Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists


By James Gallagher Health and science reporter, BBC News website

Scientists say early experiments suggest it may one day be possible to make babies without using eggs.

They have succeeded in creating healthy baby mice by tricking sperm into believing they were fertilising normal eggs.

The findings in Nature Communications, could, in the distant future, mean women can be removed from the baby-making process, say the researchers.

For now, the work helps to explain some of the details of fertilisation.
End of mum and dad?

The University of Bath scientists started with an unfertilised egg in their experiments.

They used chemicals to trick it into becoming a pseudo-embryo.

These "fake" embryos share much in common with ordinary cells, such as skin cells, in the way they divide and control their DNA.

The researchers reasoned that if injecting sperm into mouse pseudo-embryos could produce healthy babies, then it might one day be possible to achieve a similar result in humans using cells that are not from eggs.


In the mouse experiments, the odds of achieving a successful pregnancy was one in four.

Dr Tony Perry, one of the researchers, told the BBC News website: "This is the first time that anyone has been able to show that anything other than an egg can combine with a sperm in this way to give rise to offspring.

"It overturns nearly 200 years of thinking."

Those baby mice were healthy, had a normal life expectancy and had healthy pups of their own.
Fertilisation

The goal of the researchers is to understand the exact mechanisms of fertilisation because what happens when a sperm fuses with an egg is still a bit of a mystery.

For example, the egg completely strips the sperm's DNA of all its chemical clothing and re-dresses it.

That stops the sperm behaving like a sperm and makes it act like an embryo, but how the "costume change" takes place is not clear.

Removing the need for an egg could have a wider impact on society.

Dr Perry said: "One possibility, in the distant future, is that it might be possible that ordinary cells in the body can be combined with a sperm so that an embryo is formed."

In other words, two men could have a child, with one donating an ordinary cell and the other, sperm.

Or one man could have his own child using his own cells and sperm - with that child being more like a non-identical twin than a clone.

Dr Perry stressed that such scenarios were still "speculative and fanciful" at this stage.

Earlier this year in China, scientists were able to make sperm from stem cells and then fertilise an egg to produce healthy mice.

Dr Perry suggested that combining the two fields of research may eventually do without the need for sperm and eggs altogether.

Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, from the Francis Crick Institute, commented: "I'm not surprised that the authors are excited about this.

"I think it is a very interesting paper, and a technical tour de force and I am sure it will tell us something important about reprogramming at these early steps of development that are relevant to both fertilisation and single cell nuclear transfer [cloning].

"And, perhaps more broadly, about reprogramming of cell fate in other situations.

"It doesn't yet tell us how, but the paper gives a number of clear pointers."

Monday, September 5, 2016

Bypassing the Grape but Enjoying Its Fruits

Cameron Hughes sampled wine blends at his company’s offices in Calistoga, Calif. It owns no vineyards or wineries, and outsources all the labor that goes into making a bottle of wine. Credit Peter DaSilva for The New York Times        
By NICOLE LaPORTE JUNE 9, 2012

CAMERON HUGHES sees nothing romantic about being a winemaker. Having a rolling vineyard to call his own? Taking that first sip of a homegrown pinot noir? He can live without it, thanks — and he does, even as he has become a prominent name in the California wine industry.

Mr. Hughes, who started by selling wine out of the back of his Volvo station wagon in 2002, is a wine négociant, or wine merchant. He does not own a vineyard or a winery. Instead, from offices in San Francisco and Calistoga, Calif., he outsources all the labor that goes into making a bottle of wine — growing the grapes, crushing and fermenting them, and other steps in the process — to others.

“All we do is bring the barrels,” Mr. Hughes said.

Actually, he does a bit more than that. During the worldwide wine glut of the recent recession, his company, Cameron Hughes Wine, flourished as he bought up excess wine from wineries, repackaged it under his own label and sold it at a discount.

One of the first wines he ever sold was a syrah from the Lodi region of California that had a retail price of $28. Mr. Hughes sold it at Costco for $8.99 under his generic-sounding Lot series — it was Lot 1. (Per nondisclosure agreements he has with sellers, he does not reveal where his so-called bulk wines come from, but merely describes their aromas, flavors and area of origin.)

Initially, Mr. Hughes said, he “stood in Costco doing my carnival barking act” as he tried to sell his wines to customers. “You’d hear me on the other side of the store, talking about wine. I had store managers come over and be like, ‘Dude, you’ve got to tone it down.’ ”

Mr. Hughes has stormed in on a profession that many consider sacred and has imbued it with some capitalistic swagger — not unlike Fred Franzia, the vintner behind Trader Joe’s discount wine, Charles Shaw, a k a Two Buck Chuck.

Négociants like Mr. Hughes are much more common in Europe. In the United States, “most people want to have a vineyard,” said Liz Thach, a professor of management and wine business at Sonoma State University. “The soil, the terroir, they want to have the whole thing. We have more than 7,000 wineries in the U.S. and most of them are very small and run by people who want to have a small, family business and the pride that goes into that.”

It is notoriously difficult to make a profit on a vineyard, and some wealthy owners pour money into tending grapes knowing full well that they may lose money for years. Winemaking is “a labor of love for many, many people,” Mr. Hughes said. “And it is for us, too, but we figured out how to make a buck, too.”

Most of his bucks were made buying and selling bulk wine, but these days, Mr. Hughes puts most of his resources behind actually making wine — or, rather, having others make it for him.

The Lot series are among the offerings. Credit Peter DaSilva for The New York Times
Working with wineries and vineyards in California, Oregon and Washington, as well as in Europe, he is on track to produce 300,000 cases of wine — equaling 5,000 tons of crushed grapes — this year. That’s even as poor harvests have resulted in a projected wine shortage for the next several years. In some cases, Mr. Hughes pairs a vineyard with a winery to create a wine according to specifications that he devises with his three winemakers and viticulturist.

“We outsource the work, but we oversee it very closely,” Mr. Hughes said. “We visit these vineyards numerous times. We have our viticulturist traveling the state right now, visiting all the vineyards. When the time comes for crushing and fermenting, our winemakers are there as well, getting daily lab updates.”

