Research doctors have put pigs into a short-term state of suspended animation to test whether the procedure could be used to increase the time that doctors have in treating severe trauma patients. The results appear very positive.
It is worth, however, pointing out that gross oversight that the PRI reporter makes in describing the story. First, Alexa Lim states, “But that procedure could come to a hospital near you in the next few years.” But this time frame is completely unrealistic given the regulatory process, a fact that Alexa Lim points out near the end of the article:
Even such basic trials come with major safety and ethical concerns, so they must meet standards set out by special hospital review boards. Because the technique will need to be used on trauma victims where there’s no time to get consent even from relatives, doctors will have to educate all potential patients in a community — potentially hundreds of thousands of people — in case some want to opt out in advance.
“That’s why it’s extremely difficult and challenging and time-consuming and expensive to do these trials,” Alam says.
I find this internal cognitive dissonance disturbing for two reasons. One: Internal to their own (rather short) article, does the reporter not realize what they’re writing? Second, and much more importantly: white washing the destructiveness of the regulatory process helps nobody (save the regulators). People die because the regulatory process is a huge, lumbering, slow process. These are the very real but very invisible deaths of those who might have been saved had regulators not restricted a product or procedure or moved more quickly to approve something. I do wish that reporters would point this out more often.
Tim Draper’s ballot initiative to split California into six states has garnered enough signatures to get onto the 2016 ballot.
Regardless of whether this is actually a good idea vis-a-vis the ultimate implementation, it’s fantastic to see that people – 1.3 million, so far, in the case of Tim Draper’s initiative – recognize that government itself is a problem and that there is a way to try to fix it – namely, by trying to fix it and by recognizing that trying to fix it almost certainly means breaking it and/or starting from scratch.
There has been remarkably little innovation in government in the United States since its birth. It’s encouraging to see that maybe, finally, we’ll be getting some.
Joseph Ivy would approve.
I often write about government spending as a mechanism for buying votes.
There are other ways of getting votes, not buying them, but manufacturing them. Here is an excellent article that describes how the current crisis at the border with Mexico is or could be* an attempt to manufacture votes by the Dems.
For the sake of this post and any commentary on it, ignore the commentary in the linked article. I only focus my attention on the notion that the immigration border crisis is a tool being used to manufacture votes.
As Rahm Emmanuel has said, “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” Ah, the thinking of a master politician and altogether ridiculous human being.
* – I am a little bit skeptical that it actually is an attempt to manufacture votes simply because it is a somewhat elaborate plan, the likes of which I doubt anybody in Washington has the intelligence or patience for. That being said, the one skill that politicians DO have is getting themselves elected.
Turns out that for a long time scientists were wrong about whales’ role in the ecosystem.
Are they correct now?
Will policy change as a result of the new findings?
Sometimes it’s an insider’s game.
Just like in Evolve.
Über will no longer allow for market-driving pricing during emergencies in NYC.
How and who does this help?
Answers: it doesn’t help (anybody, except the politicians that get to falsely claim that they’re looking out for the interests of their constituents) and it hurts everybody who needs a ride during emergencies. Typically, when prices are capped, one or both of two things happens: the product in question becomes exceptionally scarce very quickly, and queuing takes the place of money to allocate the product amongst consumers. These outcomes, in combination or taken singly are both exactly the opposite of what you want during an emergency.
Prices are what they are for reasons. Demanding that prices be other than what they are is nonsense. A is A, it cannot be something else.