For example, where do we get all of our aspirin tablets that we take for a variety of ailments or pain? Despite the brand on the packaging, aspirin is not a US product, so where are these tablets manufactured? The Bitterfeld Supply Center in Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany, is one of the biggest aspirin production plants internationally and is still used by Bayer. Other medications may include components made in Spain as well as those from other nations, including China.

For example, with an annual production of 120 billion pills, China provides the vast majority of the aspirin sold in North America. Omeprazole and simvastatin are two other commonly used medications that are frequently imported from India.

Regarding health, there are many options outside of conventional treatment. These include complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Cancer patients may find relief from nausea, pain, and exhaustion, as well as from the worry and anxiety that comes with their treatments, when they take part in alternative means.

On the other hand, when modern medicine fails to alleviate a patient’s symptoms — for example, in the case of advanced cancer or emerging infectious diseases — people turn more to traditional treatments. Also, most people think that traditional medications are harmless because they are all-natural. It is standard practice to combine herbs with other herbs, prescription or OTC pharmaceuticals, or other drugs. Therefore, this may not be the case and may cause additional medical problems.

Traditional medicine is often preferred because it is less expensive, aligns better with the patient’s ideology, addresses concerns about chemical (synthetic) side effects, provides more personalized care, and makes health information more accessible to the public. Herbal medicines are primarily prescribed to treat non-life-threatening, long-term health issues rather than acute, life-threatening ones.

If tariffs enter the picture in terms of pharmaceuticals and the pricing is also increased, there may be a resurgence of the use of more traditional forms of medications. Some major pharmaceutical firms have indicated that they will build new production facilities in the United States to avoid tariff-increased prices.

The Continuing Role of Herbal Medicines

A wide range of acute and chronic diseases, as well as a number of maladies and difficulties, including but not limited to cardiovascular disease, prostate issues, depression, inflammation, and immune system boosters, are treated with the use of herbs. In China, traditional herbal treatments were a key component of the plan to control and cure SARS in 2003, and in Africa, a flower has been used for decades to treat wasting signs caused by HIV.

In Europe, herbal medicines are also widely available; Germany and France sell more herbal over-the-counter medicines than any other European country. In most industrialized nations, herbal teas, essential oils, and extracts are offered alongside conventional medications. As researchers continue to explore the world of traditional medicines, they have found some crucial herbal ingredients that are amenable to new pharmaceuticals.

And, traditional medicines have been a part of the Native American tribes’ cultures, where the use of herbs was the basis for many health issues. For pain relief, Native Americans chewed willow bark. Aspirin, the most widely used medicine in the world, was discovered in 1897 using salicin, the main element in the bark. (Salicin is a building block of salicylic acid, the main component of most over-the-counter shampoos and treatments for acne and dandruff.)

Native Americans understood the rationale behind vaccines, which is to prevent disease by exposing the body to a weakened form of the infectious agent. According to Dr. Sophie E. Neuner, a research associate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, indigenous communities sometimes self-inoculate by taking tiny doses of drugs, which help to mitigate the negative effects of higher doses.

Therefore, there has always been a place for traditional medicines, worldwide and, if tariffs present a financial burden to some groups of people, the tendency will probably be to try traditional medicines once again. That is not to say that there will not be a continuing use of these medicines, but it is more prevalent these days to use prescription pharmaceuticals rather than herbal remedies.

I know that in my family, my grandfather, who was a pharmacy intern at one time, did provide us with traditional cures for fevers and upset stomach. Will tariffs turn the tide from pharmaceuticals to traditional medicines? The question is waiting to be answered.

The post Tariffs Can Upset the World of Healthcare and Medications appeared first on Medika Life.

One of the most troubling consequences of whataboutism is the erosion of empathy. In our rush to defend positions or deflect criticism, we overlook the human component of issues. Instances of social injustice, environmental degradation, and economic inequality represent real struggles real people face. Yet, in the age of whataboutism, empathy has become a casualty of our ideological battles.

What lies beneath this behavioral phenomenon, and what does it say about our capacity to understand or respect one another? Expressing concern for any specific community can now offend supporters of another community and become a trap that suppresses authentic empathy. Whataboutism steers us toward making sure not to offend anyone; it forces us to try and avoid barbs rather than productively discuss a specific, time-pressing, painful issue. The result is that we stay silent rather than speak to one particular person’s needs or community’s plight.