In other instances, Mr. Hughes might come in just after wine has been fermented, assemble various blends and then send them to the barrel to age.

Either way, the low-overhead nature of his business means that his wines, sold in places as diverse as Sam’s Club, boutique wine shops and on the Internet, are 50 percent to 70 percent cheaper, he said, than they would be under their winery’s label.

So how did he enter this idiosyncratic profession? “Purely by accident,” he says.

After starting out as a cellar rat — a low-level winery employee — at Corbett Canyon, a popular inexpensive wine label, he decided that he didn’t want to be a wine producer, and went into wine sales and marketing instead. A few years later, when he was working for a French wine importing company, he first heard about négociants.

When the importer went bust not long thereafter, Mr. Hughes saw a place for himself in the wine world. “I bought 500 cases of Napa Valley cabernet, I had a guy bottle it up for me, and I sold it out of the back of my Volvo station wagon.”

After struggling to the point that he teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, he said, he got his big break in 2004, when he persuaded Costco to start selling his Lot series.

Because both he and the origins of his wine were unknowns, building trust among customers was its own kind of labor. At Costco in San Francisco, where Mr. Hughes would stand for hours personally selling his wine, “They’re like, ‘I’ve never heard of it,’ and they’d walk on by,” he recalled.“I used to tell people, ‘If you don’t like it, I’ll come wash your car for you.’ You just did whatever it took to get people to try it.”

PROFESSOR THACH said she admired Mr. Hughes’s “heady vision.”

“He worked really hard to get Costco to pay attention to him, and when they did, it put him on the map,” she said.

Over the years, Mr. Hughes has built up his business “one foxhole at a time,” as he puts it — in 2011, he sold 80 different Lot wines, compared with three his first year.

And never once did he have to wash a car.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

The Hidden Scars All Refugees Carry


By VIET THANH NGUYEN SEPT. 2, 2016

Many people have characterized my novel, “The Sympathizer,” as an immigrant story, and me as an immigrant. No. My novel is a war story and I am not an immigrant. I am a refugee who, like many others, has never ceased being a refugee in some corner of my mind.

Immigrants are more reassuring than refugees because there is an endpoint to their story; however they arrive, whether they are documented or not, their desires for a new life can be absorbed into the American dream or into the European narrative of civilization.

By contrast, refugees are the zombies of the world, the undead who rise from dying states to march or swim toward our borders in endless waves. An estimated 60 million such stateless people exist, 1 in every 122 people alive today. If they formed their own country, it would be the world’s 24th largest — bigger than South Africa, Spain, Iraq or Canada.

My memories of becoming a refugee are fragments of a dream, hallucinatory and unreliable. Soldiers bouncing me on their knees, a tank rumbling through the streets, a crowded barge of desperate people fleeing Vietnam.

I have no guarantee these images are true. They date from the early 1970s, when I lived in the country synonymous with war. I wonder if the fact that I cannot stand the taste of milk today has to do with being a 4-year-old boy on that barge, sipping from milk a stranger shared with my family.

Perhaps this is how history becomes imprinted in the body, how fear becomes a reflex, how memory becomes a matter of taste and feeling.

My real memories began soon after we arrived at the refugee camp in Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa., in the summer of 1975. Only those refugees with sponsors could leave the camp. But no sponsor would take our family of four, so my parents went to one home, my 10-year-old brother went to another and I went to a third. My separation from my parents lasted only a few months, but it felt much longer. This forced separation, what my childhood self experienced as abandonment, remains an invisible brand stamped between my shoulder blades.

A few years later we moved across the country. My parents, merchants in their homeland, had no desire to do the menial work expected of them in Harrisburg, Pa., where we had settled.

Instead, they opened a grocery store in a depressed area of downtown San Jose, working 12- to 14-hour days, seven days a week, except for Christmas Day, Easter and New Year’s Day. They became successful, at the cost of being shot in an armed robbery.

Today, when many Americans think of Vietnamese-Americans as a success story, we forget that the majority of Americans in 1975 did not want to accept Vietnamese refugees. (A sign hung in the window of a store near my parents’ grocery: “Another American forced out of business by the Vietnamese.”) For a country that prides itself on the American dream, refugees are simply un-American, despite the fact that some of the original English settlers of this country, the Puritans, were religious refugees.

Today, Syrian refugees face a similar reaction. To some Europeans, these refugees seem un-European for reasons of culture, religion and language. And in Europe and the United States, the attacks in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Calif., and Orlando, Fla., have people fearing that Syrian refugees could be Islamic radicals, forgetting that those refugees are some of the first victims of the Islamic State.

Because those judgments have been rendered on many who have been cast out or who have fled, it is important for those of us who were refugees to remind the world of what our experiences mean.

I was — I am — the lucky kind of refugee who was carried along by his parents and who had no memory of the crossing. For people like my parents and the Syrians today, their voyages across land and sea are far more perilous than the ones undertaken by astronauts or Christopher Columbus. To those watching news reports, the refugees may be threatening or pitiful, but in reality, they are nothing less than heroic.

They will remain scarred by their history. It is understandable that some do not want to speak of their scars and might want to pretend that they are not refugees. It is more glamorous to be an exile, more comprehensible to be an immigrant, more desirable to be an expatriate. The need to belong can change refugees themselves both consciously and unconsciously, as has happened to me and others.

A Vietnamese colleague of mine once jokingly referred to his journey from “refugee to bourgeoisie.” When I told him I, too, was a refugee, he stopped joking and said, “You don’t look like one.”

He was right. We can be invisible even to one another. But it is precisely because I do not look like a refugee that I have to proclaim being one, even when those of us who were refugees would rather forget that there was a time when the world thought us to be less than human.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

TRUMP’S ANTI-SCIENCE CAMPAIGN

Donald Trump is often simply wrong about science, denying climate change and furthering the myth that vaccines cause autism. PHOTOGRAPH BY JOE RAEDLE / GETTY
By Lawrence M. Krauss, 12:00 A.M.

