RIP Steve Jobs. You made a difference both directly and by example. You were more of an inspiration to more people than you probably ever realized. Goodbye and God bless you.

Yet another data point:

Doctors Behaving Badly: FDA says UCLA cardiology chief botched clinical trial

http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/doctors-behaving-badly-fda-says-ucla-cardiology-chief-botched-clinical-trial

In this case, the billing-for-services-not-actually-provided is obvious. The UCLA cardiology chief in question was paid to monitor the health of his patients, ensure their rights were protected, ensure that record keeping sufficient to maintain the usefulness of study results was done, and more. Allegedly, none of those things were done.

The omerta part is pretty obvious too. One patient died, and one underwent multiple hospitalizations while in a clinical study -- and no one told the institutional review board nor the study sponsor for a year. The study continued during that time.

As at the top of this post: just another data point.

Multi million dollar embezzlement, mass death in a fake transplant program, lethal research without the knowledge or consent of the research subjects, consorting with Yakuza, selling people's children, selling cadavers just wasn't enough. Now connections to terrorism.

I bet someone got a good laugh over the fact that university personnel funded a meeting with Hamas (!) partly by diverting money from Jewish donor groups.

Also, there is fairly explicit evidence of how the omerta upon which I've remarked before gets started. University personnel allegedly directed everyone involved in this event, from undergraduate students to University staff, to lie to their families (parents) and to US and foreign government officials (INS / border guards) regarding the trip. That's a pretty good clue as to what motivates omerta at the University of California.

Really. I thought I had lost the ability to be amazed by the news from the University of California. Every time I think that, they just step up their game. How do they keep on thinking up such new and horrible things to do?

Update: if the facts of the lawsuit described here are true, then someone at UC Berkeley may also be getting a good laugh over recent events.

Another update: and then there's this.

Another addition: and then there's the University non-punishment of the "Irvine 11," students from UC Irvine and UC Riverside who disrupted a speech by the Israeli Ambassador Oren in 2010. The University did nothing substantial to stop or punish that behavior. By contrast, the local DA, a grand jury, and eventually a regular jury, all agreed that the "Irvine 11" behavior was so egregious as to warrant 10 criminal convictions, as described here.

Another addition: an interesting article, relevant to the rest of this post, here: California's Most Anti-Semitic College

I've been thinking about this post for a couple of weeks now, dreading the day that this post would come out of me. Today is that day.

A few hours ago, a friend called me to tell me that his sister had died. The sister was 29. In this post, I will refer to her as "C."

For the last few weeks, I've known that call was on it's way. I've been wanting to scream at the world against the insanity of it all, and my loudest voice is this blog .... but I couldn't put my thoughts up on the web, lest C happen to read them. Now, I guess, it's too late to matter.

In comments to an earlier post on this blog, I had written that I was certain that, somewhere out there, there was someone who had seen the pattern I've seen at the University of California, avoided the University as a result, and perhaps avoided an early death. In fact, I had someone particular in mind. That someone was C, a young lady who had liver cancer, diagnosed 6 years ago. For 6 years (SIX YEARS!!!) she was metastasis free, and could have had a transplant. Her Kaiser hepatologist (UCLA trained, BTW) didn't get her on a transplant list. Eventually, after she and her family, encouraged by doctors they knew (apparently including me) pushed for her to get on a transplant list, she wound up on the "transplant list" at UCLA. She told me all about how Dr. Ted Busatil, head of liver transplant surgery at UCLA, assured her that he was going to get her a liver. And yet, for approximately a year and a half on this "transplant list," evaluations were done. Bills were generated, and paid. She had doctor's visits, and tests, and scans, and workups ... and no transplant.

Really, after all that time, something was wrong. UCLA transplanted Yakuza, and alcoholics, and criminals, and not this sweet, innocent girl.