In a world in which urgent communication increasingly informs the tone and tempo of our discourse, when knee-jerk responses encouraged by social media cascade in response to the expression of concern for one community’s difficulties, someone is bound to be outraged and outspoken about it if we fail to acknowledge in tandem the predicament of others. This kind of blowback is all but guaranteed when a business, community or spiritual leader voices that concern. In that case, the wrath of the “X bots” is unleashed. The fear of whataboutism eventually gives birth to siloed tribalism and the fear of saying anything.

Conversation Without Substance

Whataboutism operates on the premise that rather than address a specific issue; our focus should be more expansive — more inclusive.

The problem is that our concern and empathy become diluted and ineffectual. Politicians, in particular, often structure their comments as all-encompassing during debates, speeches, and community visits. Instead of engaging with the substance and acknowledging the validity of a specific concern, whataboutism is deployed as a diversionary tactic to steer the conversation away from the main point.

Suppose you support Black Lives Matter because deadly violence, economic disparities, and well-documented health inequities disproportionately threaten Black Americans. In the wake of the George Floyd murder and protests, responses driven by whataboutism (e.g., “all lives matter”) expressed points of view that would be valid at any other time but, in that specific moment, seemed designed to undermine empathy.

This is equally true of concerns for people suffering outside our communities; however, in the face of an unfolding crisis, expressing concern for ALL people does away with our ability to express empathy or solidarity for any one people. This “all or nothing” mentality also diminishes our ability to feel empathy or solidarity for more than one group.

Can Two “Rights” Occupy the Same Brain Space?

The human mind’s multitasking capacity has limits. But when multimedia — particularly social media — accelerates the flood of information, it diminishes our mind’s analytic ability to move from thought to thought and task to task. This cognitive muscle, termed “parallel processing,” enables individuals to connect varied mental tasks and concepts concurrently. However, how we effectively juggle multiple thoughts simultaneously and consecutively is complex — it’s a gift for some and an impossible struggle for others.

The brain’s architecture paves the way for parallel processing. Different regions of the brain specialize in distinct cognitive functions. Neurologically, the prefrontal cortex handles executive functions like decision-making, while the hippocampus is dedicated to memory.

When two topics don’t heavily overlap in brain regions, it’s easier to think about them in tandem — brain function that employs diverse and expansive thinking is where the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus co-exist harmoniously.

At its core, whataboutism plays psychological games and forces communicators to avoid topical minefields and speak to all points of view at all times or be called out, requiring them to either dig in their heels or acquiesce and admit error.

“Can I express my concern for you alone at this moment? Or, must I write about your suffering or tragedy incompletely so that others feel their struggle is not ignored?”

That has become a unique challenge in a fast-moving information world where partisan politics and tribalism exert outsized influence.

Tribalism Over Empathy

Whataboutism reveals our deep biases and tribal/national instincts. We tend to passionately defend our beliefs and affiliations too often at the expense of understanding the pain and suffering of others. An “us versus them” tribal mentality, in which empathy is reserved only for those within our religion, region or race, calls on us to view outsiders with suspicion or disdain.

The rise of whataboutism coincides with the information overload of the digital age. With a constant stream of news, social media updates, and opinions competing for our attention, it is easy to become overwhelmed. Issues are often reduced to soundbites or headlines, devoid of the depth and nuance they demand. As a result, our ability to understand situations becomes diluted by the sheer volume of competing narratives vying for our attention.

Expressing a Dual Narrative

Whataboutism perpetuates a false equivalency between issues, suggesting that addressing one issue somehow negates the importance of another. This binary thinking fails to recognize the interconnectedness of social problems and the need for multifaceted solutions. Reducing complex issues to simplistic comparisons, whataboutism undermines meaningful dialogue and halts progress.

How do we counteract the effects of whataboutism and reclaim our humanity for continuous dialogue and empathy?