Over the past few months, we’ve seen Donald Trump lower, again and again, the bar for political discourse. All the while, though, he’s been lowering the scientific bar, too. In May, for instance, while speaking to an audience of West Virginia coal miners, Trump complained that regulations designed to protect the ozone layer had compromised the quality of his hair spray. Those regulations, he continued, were misguided, because hair spray is used mainly indoors, and so can have no effect on the atmosphere outside. No wonder Hillary Clinton felt the need to include, in her nomination speech, the phrase “I believe in science.”

Often, Trump is simply wrong about science, even though he should know better. Just as he was a persistent “birther” even after the evidence convincingly showed that President Obama was born in the United States, Trump now continues to propagate the notion that vaccines cause autism in spite of convincing and widely cited evidence to the contrary. (As he put it during a Republican debate, last September, “We’ve had so many instances. . . . A child went to have the vaccine, got very, very sick, and now is autistic.”) In other cases, Trump treats scientific facts the way he treats other facts—he ignores or distorts them whenever it’s convenient. He has denied that climate change is real, calling it pseudoscience and advancing a conspiracy theory that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.” But he has also filed a permit request to build a sea wall around one of his golf courses, in Ireland, in order to protect the property from global warming and its consequences. Which Trump is running for President?

Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, has a more consistent record on science; unfortunately, it’s consistently bad. Pence is an evangelical Christian who is adamantly opposed to embryonic-stem-cell research; in a conversation with Chris Matthews, in 2009, Pence hedged on whether he believes in evolution. Even when it comes to more secular matters, Pence has made some outrageous claims. In 2001, he published an essay piece on his campaign Web site claiming that smoking doesn’t kill. As if to support that claim, he noted in the same piece that one out of three smokers dies from smoking-related illnesses. Pence seems to think that thirty-three per cent and zero per cent are the same.

As if all this weren’t enough, Trump has argued for downsizing the Department of Education and said that the U.S. invests too much money in K-12 schooling. He has suggested that he might appoint Ben Carson—a young-Earth, anti-evolution creationist—to advise him on educational reform. He has called the National Institutes of Health “terrible,” and has said that he would eliminate the E.P.A. In April, the science journal Nature reported that his anti-immigrant tirades could be hindering efforts to recruit good scientists and students to the U.S. The list goes on.

The differences between the candidates and their parties could not be more stark. Hillary Clinton has a long history of supporting scientific research; she has long understood the connections between that research and economic development. She has said that, if elected, she would increase funding for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. As a senator, in 2001 and 2002, she co-sponsored legislation that would have expanded support for stem-cell research. While she hasn’t gone as far as Bernie Sanders in arguing for a carbon tax, Clinton has spoken out strongly about the need to address climate change. Recently, she announced that she would seek to install half a billion solar panels by 2020, and to shift a third of America’s electricity production to renewable resources by 2027. Clinton has also endorsed proposals to enhance stem in schools, including new-teacher training. Partly as a response to Sanders’s candidacy, she has even pledged to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for families making an annual salary of less than eighty-five thousand dollars today, and less than a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars by 2021.

On the level of party platforms, too, the differences are extreme. Perhaps in response to Trump’s candidacy, the 2016 Republican Party platform extends policy proposals that were, in 2012, already anti-science. The platform proposes eliminating the current Administration’s Clean Power Plan; prohibiting the E.P.A. from regulating carbon dioxide; officially declaring that climate change is “far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue”; and dissenting from international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The platform also claims that it is illegal to contribute to the U.N.’s Framework Convention for Climate Change and its Green Climate Fund because of the Palestinian Authority’s membership in the United Nations. It opposes embryonic-stem-cell research and human cloning for research purposes.

The positions taken by Trump and the Republicans have consequences beyond science itself. Essentially, they are betting that, for a significant portion of the country, empirical reality doesn’t matter; they are also signalling that empirical reasoning won’t be the basis of their public policy. Today, of course, we face global challenges such as climate change, which are more urgent than any we have ever confronted. These challenges require a sober assessment of reality. When science is distorted on the campaign trail, it may produce applause lines. But if those distortions lead to bad public policy, the quality of people’s lives will suffer.

Lawrence M. Krauss is the director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He is chair of the board of sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and is on the board of the Federation of American Scientists. His newest book, “The Greatest Story Ever Told . . . So Far,” will appear in March, 2017.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

POOR AND UNINSURED IN TEXAS

ILLUSTRATION BY RUTH GWILY
By Ricardo Nuila, AUGUST 18, 2016

Without a transplant, Geronimo Oregón would die of liver failure. Could he navigate one of the most restrictive health-care systems in the country?

Geronimo Oregón was wheeled out of the intensive-care unit at Houston’s Ben Taub Hospital on April 17, 2016, his body wired with electrodes and his mother at his side. He had arrived in the emergency room six days earlier, complaining of confusion, stomach pain, and shortness of breath. Physicians had drained nearly half a gallon of fluid from around his right lung, corrected his sodium imbalance (a cause of his confusion), and relieved the worst of his pain. Now Oregón was being transferred to the step-down unit, a kind of limbo between the I.C.U. and the general ward. His new room had a vacuum pump on the wall. When the suction was on, a bright yellow fluid drained out of a tube in his nose and into a clear cannister. Every part of his body—his belly, his face, his eyes—was the same vivid shade. He had jaundice, the result of old red blood cells leaking into his tissues rather than being cleared from his body as waste. In medicine, this is known as a stigmata, a physical mark of illness. Oregón was dying of liver failure. A calculation made using his blood work showed that, unless he received a liver transplant, he had only an eighteen per cent chance of surviving the next ninety days.