I pointed out to the family that something was not quite right, and I may have had some small part in helping them start looking for a program that would perform an actual transplant. C wound up on what I believe was a real transplant list elsewhere, and was, I believe, on track to have an actual transplant instead of just evaluations for a transplant that would never come. She had advanced imaging which showed she still had no metastasis, and was ready to finally have a real transplant. I understand she was thinking about life after a transplant, and planning a future wedding (that last part is hearsay. C never personally told me herself about planning a wedding. Girl stuff, I suppose).

Then, about two weeks ago, C developed hip pain. She went to the hospital, and an X ray showed a femoral mass. Biopsy results indicated it was a metastasis. Unlike Mickey Mantle, C would never get a transplant with a metastasis ... and that's when I first started thinking about the what-ifs. If she'd only gotten that transplant before that metastasis, if she'd only started to look elsewhere for a liver earlier, events would have been different. Once I knew about the mass, however, I knew that the what-ifs were pointless. I knew what was coming. This blog post started in my head at that time, but I've kept it inside until now.

Tonight, C died. Age 29. She was part of that same pattern I've mentioned elsewhere on this blog. Services were billed, and revenue was generated, and the complete service (a transplant) was never done. Her family and her insurance paid for years for pre-transplant evaluations, with no transplant. And eventually, suddenly, it was too late to do a transplant anywhere at all.

There are no words to express the sorrow I feel for this needless early death. There are likewise no words to express my anger about the way she was convinced for years (YEARS!!) not to look elsewhere for a transplant, and to just continue the same medically pointless (but financially lucrative) medical evaluations that would never lead to a transplant.

By the way, there was one person on the UCLA staff who let C know that a transplant really was not forthcoming at UCLA. If that person is reading this, this paragraph is for you: C got your message, and understood it. She just didn't want to believe the message, however. She desperately wanted to believe that she really was going to get a liver soon, and that the extra time it would take to look another transplant program was not justified. Just so you know why C appeared to ignore your message until, as it turned out, it was too late.

This isn't at all the blog post I was imagining over the last few weeks, since I cannot find the words to write that post that's been growing in my head. I just want to scream at the insanity of this all, and the words for that screaming just do not exist.

Still, though this post is not the scream I wish I could generate, it may at least be a warning to some readers. If you are reading this blog, and you know C ... well, you've probably already absorbed the warning that I think is obvious in this tale. If I see you at the funeral, I plan not to bring up that warning, since I think everyone at the funeral will have already had their eyes opened. For the rest of you, those who still need a warning: consider this your warning. I still believe that this blog may do some good by convincing some sick person out there to do their due diligence when selecting a medical center, and perhaps finding a medical center where the NIH has not made a finding that the personnel have a "culture of noncompliance with the law."

Good luck. And Godspeed, C.

The university's action, the judge said, was "intentional, despicable and unprofessional."

Medical Center Suit Bungled, Regents Admit

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/oct/17/local/me-43662

Standing up for freedom in the face of heartbreaking tragedy:


"This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative."
John Green, father of Christina Green, discussing Christina's murder by Jared Lee Loughner just two days previous.

Plenty of other people have said it, and my own poor comment really amounts to nothing compared to Mr. Green's resolute, calm, and eloquent defense of freedom in the face of the worst possible event a parent can face. Still, I add my voice to those recognizing Mr. John Green:

Mr. Green is a better man than I. I've dedicated this blog to trying to make sense of it all ... and Mr. Green, even after his sudden roller coaster ride into hell, makes more sense out of tragedy than I could ever imagine. He's an inspiration to us all. Further, with his few words, he may have just done more to thwart the destruction of the Republic than all but a handful of men in history. God bless you, Mr. Green.

There's been a story in the papers lately about staff at the Olive View - UCLA hospital (jointly run by Los Angeles County and UCLA) who ran what's been described as a "hair and nail salon" in a neonatal ICU. Disappointing story; apparently, the fumes of acetone and other chemicals (in an apparent NEONATAL ICU !!) weren't enough to convince the hospital administration that this salon needed to be shut down. It took pressure from the Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) to get this salon shut down.