We must cultivate a culture of diversity and inclusion. That will help to lessen the knee-jerk tendency of rejecting the concerns of others. We must foster open-mindedness and acknowledge our biases, blind spots, and areas for psychological growth. This requires a willingness to engage in an uncomfortable conversation, which is essential to feeling genuine empathy and reaching an understanding.

We must resist the temptation to engage in whataboutism ourselves. We should address issues humbly and honestly instead of deflecting criticism or derailing conversations. This means listening actively to others’ perspectives, acknowledging their concerns, and seeking common ground wherever possible. Stephen R. Covey wrote that it calls for patience; “first seek to understand and then be understood.”

Feeling empathy cannot become a lost skill. It is one of the things that makes us human. It means putting ourselves in others’ shoes, even if only for a moment, recognizing their humanity and the validity of their experience. Empathy requires us to move beyond a singular perspective and recognize every individual’s inherent worth and dignity, regardless of their background or beliefs. It does not require us to embrace their ideas or ideals.

We must recover the discipline to sit quietly, listen, and learn to do this. That’s the basis of becoming critical thinkers and skilled communicators who can separate fact from fiction and recognize the manipulative tactics of whataboutism when we encounter them in a world awash with rapid information. By staying informed, questioning assumptions, and actively seeking diverse perspectives, we can immunize our discourse against the polarizing effects of whataboutism and work toward a more compassionate and inclusive society.

The magnitude of misinformation, disinformation, and whataboutism is troubling in our democratic societies, which encourage open discourse. In recognizing the psychological roots of whataboutism and working to neutralize its effects, we may be able to preserve our human capacity for empathy and engage in more meaningful dialogue on the issues that matter at specific moments. We can create space to listen and grow emotionally and organizationally. It’s time to move beyond the distractions of whataboutism toward a more engaged and empathetic world.

The post Is “Whataboutism” Killing Empathy? appeared first on Medika Life.

In 2020, research was published analyzing the voting patterns of physicians in Texas, California, and New York. The research found that physicians in those states did not vote as often as the general population. In fact, this study indicated that only half of eligible physicians were even registered to vote. This was very disappointing to me.

The fight for the right to vote in this country has been waged for over a century. When our nation was first established, women did not have the right to vote, and Blacks were not even considered fully human. A lot, thank God, has changed for the better since that time. And, since that time, there have been scores upon scores of Americans who have shed their blood and given their lives to give me the right to vote and have my voice heard.

I cannot let that fight, I cannot let the lives of those brave Americans be lost in vain by neglecting to do my duty as a citizen and registering to vote and then voting in every election.

In so many countries in our world, sham elections are held where the dictator receives “99.9%” of the vote tally. In so many countries in our world, people’s lives and livelihoods are placed in danger for daring to have their voices be heard. In so many countries in our world, people yearn for the privileges that we here take for granted. This fact motivates me to get out the vote and let my voice be heard.

Those of us in healthcare – physicians especially – should be at the vanguard of those who consistently cast their ballots in every election, large or small. So much of our profession is regulated by policymakers and legislators who are not in healthcare. So much of what we do is, many times, subject to the whims of politicians and the machinations of electoral and partisan politics. We deserve a say in this process, and as the saying goes, “if you are not at the table, then you are on the menu.” The very first thing we need to do to be at the table is vote and have our voices heard.

In January of this year, another paper was published showing an increasing trend of physician turnout in elections:

This is encouraging to see, and we need to continue this trend.

We all have very busy professional and personal lives. It can be hard, sometimes, to take the time and cast a ballot, especially since election day is usually during the workweek. Take that time, however, we must. It is not only our duty as citizens of this country, but – as this year’s study authors noted: “physicians’ engagement with the political process, particularly through voting, plays an important role in shaping public policy, affecting patient health and clinical practice.”

The post If We Are Not At The Table, We Will Be On The Menu appeared first on Medika Life.

Calling it “arbitrary and capricious,” the New York Supreme Court struck down New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for public workers, ruling in favor of 16 unvaccinated city workers who had sued following their termination. Their reason? The vaccines failed to prevent infection and transmission.

Fresh on the heels of this recent decision, not everyone is paying attention, especially Kathy Hochul, the incumbent Governor of New York since 2021 and a Democrat. As an engineer of the NYC mandate in question, here’s what she had to say in a recent debate about her policy to dismiss workers who chose not to be vaccinated against Covid.