I have been an internist at Ben Taub for the past six years. In that time, I have rarely seen patients who lack health insurance, like Oregón, make it to the transplant list. The hospital is part of Harris Health, a county-funded network that provides care for the indigent, but as with most safety nets it does not cover organ transplantation, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. This may be why, when I took over Oregón’s care, I fixated on the tube in his nose. Rather than prolonging his life with invasive equipment, shouldn’t my colleagues and I gear our treatment toward helping him die comfortably? Normally, we would have recommended against resuscitation efforts, such as shocking his heart if it stopped or connecting him to a ventilator. But when we explained this to Oregón and his mother, Emma, she put a stop to the conversation. Her son, she pointed out, was only thirty-six years old—much too young to die. The medical team decided that addressing Oregón’s breathlessness would be a top priority, even if it meant performing more procedures.

Then a medical student noticed something in Oregón’s history that the rest of us had missed: he used to have Medicaid, but it was taken away. The second part of the revelation was not so surprising. Texas is perhaps the worst state in the union to live in as someone who is poor and terminally ill—a direct result of the political bickering surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. In its original form, the legislation would have helped Oregón. It was designed to insure that all Americans—particularly those who worked but did not have employer-sponsored health care—received basic coverage. As part of this goal, the law mandated that states extend Medicaid to any adult under the age of sixty-five who earned as much as a hundred and thirty-eight per cent of the federal poverty level (F.P.L.). Oregón made only six hundred dollars a month, or sixty-one per cent of the F.P.L. at the time, working as a gas-station attendant. But after the U.S. Supreme Court struck the mandate down, in 2012, some states—including mine—chose to reject the Medicaid expansion and the federal dollars that came with it. Texas now has the strictest Medicaid qualifications in the country. According to a 2015 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, for an adult in a family of three to receive coverage, his household income must be less than four thousand dollars per year, just nineteen per cent of the F.P.L. In most cases, childless adults, no matter how little they earn, cannot receive coverage at all.

My colleagues and I had assumed, from experience, that Texas would not fund a transplant for Oregón. But the first part of the medical student’s discovery—that he had ever had coverage to begin with—gave us hope. How, we wondered, did Oregón qualify for Medicaid in the first place? Could he again?

Oregón was born in Mexico City, raised in the state of Michoacán, and brought to Houston illegally when he was nine. His father had largely abandoned the family years earlier, leaving Emma to make ends meet by working night jobs. The money was enough at first, but then, when Oregón was thirteen, he began having seizures in school. Emma took him to Ben Taub, where he was diagnosed with epilepsy. Medication brought his convulsions under control, but he never returned to school. His father, believing that Oregón would receive better treatment in Mexico, demanded that he be sent to live with his grandparents in Michoacán. Emma eventually relented out of fear of her ex-husband, who had been abusive toward her in the past. Back in Mexico, Oregón’s grandparents put him to work tending their livestock. He didn’t return home to Houston until the age of twenty, this time as a legal U.S. resident. He had only a sixth-grade education, but he was bilingual; he joined the Job Corps, a federal career-training program, and found employment immediately.

Oregón worked low-paying jobs—as a dishwasher, a cook, and at the gas station—for most of his adult life, always making enough to pay his portion of the rent that he shared with his mother. He received affordable medical care, including treatment for his epilepsy, through Harris Health. In December of 2010, Oregón’s primary-care doctor detected early signs of liver damage—the beginning of a condition called cirrhosis—in his blood work, diagnosing it as a result of hepatitis C infection. Hep C, a virus, can be transmitted through contact with infected blood or, more rarely, through unprotected sex, and is a common cause of liver disease. According to the World Health Organization, hundreds of thousands of people die of complications from the virus annually, and as many as thirty per cent of patients with chronic hep C infection develop cirrhosis within twenty years. Since Oregón was young and never drank—alcohol abuse aggravates liver damage—the specialists at Harris Health decided not to treat his hep C, out of concern that mixing antiviral medications with his epilepsy drugs would worsen the damage. They monitored his health consistently for years.

On June 9, 2014, Oregón went to his night shift at the gas station feeling a little tired. A few hours in, he experienced a wave of nausea, suddenly vomited a large quantity of blood, and passed out. An ambulance brought him to Ben Taub, where doctors admitted him to the I.C.U. Oregón’s liver disease, they discovered, was progressing much faster than expected. He would need new medications and, eventually, a transplant. The liver specialist, aware that Harris Health could not cover the procedure, referred Oregón to a hospital social worker, who recommended that he enroll in Social Security Disability Insurance, a program for workers who have reliably paid Social Security taxes but become disabled before they reach retirement age. S.S.D.I. would give Oregón enough money for rent and food, and it would also help him recoup some of his mounting health-care costs. More important, it would change his Medicaid status: in Texas, if you’re disabled, you can qualify for the program as long as you have less than two thousand dollars in assets and earn less than seven hundred and thirty-three dollars per month. Oregón seemed to fit the state’s narrow standards.

After he was discharged from the hospital, Oregón went to the disability office, filed the appropriate paperwork, and, in September of 2014, acquired his Medicaid card. Two months later, however, he received notice that his health-care benefits had been terminated. S.S.D.I. payments are calculated according to a person’s average lifetime earnings before he became disabled. When Oregón’s started coming in, they amounted to nine hundred and twelve dollars per month, which put him over the Texas income threshold. The fact that he had paid into Social Security, in other words, made him ineligible for social health care.

Had Oregón lived in any other state, this would not have happened. In a Medicaid-expansion state, such as West Virginia, Oregón would have had no trouble maintaining his coverage. And even in other states that didn’t adopt the expansion, like North Carolina and Missouri, patients like Oregón still have hope of a transplant in a life-or-death situation. That’s because these states allow for a “medically needy” pathway, or a “spend-down” program, whereby patients can meet the Medicaid limit by deducting certain items, including unpaid medical bills, from their income. Texas has such a plan for children and pregnant women, but not for the disabled. When I told this to a social worker at a liver-transplant center in Missouri, she sighed over the phone. “Texas sounds tough,” she said.