I wasn't sure that this was more than an isolated story ... until further investigation indicated that the story involved elements of standard University of California practices. Perhaps most shocking, the "neonatal ICU" at which this occurred, though being run like a neonatal ICU, and though accepting patients for long term ICU treatment, was not actually a legitimate ICU. The hospital had an intermediate critical care facility, without the staffing or certification of an ICU (even before a hair and nail salon was set up). They used, and presumably billed for, this intermediate critical care facility as an ICU. It's a lot like the UC Irvine / UC San Diego sham liver transplant program, in which a transplant program that didn't actually have the staffing (no full time transplant surgeon, nor transplant-qualified anesthesiologists) was claimed to be a legitimate, and fundable, transplant program. Yet another example of billing for a service, but not actually providing the complete service.

There are two possibilities for the babies who were intubated, and who were put into this sham ICU. One: the babies were actually sick enough to need a real ICU ... which was not actually provided. Two: the babies were not actually sick enough to need an ICU ... but the babies were intubated, subjected to ICU procedures, and the medical staff (and billing office!) just pretended to run an ICU around the not-sick babies. I really haven't yet figured out which possibility is worse.

Not to worry. The most likely event is that both possibilities were actualized. After all, this facility was short of ICU-trained personnel, and was apparently using non-ICU personnel instead. It's likely that, on the margin, the non-ICU personnel would not be able to differentiate between children who needed an ICU (and wouldn't get one anyway), and children who should not have been in an ICU. If the staff could not differentiate between these groups, probably some more-healthy-than-usual kids would likely have wound up in the fake ICU. Some sick kids, who might have benefited from a real ICU, probably wound up not even getting admitted to the fake ICU.

Has anyone out there ever seen a child getting an IV? They are often scared beyond fear. They are scared of the needle, of having their skin broken, of the restraints necessary to hold them as the IV goes in. Still, putting an IV into children is a fairly common occurrence; parents and medical personnel try to ignore the screaming, the crying, the abject terror they are causing, and convince themselves that whatever is being done is being done for the good of the child. And often, whatever is being done is, in fact, being done for the good of the child.

Except in this case. The Olive-View UCLA medical center did everything they could to justify billing for ICU care, including putting in IVs, intubating babies, and all the other billable procedures associated with ICU care ... but didn't actually provide the ICU nor ICU staffing. In this case, the procedures they did weren't part of a legitimate ICU treatment plan, but the procedures that generated billings continued. Providing an actual ICU to medically justify those procedures somehow got left out. I wonder how the staff of this fake ICU explained to parents that they (the staff) were doing all that could be done for the babies, all the while knowing that there was no actual ICU nor ICU staffing.

And, of course, there's the recurrent omertà that seems to enable the "culture of noncompliance with the law." I mean really; intubating a bunch of babies, who were or were not sick enough to be in an actual ICU, and pretending to keep them in an ICU, and apparently billing for ICU services, while not actually providing an ICU ... and no one talks until the JCAH comes investigating parent's complaints that this "ICU" has a hair and nail salon running in the back? Once again: wow. Simply wow.


Also, there are allegations of leaks of confidential patient information. That's apparently pretty routine for UCLA.

The patterns of continued misconduct, consistent with what the NIH apparently called "a culture of noncompliance with the law," continue. I certainly don't expect those patterns to change, though I am disappointed each time those patterns make the news.

Addendum: I've been waiting for some analysis of the death rate differential between the patients of this "ICU" and the patients in a real ICU. As far as I know, no such death rate differential has been published. There's a few possible reasons for that. I think the most likely reason is that this facility, as described above, probably had both the really sick babies who needed an ICU, and some not-so-sick babies who did not need an ICU. The really sick babies would be more likely to die in the fake ICU than in a real ICUs, and the not-so-sick babies would be less likely to die (since they weren't so sick to start with) than the patients in a real ICU. In this situation, the average death rate for the fake ICU could therefore be the same as the average death rate for a real ICU. A simple mortality comparison would thus show that the fake ICU was as safe as a real ICU ... and would be wrong.

