – more than the gross revenue increases.

Here is a recent article that suggests how they could be accomplishing this

Aetna whistleblower accuses CVS Health’s Caremark of fraud in Medicare Part D drug prices

Having your prescriptions filled by a company that seems to put more emphasis on stock prices and net profits than the health & well being of their employees … are they putting the pts’ health and well being at risk because of the staffing levels they are forcing on their Rx dept staff ?  All those Rx staff are humans and humans make mistakes and at that volume..  mistakes will happen.. when will it be your turn to have a prescription mis-filled ? Do you really want to support/patronize a company that coerce their employees to work “off the clock” so that pts get their medications ?