For nearly the next two years, Oregón received frequent checkups from his physicians at Harris Health, and Emma took on extra work, including night shifts at a local sports bar. One avenue remained open to them. Disabled Texans who can’t get on Medicaid and can’t afford insurance may apply early for Medicare, the federal health-care program that usually applies to Americans older than sixty-five. But even those who have paid enough into the system, as Oregón had—his paychecks were small but consistent—must wait twenty-four months before coverage starts. This is in addition to the five-month waiting period for S.S.D.I. benefits. In the debate over the Affordable Care Act, Congress considered shortening the twenty-four months to six. But when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the change would add eighty billion dollars to the A.C.A.’s cost, legislators dropped the issue, hoping that an across-the-board Medicaid expansion would help cover most of the patients left in the gap. It certainly would have covered Oregón. Instead, he would have to wait until January of 2017 to be approved for Medicare—many months after he needed a new liver.

Before my first float—the overnight shift in which a fresh doctor takes over the care of a particular specialty’s patients—the chief resident gave me some advice. “Never go down alone,” she said. Since calling for help during this shift usually involves waking up a supervising doctor, the natural instinct is to do so only when a catastrophe is imminent. That first night, I was caring for a woman with congestive heart failure. As she relayed her history to me, she had to stop often to cough. I told myself that the cough wouldn’t worsen, but soon she was fighting for breath, sitting up in her hospital bed and gripping the guardrails. I knew I had let things go too far, so I called a resident. He took one look at the chest X-ray I had ordered and made a diagnosis: the woman had fluid in her lungs. She required a diuretic, which we quickly ordered. I apologized to him for not having recognized obvious pulmonary edema myself, and for calling him so late. “Why else would I be here?” he said. In a matter of minutes, the patient started breathing much better.

After Oregón was transferred to the step-down unit, we updated his mother on his worsening condition every day. We told her how the fluid around his lungs had started to suffocate him, how his liver could no longer stop him from bleeding into his skin, and how his kidneys had started to fail, all in the less than forty-eight hours since he had left the I.C.U. We considered new funding possibilities and ran into dead ends. Would the Social Security office lower Oregón’s disability check to seven hundred and thirty-three dollars a month so that he could requalify for Medicaid? No, administratively this wasn’t possible. Would the nearest transplant center consider performing the procedure as charity? This also wasn’t an option. Although Oregón was deemed a good candidate, there was no financing for his post-operative care, which included expensive immunosuppressive drugs. Even purchasing health-care insurance outright wasn’t feasible. The open-enrollment period for Obamacare had passed, and private insurers told Emma that her son’s illness did not meet their criteria for a life-changing event.

Ultimately, it seemed that the only way not to go down alone was to alert someone with power and influence. On April 26th, with Oregón still deteriorating, the medical team at Ben Taub called the office of John Culberson, the representative for Oregón’s congressional district, in Houston. Culberson, a Republican, opposed both the passage of Obamacare and the Medicaid expansion. But Oregón was a constituent, so two of Culberson’s staffers immediately began asking officials around the state who might be able to fund a transplant evaluation. Two days later, Emilie Becker, the medical director on call for the Texas Medicaid program, phoned me directly to say that several administrators at her office were working on the case, too. They needed one more piece of documentation, though—Oregón’s latest bank statement. Could we expedite things by faxing it over?

Oregón was by this point in no condition to manage the request on his own; his head was pulsing with pain and his kidneys were in total failure. His mother found the bank statement and gave it to the medical team. Three entries appeared in Oregón’s transaction history: a deposit of nine hundred and eighteen dollars from the Social Security Administration, a cash withdrawal the next day in the amount of nine hundred dollars, and another deposit of nine hundred and eighteen dollars twenty-nine days later. With the fax on its way, I relayed to the team my fear that, because the monthly Social Security check exceeded the stated limit for childless adults with a disability, our efforts would amount to nothing. One of the social workers was so confident of this that she wrote as much in a note, appending it to Oregón’s chart: “He will be denied this benefit.” Later the same afternoon, however, I received a call from the Medicaid office. Oregón had been approved.

As we hurried to transfer Oregón to a transplant center, a staffer at Culberson’s office called for an update. I thanked her for her help. “Of course,” she said. “This was someone’s life at stake.” Although she and her colleagues had not dealt with a situation like this before, staffers for two other U.S. representatives in the Houston area recalled instances in which only congressional advocacy had helped a critically ill patient obtain coverage. I spoke with financial counsellors at several liver-transplant centers around Texas, who estimated that, in a given three-month period, between one and nine patients are disqualified from Medicaid because their disability payments are too high. Nobody could say what becomes of these patients—whether they somehow purchase insurance or move to states with less stringent Medicaid rules, or whether they simply die from lack of a transplant. “I’m sure that happens,” Representative Gene Green, of Texas’s Twenty-Ninth Congressional District, which serves eastern Houston, told me. When I called Becker to thank her, too, I couldn’t help but ask how, in the end, Oregón had qualified. She didn’t have an answer. “It seems like you got the right people involved,” she said.

On Friday, April 29th, Oregón was transferred to Baylor St. Luke’s Hospital, where he was evaluated by the transplant team. Shortly afterward, his blood pressure dropped dangerously low. He was intubated and placed on a ventilator, and his physicians also began dialysis, to take the strain off his kidneys, and set up a constant stream of intravenous medications. Very quickly, the documentation of Oregón’s treatment, prepared for billing purposes, took on an ominous tone: “This patient has a high probability of sudden, clinically significant deterioration, which requires the highest level of physician preparedness to intervene urgently.” Nevertheless, the team at Baylor St. Luke’s was able to get him stabilized. They decided that it was time to place him on the transplant list. According to the liver specialist, he would likely receive a good rank; livers are meted out according to necessity, and his condition was dire.

That same day, however, the nurses noticed that something wasn’t right. When they inserted a needle into Oregón’s arm to draw blood, a procedure that, even in a heavily sedated patient, would cause a flinch, he didn’t move. Even more concerning, when the doctors moved Oregón’s breathing tube around to test whether it would still provoke a natural coughing response, he only lay there—no cough, no fidgeting, nothing. A CAT scan confirmed the worst: bleeding in the brain. Surgery was not an option, since the bleeding was too widespread. The doctors waited five days to see whether Oregón would regain basic brain function, performing the same reflex checks over and over. Once it became clear that he would never recover, Oregón was taken off the transplant list. On May 10th, a month to the day after he came to the E.R. at Ben Taub, his mother asked the medical team to remove her son from life support.