If the fake ICU actually had a higher mortality rate than a real ICU (which seems likely, especially since the fake ICU was staffed by people who ran a hair and nail salon in the back), then theres a number of small boxes filled with small decomposing corpses under the ground in the Los Angeles area due to this recurrent U. of California pattern of charging for a service, claiming to provide the service, and not actually providing the service.

So, has anyone done an illness-normalized study of mortality rates for the fake Olive View UCLA ICU? I haven't seen one. Here's a reason, relating to my time working for the U. of California, that I don't think such a study will be done:

During my medical internship, I rotated through the Long Beach VA Medical Center, run by U. California, Irvine. While I was there, one of the cardiology fellows finished work on a paper that was supposed to be about mortality markers for CCU stays. During data analysis, this fellow accidentally documented that the post-angioplasty mortality rate for that facility was approximately three times the mortality rate for the main UC Irvine hospital. Same patient population, same surgeons in many cases, same equipment, same ORs in many cases ... and the patients who got post PTCA care at the VA died at three times the rate of those who did not. My recollection is that it was a 1.8% mortality vs. a .6% mortality. The nationally quoted "standard" mortality was, IIRC, .4%.

You know those boxes I mentioned a few paragraphs up? The boxes filled with decomposing corpses under the ground around a U. of California hospital? Those boxes were known to exist in this case. Not speculation. Actual scientific finding.

Thing is, that finding apparently doomed publication. The paper was never published, and, I was advised by another cardiology fellow, never would be submitted for publication. "You just can't publish things like that, you know," is the phrase I remember being used. From what I understand, the fellow involved allowed the knowledge developed by the creation of this paper to be quashed, in exchange for being allowed to continue in the UC Irvine cardiology fellowship program. It's my guess that documentation of those outrageously high mortality rates at a facility run by the University of California would have led to an investigation as to the cause of those mortality rates, and that the investigation might have led to discovery of outrageously lax credentialing and oversight procedures such as was the case at Olive View UCLA.

Back to the Olive View UCLA "ICU." It's certainly believable to me that a similar set of concerns might have led to either failure to study the mortality rates at that "ICU," or to quash publication of those rates were they ever documented.

Just a thought.

(this posting altered after publication)

Here's a post from a former UCLA anesthesiologist. Somewhat hidden in the post is another example of the same pattern I've noted before at the University of California: billing for things that were not actually done. In particular, there's this passage:

"the O.R. cut–off time for elective dental surgery at UCLA was 4 p.m.

Translated, that meant the patient had to be out of the room and in the recovery room by that time.

That was so everyone could go home by 5 p.m.

...

So part of my job was to inform them at 3 p.m. that they needed to finish up so I could wake the patient up and get her/him to recovery by 4 p.m.

Frequently this would result in abandonment of some crucial part of the procedure or a shortcut to get done in time."

(bolding and ellipse mine).

Just another data point.

Thoughts from Maryland about alleged fraud at the University of California, Davis.

JUST FOR FUN:

Roman Polanski has been in the news a lot lately. People have been wondering -- why now? What was the big change that led to extradition attemps now?

I think the big change that led to Polanki's extradition had nothing to do with Polanski. The Polanski extradition is a message to someone
My guess as to the intended recipient of that message? Marco Morales.

Update: OK, perhaps some of you don't know who Marco Morales is. Marco Morales was a Chicago contractor convicted of bribery in the Chicago Silver Shovel case. After conviction, Mr. Morales was to be transferred from custody in Illinois to federal custody in Michigan. The method of prisoner transfer apparently involved giving Mr. Morales a car in Illinois and telling him to drive himself from custody in Illinois to prison in Michigan.

