Medical Term of the Day: Scabs and Synthetic Platelets

Hooray for scabs!

Platelets, or Thrombocytes, are the small, non-nuclear cells in your blood that are one of the main factors that cause clotting. When you cut yourself deep enough to cause bleeding, a mechanism is activated in which platelets are sent to the site of the wound and begin to build up. They are irregularly shaped, so they catch onto each other and the other components of your blood to basically form a dam. As the site is exposed, the dam dries up and becomes our good friend the Scab.

Scabs are a very important part of the healing process. A scab is like a bandaid that is made directly from your body! They are great protection against infection, and as they cover the wound site, they allow for the regeneration of cells that will replace the tissue that was lost in the initial damaging of the area.
(photo courtesy of photobucket)

New research is being done on synthetic platelets. Scientists are working on a powder that can be administered intravenously to a patient with severe bleeding to speed up the clotting process. This is great, because some people have blood-clotting conditions called Thrombophilias in which their body has a hard time producing clots. This can be due to lack of platelets or inefficient mechanisms of the blood.

This research will be especially helpful for trauma that causes internal bleeding. As it stands, internal bleeding is a big problem for doctors because you have to physically get to the site to stop the bleeding, which means, in some cases, opening the patient up and having to clamp the blood vessels closed. BUT, if the bleeding is somewhere critical, such as the BRAIN, the patient is S.O.L. (wear a helmet everywhere!)

If surgeons could simply give the patient an IV drip of clotting agent, then there would be more time to find the injury and take care of it.

The Upside of Supporting the Bill: Updated

In response to my post, a friend writes:

I don't see the upside of supporting the Senate Bill. When people realize how bad it is, they will abandon the Democratic Party

There's plenty to be upset about, but we can't walk away without a victory. It has come too far, with too much heartache along the way. I'm not unconditionally supportive of the Senate Bill, it's not perfect. It doesn't help as many people as it could with the Medicare Buy-in or the Public Option. BUT, that doesn't mean it's not good.

Here are some of the upsides of the bill:

• Insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny people based on pre-existing conditions
• Insurance companies are no longer allowed to practice rescission (essentially canceling a patients contract because they became too expensive to cover)
• Millions more will gain access to health care, as many as 31 million more
• It will lower premiums and make healthcare more affordable
• It provides billions in subsidies for lower- and middle-income families
• It mandates minimum levels of coverage
• It controls costs by bundling payments, ensuring 'prudent purchasers' with exchanges, and by creating a Medicare Commission. (Ezra Klein has more)
• It creates health insurance exchanges. These are marketplaces that will certify, rate, and regulate insurers and will allow consumers to find and compare insurance plans.They also regulate how insurers raise their premiums. These exchanges will likely begin small but grow over time. As they grow, consumers should see prices become more competitive and the quality increase.
• No lifetime or annual limits.

This is not a comprehensive list, but its still nothing to scoff at. Here's a few more defenses from Senator Jay Rockfeller, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, John Podesta and Nate Silver.

I would support the outrage coming from the left if I thought it could achieve something tangible. But I don't. The votes don't exist to keep a public option. Worse, I'm afraid this outrage will only convince people that success is a failure.

Unfortunately, the Senate is broken and majority rule doesn't carry the day. Democrats need 60-votes, 100% group compliance, to pass this bill plus a Republican or two. The leverage lies with those at the margin. So we get people like Lieberman, who can anoint themselves as the '60th vote.' With that power, Lieberman destroyed a really good compromise for what appears to be no good reason.

And while that really sucks, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can't walk away at the finish line. Starting back over, beginning from scratch, is a recipe for disaster.

If the bill fails, and reform collapses, it is likely that Congress will become more risk averse and enact even less of the President's agenda, Democrats will look like failures, and the momentum will be given to the teabaggers. To me, this is an unacceptable alternative.

People won't leave the Democrats because they didn't go far enough, but they'll leave if Dems do nothing at all. Just because we can't finish the journey in one step doesn't mean it's not worth taking that step. Our system favors the incremental revolutionary.

Final thought: why can't Democrats come back, after this passes, with a reconciliation bill to add the parts they still want? Why does this bill have to fail?

Update: Krugman says 'pass the bill"

what dave said about avatar

yup. nailed it. avatar ftw.

Just saw Avatar in 3D IMAX

Wow, is all I have to say...