Oregón’s wake was held two days later, at Santana Funeral Directors, a squat red brick building on the service entrance to one of Houston’s busiest freeways. I arrived late in the afternoon, after finishing my rounds at the hospital. Emma greeted me at the entrance and walked me to her son’s casket. “Look at him,” she said, pointing out how the yellow in Oregón’s skin had darkened into a dusky brown. “We didn’t have to use much makeup.”

I expressed my condolences as best I could. I said that Oregón wasn’t suffering anymore. I said that she had inspired my colleagues with her devotion to her son. I asked whether it would be O.K. for me to write about what she had been through. “Please do,” she said. Throughout Oregón’s stay in the I.C.U.s at Ben Taub and Baylor St. Luke’s, Emma had slept beside him, on a love seat, and rubbed his swollen feet after the doctors and nurses left the room. Before that, when he grew ill, she had stayed home with him, even though she couldn’t afford it, to care for him and make sure that he didn’t fall. Now, at the wake, she remained by his side again.

When I had finished talking, Emma asked me to pass along a message to the team—not just the doctors but also the social workers, the administrators, and a congressional staffer who had visited with her and her son. It was something that Oregón had told her toward the end, when it looked as though he might indeed receive a transplant. “I feel so important,” he had said. “Everyone treats me like I’m rich.”

Ricardo Nuila is an attending physician at Baylor College of Medicine and a professor of medical humanities at the University of Houston Honors College.

THE MIDDLE OF THINGS: ADVICE FOR YOUNG WRITERS

ILLUSTRATION BY ROMAN MURADOV
By Andrew Solomon, MARCH 11, 2015

The following is adapted from a speech the author gave at the Whiting Writers’ Awards on March 5th.

When I had just finished my schooling and was looking for a job, a friend put me in touch with an absurdly well-connected British biographer who, she assured me, would help me find the professional position of my dreams. I wrote and asked him whether we might meet, explaining that I would appreciate his advice on securing literary work and enclosing some of my early efforts. He duly invited me for tea. The advice I had in mind sounded like this: “You must call so-and-so at this number and say I suggested it and he will publish you and give you loads of money.” After giving me a cup of weak tea—no sandwiches, no pastry, not even sugar or milk—he said, “I have only one piece of advice for you. Have a vision and cleave to it.” We then discussed the weather for twenty minutes.

While I, unlike that biographer, am an artesian font of utilitarian suggestions, I can now see that being asked to comment on young brilliance is an explicit invitation to pomposity. I have done my best to R.S.V.P. in the negative. The proximate, tacit call to romanticism is harder for me to resist. While all old people have been young, no young people have been old, and this troubling fact engenders the frustration of all parents and elders, which is that while you can describe your experience you cannot confer it. It’s tempting, nonetheless, to pose as an expert—and in another way it’s tempting to say, ‘I know nothing that you don’t already know.’ Neither of those postures is right. Every stage of life longs for others. When one is young and eager, one aspires to maturity, and everyone older would like nothing better than to be young. We have equal things to teach each other. Life is most transfixing when you are awake to diversity, not only of ethnicity, ability, gender, belief, and sexuality but also of age and experience. The worst mistake anyone can make is to perceive anyone else as lesser. The deeper you look into other souls—and writing is primarily an exercise in doing just that—the clearer people’s inherent dignity becomes. So I would like to be young again—for the obvious dermatological advantages, and because I would like to recapture who I was before the clutter of experience made me a bit more sagacious and exhausted. What I’d really like, in fact, is to be young and middle-aged, and perhaps even very old, all at the same time—and to be dark- and fair-skinned, deaf and hearing, gay and straight, male and female. I can’t do that in life, but I can do it in writing, and so can you. Never forget that the truest luxury is imagination, and that being a writer gives you the leeway to exploit all of the imagination’s curious intricacies, to be what you were, what you are, what you will be, and what everyone else is or was or will be, too.

I want to take a moment to talk about the middle of things. The middle of things is less exciting than the beginning and less dramatic than the end. Middles can seem humdrum. Say that your current relationship to writing has been like falling in love: we exalt falling in love as the finest of all possible experiences. But the reason people marry and stay married is that the middle, when it can be made to work, far outclasses the beginning. Ask people who have been happily married for a decade or two whether they would like to start all over again, and you’ll find that they mostly wouldn’t, even if some are tempted by the occasional dalliance. It gets to be that way with your writing, too, as you get an ever-clearer sense of what interests you, what you can do, what you’d like to be able to do. Your mature work is the outcome of your early work: that there can be no meaningful middle without a meaningful beginning. But the middle is as joyous as enduring love.

In thinking about this address, I returned to Rilke’s “Letters to a Young Poet,” the ultimate expression of intergenerational literary wisdom. If you’ve never read these letters, then do. They are worth reading while you are young so that you can imagine yourself as the recipient of this brilliance; they are worth reading when you are old as a measure of what your own acumen ought to approach. One of Rilke’s injunctions is easy to follow: “Read as little as possible of literary criticism.” I’m going to pass that one along unmediated. But others warrant a closer reading. The most famous passage is this:
Have patience with everything that remains unsolved in your heart. Try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms, or books written in a foreign language. Do not now look for the answers. They cannot now be given to you, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.
The insight is tremendous, but he has it backwards. Belief in answers can get you through your early days, while the belief in questions, which is so much less tangible, takes a long time to arrive at. To know more is simply a matter of industry; to accept what you will never know is trickier. The belief that questions are precious whether or not they have answers is the hallmark of a mature writer, not the naïve blessing of a beginner.