It’s a brave statement in the face of mounting evidence that not only New York, but the entire United States was at fault for coercing vaccination compliance and in many instances, mandating Covid vaccines. It is also, in view of recent events, politically short sighted and potentially disastrous for public health and related services in New York.

In the last month we have had confirmation from Pfizer of a fact many of us within the industry were well aware of almost two years ago. The Covid vaccines don’t prevent transmission. For those having a difficult time with this, let’s break it down into its simplest form.

Vaccinated people have always been able to contract and spread the SARS-COV2 virus that leads to Covid.

Spare a thought for all those vaccinated airline passengers, happily munching away without their masks in a sealed steel cannister.

A perfect storm

Data is now being released daily that is unraveling the best efforts of all involved to preserve the official Covid vaccine narrative. Couple this with the increased visibility of the vaccine injured across all forms of social media, and you have a problem, Houston. One which the orchestrators of the vaccine mandates seem to be wishing away rather than dealing with.

October has seen social media and news outlets flooded with warnings the Democrats have largely failed to heed.

• Pfizer announced at an EU Committee convened to investigate Covid that their vaccines were never tested for preventing transmission (link provided above)
• Possibly with the worst timing ever, the CDC unanimously approved the Covid vaccine for use in children under five and added it to the official list of childhood vaccines in the US, basing their decision on what can only be described as “hugely questionable” clinical trials. An uproar followed, with members of the public and political figures stepping into the melee. Fact-checkers published articles assuring the public that individual states could decide whether the child vaccine would be compulsory, but the damage was already done.
• Rochelle Walensky, the CDC director, fully vaccinated and boosted, announced she had Covid. This news was interspersed on social media with earlier clips from 2021 of her assuring the public they would not contract Covid or transmit the virus if they had been vaccinated. The clip below shows President Biden, Rochelle Walensky and Rachel Maddow doubling down on the official narrative.

President Biden has just received a booster dose in this week and made this statement shortly after to the media.

“It will be one injection of the corona vaccine every year, if you get it you are protected and if you don’t, you are putting yourself and others at risk.”

President Joe Biden, Oct 2022

It shows a continued inability across Democratic party lines to address the rapid unravelling of the official narrative as it doubles down on inaccurate and misleading statements relating to the vaccines, their efficacy and ignores their documented dangers. Ego, bravado, legal liability and a host of others factors are preventing the Democrats, who are now associated with Covid policy, from owning up to what each of their constituents already knows.

We are now at point in the evolution of Covid that suggests a simple path forward. Continued “vaccination”, or let’s call it what it really is – immunization – for at-risk groups, perhaps on a seasonal basis, as the SARS-COV2 virus doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon, and encouraging the public to continue wearing masks in crowded areas. There were numerous reasons for the huge reduction in influenza cases in 2020 and 2021. Schools were closed (these are recognized as the primary source of “flu” infections), people were holed up in their houses, and, then when we did venture out, we were masked. It helped slow the spread of both Covid and influenza.

The Democrats are hemorrhaging support because of their inability to acknowledge past mistakes and it’s questionable if many even realize it. Indeed, the Republicans do. Confidence in the political system will be at a premium in 2022. To repeat falsehoods in the face of irrefutable facts is tantamount to political suicide. That alienates voters, voters the Democrats can ill afford to lose at this pivotal point in American history.

With voting for midterms gathering momentum, sticking to the facts as they emerge, acknowledging past mistakes and pledging to do better, may well serve the Democratic party more effectively than their current head-in-the-sand approach.

There is an unprecedented groundswell of cross-party support among the public for an end to the official Covid narrative. Republicans on the fence may well elect to climb back down, and their Democrat neighbors may soon be knocking on their doors. There is a fundamental difference between voting for an idiot and a liar; in this instance, people consider their lives to be at stake. A reckoning awaits those currently in power, and as with most unpleasant things, it is best dealt with now than left to fester.

Truth, at this point, is the only way forward for the Democrats. They may yet choose to eschew it.

The post Vaccines and Mandates Could Be the Undoing of the Democratic Party appeared first on Medika Life.