The Known Universe - Kottke.org

This is easily one of the coolest and most mind-boggling videos I've seen to date. To just think of the enormity of space, and of life in general! I used to get so overwhelmed as a kid, thinking about everything. After watching this, try not to get depressed at how meaningless our lives really are in the grand scheme of things....ha!



via kottke.org

'Architecture Is Public Art'

Great Interview with architect Daniel Libeskind via Spiegel:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't agree with critics like Christopher Hawthorne of the Los Angeles Times, who called CityCenter "one final echo of the boom years"?

Libeskind: Great visions that transform cities are not going to disappear. We won't lose heart and start building smaller houses now. Of course this is a difficult time for many. But it's also a good time to rethink architecture, to rethink what it is we're doing here.

I've been hearing a lot about how the recession will put the breaks on suburban sprawl and gear development to focus on downtown, urban projects. I can only hope so. I dream of a time when America will embrace urbanity. Real urbanism. Urbanism that promotes diviersity and interaction, that provides places of quiet and places of gathering, places for commerce and for community. This is what cities should be like. We need to stop the messy expansion of dead, soulless places.

Just Another Day in My Kitchen

while we're on the topic of movies...

is anyone else as excited about this as i am? i hope so. the first was a great flick, downey jr. is about the damned perfectest (shut up, it's a word) choice for stark in hollywood. mickey rourke is always worth seeing and his whiplash looks captivating (no pun intended). scarlett johanssen is boybait anyways, and her casting as natasha romanoff (aka the black widow) looks to be spot on. the don cheadle / terrence howard fiasco shakes a bit of confidence (who wants broken character continuity?) but despite all of that, anticipation for this one is high (at least around my house).

i'm gonna admit something here. iron man? not my favorite superhero. i totally get the appeal, it's a realization of the american dream and all that. he's been through some great story arcs, sure, but i'll take spider-man any day of the week. that being said, i've enjoyed these movies a whole lot, frankly way more than any other marvel movie, especially after x3 and spider-man 3. here's to hoping the iron man lightning strikes twice!

Youtube leading the way?

from the daily galaxy: a youtube video just snagged someone a directing gig.



how awesome is that? this never would've happened twenty years ago. a potentially amazing director (and hopefully he leg-ups his cg team, that wasn't just well-directed, the visuals were phenomenal) would've just slipped through the cracks. good for fede alvarez, and good for us too. when his movie comes out, i'm gonna be first in line to catch it.

original article

Inmates Running the Asylum

The John Birch Society is co-sponsoring the next CPAC...ugh...

This is another in a long line of moves by the right to court its base and further marginalize themselves from society at large. More power to 'em.

Now its Procedural!

And John McCain doesn't like it one bit...

Via TPM

Gingerbread Mansions

WebUrbanist has 32 architectural designs for gingerbread houses.

Keep Gitmo?

In other depressing news, according to a Gallup poll, support for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison drops.

It's not a huge shift, but I hope the fear-mongering from Hannity/Beck/Cheney/et.al is not beginning to take hold.

Worst Christmas Song: Part 2

Nothing like an 80's ski trip...oh it's so bad...

Reconciliation Skepticism

‘Kill the bill’ advocates believe we should scrap the existing bills and begin anew with the reconciliation process (which requires only 51 votes in the senate).

I’m very skeptical about this process for a couple of reasons:

1) Congress is generally very risk averse, the closer we get into 2010, the greater this aversion becomes. Speaker Pelosi has already said that 2010 will be a quiet time, in terms of controversial legislation.

2) Killing the bill will take the wind out of the sails of legislators and give the momentum to the teabaggers and the ‘Party of No.’ Republicans are determined that health care be Obama’s ‘waterloo.’

3) Health care only passed in the House by 5 votes and that was with the Stupak Amendment. Will the Blue Dogs come along this time? Are there even 50 votes in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill?

4) A reconciliation bill could take a long time to hash out in both chambers. Does Congress, or America for that matter, have the stamina to begin again?

5) A reconciliation bill might not actually do what supporters think it will. Reconciliation only deals with budgetary issues, not regulatory issues. So, no banning rescission or policies that deny people with pre-existing conditions.

6) Even if Congress wants to scale back the number of controversial issues, big issues loom in 2010. Regulating the financial industry, passing worthwhile energy legislation, winding down U.S. involvement in Iraq, etc., are all potential 2010 or 2011 issues that Democrats will need 60 votes on. Don’t collapse the big tent out of spite.