Of writing itself, Rilke wrote: “Depict your sorrows and desires, your passing thoughts and beliefs in some kind of beauty—depict all that with heartfelt, quiet, humble sincerity; and use to express yourself the things that surround you, the images of your dreams and the objects of your memory. If your daily life seems poor, do not blame it; blame yourself, tell yourself that you are not poet enough to call forth its riches; for to the creator there is no poverty and no poor or unimportant place.” All writers know this problem. A poor workman blames his tools, and we have only two: language and experience. Neither one is so poor as to hamper our ability to do what we dream of. The use of language gets taught at M.F.A. programs nationwide. The use of experience is far more elusive, a long-term game not easily won. Experience poses the questions we are asked to live, and our writing is the mere shadow of an answer.

Rilke adds, “Things aren’t all so tangible and sayable as people would usually have us believe; most experiences are unsayable, they happen in a space that no word has ever entered, and more unsayable than all other things are works of art, those mysterious existences, whose life endures beside our own small, transitory life.” That’s not far off base, but, of course, the writer’s job is to say those things that appear unsayable, to cloak with language those volatile experiences that seem barely able to endure it.

Rilke has written, “Search for the cause, find the impetus that bids you write. Put it to this test: Does it stretch out its roots in the deepest place of your heart? Can you avow that you would die if you were forbidden to write? Above all, in the most silent hour of your night, ask yourself this: Must I write? Dig deep into yourself for a true answer. And if it should ring its assent, if you can confidently meet this serious question with a simple, ‘I must,’ then build your life upon it.” That rhetoric of urgency is the credo of most writers: we may be on this path for profit, for fame, for catharsis—but, more fundamentally, we are there because it seems the only possibility.

Rilke goes on, “It is clear that we must trust what is difficult; everything alive trusts in it, everything in Nature grows and defends itself any way it can and is spontaneously itself, tries to be itself at all costs and against all opposition. We know little, but that we must trust in what is difficult is a certainty that will never abandon us; it is good to be solitary, for solitude is difficult; that something is difficult must be one more reason for us to do it.” The Romantic sublime entails the exchange of easier for more difficult pleasures. This is an attractive bargain only when more difficult pleasures are more propitious than less difficult ones. What Rilke is suggesting is not simply that we give up easier pleasures because the best things in life happen to be difficult, but rather that the difficulty itself is what makes those efforts so rewarding—that we need not merely endure difficulty to get to a goal, but must understand difficulty as part of the goal. That sounds masochistic, but it is masochistic only insofar as the act of writing is masochistic: insofar as the burdensome activity of marrying words to experience is a source of pain as well as pleasure.
To be an artist means: not to calculate and count; to grow and ripen like a tree which does not hurry the flow of its sap and stands at ease in the spring gales without fearing that no summer may follow. It will come. But it comes only to those who are patient, who are simply there in their vast, quiet tranquility, as if eternity lay before them.
This is what I will say to you most urgently: there are many obvious differences between middle age and youth, between having lived more and done more and being newly energized and fresh to the race. But the greatest difference is patience. Youth is notoriously impatient, even though there is no need for impatience early on, when people have the time to be patient. In middle age, the wisdom of patience seems more straightforward, but there aren’t so many days left. But Rilke is correct that we must all write as though eternity lay before us. Enjoy the flexibility that span of eternity offers. The discourse between the young and the nostalgic retains some of its inherent poetry in the form of a longing intimacy. The freshness of younger people awakens memories in older ones—because though you, young writers, are yourselves at the brink of your own future, you evoke the past for those who came before you.

Some of Rilke’s advice seems obscure today, while some of it has been followed so often and so deeply that it sounds banal. But some of it is prescient. Today, we have no choice but to live the questions, because the prospective answers have burgeoned. We no longer expect much sense of the world. Deferring to that incoherence can feel dizzying, and there is an urge to simplify, but simplicity is often a mistake: not pure but reductive. Your work is not opposed to your life; you do not have to choose between them. It is only by living in the world that you acquire the ability to represent it. I am addicted to artists’ residencies, to sequestering myself to concentrate, to the vision that comes in silence, to Rilke’s vaunted solitude—but not to the exclusion of the engagement that gives you things to say. Try not to let your words outstrip your experience.

Never suppose that the humorous is the enemy of the serious. Middles can get ponderous, weighted down with their own importance. Lightness is a gift of the beginning—try to keep it with you for the whole stretch. Much press redounds to hate speech, which can instigate destruction. But even hate speech brings its point of view up from the darkness. To hate hatred is too abstract for men and women; that is the job of the angels. To hate the language of hatred is well within our powers. Learn that selective vitriol.

We are flooded with new technologies of representation and communication. There will be unforeseeable innovations in the course of your lifetimes, as surprising to you as online culture remains for many people my age. When I was a kid, I assumed that there would be colonies on the moon by now, but if you had told me that I could carry a small object in my pocket that would allow me to speak with and see anyone in the world, that could give me directions to anyplace I wanted to go, that would contain my favorite music, and that could allow me to access information on any topic, not to mention most of world literature, I’d have laughed at the absurd notion. As you ripen, you’ll notice that time is the weirdest thing in the world, that these surprises are relentless, and that getting older is not a stroll but an ambush.

Despite every advancement, language remains the defining nexus of our humanity; it is where our knowledge and hope lie. It is the precondition of human tenderness, mightier than the sword but also infinitely more subtle and ultimately more urgent. Remember that writing things down makes them real; that it is nearly impossible to hate anyone whose story you know; and, most of all, that even in our post-postmodern era, writing has a moral purpose. With twenty-six shapes arranged in varying patterns, we can tell every story known to mankind, and make up all the new ones—indeed, we can do so in most of the world’s known tongues. If you can give language to experiences previously starved for it, you can make the world a better place.

I used to say that my books were my children, but now that I have actual children I’ve found that books are by comparison rather pliable and accommodating, if somewhat less affectionate. I can speak to you lightly about time, about getting to be middle-aged, about having a vision and cleaving to it. But in some ways I failed to have such a vision. I grew up in a time when my current life was unimaginable, in a time before gay marriage, a time before people like me could have children, and my ignorance of what was to come engendered a paralytic sadness that has turned out to be irrelevant. I don’t know what you may presume impossible, but I can say that some of it will turn out otherwise. Equally, I can say that forms of justice that seem unshakably strong will fall apart while you aren’t looking. Since I was your age, women’s reproductive rights have eroded steadily, anti-immigrant resentments have surged, and incidents of appalling racism have gripped the national conscience even since we reëlected our first African-American President. I wish I could tell you which issues will move forward surprisingly fast and which will slip unaccountably backward. There will be surprises in store on both fronts. All I know for sure is that those twenty-six shapes are what we have to defend our liberty and sustain our hope.

To Trump, Even Losing Is Winning


By NEAL GABLER - AUG. 19, 2016

AMAGANSETT, N.Y. — People run for the presidency for all sorts of reasons. But Donald J. Trump may be the first to run because he sees a presidential campaign as the best way to attract attention to himself. There seems to be no other driving passion in him, certainly not the passion to govern.

He isn’t an ideologue like Ted Cruz, an opportunist like Marco Rubio, a movement builder like Bernie Sanders, a political legatee like Jeb Bush or a policy wonk like Hillary Clinton. For all of them — for any serious candidate — attention is a byproduct of a campaign, not its engine. For Mr. Trump, attention is the whole shebang.

That may be the lesson of his campaign “shake up” earlier this week. The shift is from politics to grabbing attention, and, quite possibly, from winning the election to winning the defeat, which is how he has spent practically his entire career.

Mr. Trump, the real estate magnate, is, after all, the master of taking a property, squeezing out the profit and leaving it for dead, then miraculously turning the loss to his advantage. A failing building or a failing Republican Party: To Mr. Trump, it may be the same thing.

Attention has always been the foundation of Mr. Trump’s modus operandi. Basically, he sells his name: Trump steaks, Trump water, Trump University. You have to hand it to him, though. He discovered that, in a celebrity society like ours, where so many people are competing for attention, running for president puts you a leg up even on the Kardashians.

The demotion of Mr. Trump’s first campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and the elevation of his second, Paul Manafort, was supposed to be a political decision. Mr. Manafort was acclaimed as a veteran strategist, a pro, who could facilitate Mr. Trump’s so-called pivot from primary firebrand to general election Solon and make him palatable to mainstream America. Not incidentally, Mr. Manafort would also professionalize the campaign, coordinate with the Republican National Committee, set up a field operation and devise a ground game.

That’s politics. What Mr. Manafort may not have realized, however, is that Mr. Trump’s was never a political campaign, either in the sense that it was operating under traditional political rules or in the sense that winning the election was its real objective.

Mr. Trump is no fool. He couldn’t possibly have thought that insulting the Khans, who had lost a son in combat, or dithering over whether to support the speaker of the House, Paul D. Ryan, or disingenuously hinting that the only way to stop Hillary Clinton was to shoot her, would have boosted his prospects for winning. They only boosted the attention paid to him.

Now, with Stephen K. Bannon, the Breitbart News chairman, and the pollster Kellyanne Conway taking over the campaign, the prevailing analysis is that those choices were a strategic decision: an attempt to improve messaging, to find operatives who could work with Mr. Trump rather than change him and to rally his base on his terms.

Of course, since the candidate hadn’t been doing anything other than on his own terms, the decision wasn’t a political one any more than Mr. Trump’s is a political campaign. It was a decision designed to make sure he continues to be an attentionmonger rather than another pol. Mr. Bannon, a provocateur at Breitbart, has never run a campaign, but he knows a lot about how to get media attention.

Nevertheless, that attention, as we are seeing, won’t necessarily help Mr. Trump win the election, which isn’t to say that there might not be a method to his narcissism. Winning means different things to different candidates. It doesn’t always mean winning the vote.

Mike Huckabee used the attention he got in his losing campaign to land a gig on the Fox News Channel. Sarah Palin used hers to get a reality show and enormous speaking fees. Ben Carson used his to sell books. Losers at the ballot box, they were all winners in a manner of speaking.

Television shows, books and speeches would be small potatoes for Mr. Trump, whose dictum, according to his daughter Ivanka, is, “If you’re going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.” And that is where attention meets victory.

If you think of his campaign as a real-estate negotiation, the man who coined the term “art of the deal” has taken a huge edifice, plastered his name all over it without investing much in it, and is very likely to abandon it as a troubled asset once the election is over and its value is diminished, leaving others holding the bag, just as he reportedly did during his serial bankruptcies. Only, in this case, the edifice is the Republican Party. It is Mr. Trump’s biggest deal ever.

And Mr. Trump leaves not only with 18 months of headlines and cheering crowds, but with an even bigger brand. Sarah Ellison of Vanity Fair and Brian Stelter of CNN have speculated that Mr. Trump may want to use his new notoriety to build a media empire. His alliance with Mr. Bannon may help him do that. So may his reported linkup with Roger Ailes for campaign advice.

One can well imagine a postelection Citizen Trump crowing that while Hillary Clinton is saddled with four years of headaches and a measly $400,000 salary, he is using the attention he got to make billions more as a media mogul.

Now who’s the loser?

---

What is the meaning of a quote "In a world full of Kardashians be a Diana"?

It means that, In a world, where you are famous for being famous, be famous like Princess Diana and not just famous like Kim Kardashian. Princess Diana was famous for being the wife of Prince Charles, the ruling prince of the UK. She was famous because of her title, but she used her title more positively by being in the media for the right reasons such as supporting charities and helping the poor, even after having a very dubiously infamous personal life full of separation from her royal husband and having multiple affairs. Even after her death more than a decade ago, she is remembered as a caring and helping royal. On the other side, Kim Kardashian is famous for being a bimbo porn star married to an egoistical rapper and currently known for giving birth to a Compass direction.

Why is toilet paper vanishing from supermarkets?

FOX Business FOX BUSINESS - You might notice something unusual, not to mention unfortunate, next time you try to stock up on bathroo...