Mr. Morales never showed up in Michigan. He next surfaced living freely in his home country of Mexico. While Mr. Morales was living in his new home in Mexico, Mr. Morale's young son was awarded 60 million dollars in consulting and contracting fees.

Also, Mr. Morales has been documented to state that he'd been threatened at gunpoint should he talk about the circumstances surrounding his bribery of Chicago officials.

It sounds to me like Mr. Morales knows something that people in Chicago don't want known. Further, it appears he's made a deal to keep his mouth shut, and that he's living up to his end of the deal. Were Mr. Morales to simply die / be killed, it's reasonable to believe that others who might have made similar deals would loose faith in their own deals. Therefore, it is in the best interests of whoever made a deal with Mr. Morales to ensure that Mr. Morales is visibly healthy and happy.

At the same time, whatever Chicago dealmaker apparently made this deal with Mr. Morales certainly has rivals. Every dealmaker in Chicago has rivals. It would be in the best interests of those rivals for Mr. Morales to talk. That way, the original dealmaker might be marginalized, and the rivals could seize the dealmaker's clout. Again, the rivals have no interest in the death of Mr. Morales. If he's dead, he can't talk about whatever it is he's being quiet about.

With Chicago having been considered for the Olympics, and with all the attendant spending, the rivalry among Chicago political factions was likely particularly intense. I think that one of the rivals came up with a plan to encourage Mr. Morales to talk at the direction of that rival. Since Mr. Morales is out of the USA and is apparently under the protection of whoever he made his deal with, the encouragement would have to be somewhat subtle. Such a plan might involve demonstrating to Mr. Morales the rival's ability to reach across international borders and arrange extradition / imprisonment for another fugitive who thought he was safe.

Roman Polanski was that other fugitive. While Chicago was preparing to gather vast sums of money through the Olympics, Mr. Polanski became an example of how US law enforcement can reach out to touch people abroad. As I wrote above, I think Mr. Polanski's fate was meant to encourage Mr. Morales to cooperate with someone.

As for who that "someone" might be -- what (possibly former) Chicago politician might have access to the levers of international power so as to reopen a thirty year old case, and might have an interest in scaring off rivals for the gigantic boodle that was to be part of the Chicago Olympics -- I leave that speculation to you.

This month seems to have had a surprisingly high number of stories in the news about child abuse. There's a few patterns there.



September 2009 marks the ten year anniversary of Janet Reno's appointment of John C. Danforth as a special prosecutor into possible federal misconduct in Waco Texas. The events surrounding that possible misconduct had been justified by Attorney General Reno with a (never substantiated) claim of child abuse in Waco. That possible misconduct led to actual harm to multiple children, as well as adults. Federal operations turned multiple children into this:

That picture illustrates, in my opinion, the ultimate in child abuse. The actions that led to the creation of that picture, including an armed raid on a peaceful home, use of incendiary devices against people hiding in a wooden structure, and more, were incontrovertibly committed by agents of the Federal Government.

Danforth's investigation essentially exonerated the federal government of any wrongdoing in the events that led to the generation of the picture like the one above (and many more such pictures besides). September 2009 also marks the 9th anniversary of the dismissal of a wrongful death suit brought by the survivors of the Waco massacre.

So: unproven allegations of child abuse were enough to launch a raid that resulted in the death and mutilation of "victims" and "perpetrators" of this child abuse. Actual child abuse -- the actual killing and burning of actual children -- was not sufficient to cause federal agents any serious embarrassment (the commander of federal operations at Waco, General Wesley Clark, would run for the Democratic Party Nomination for President after Waco) let alone criminal charges. The survivors of the events in Waco couldn't even get civil compensation for the killing and mutilation of their relatives and friends.

Just starting to get traction in the newspapers in September 2009 (the story actually broke August 28, 2009, very close to September) was the story of Jaycee Lee Dugard, kept as a sex slave for 18 years by Phillip Garrido and his wife, Nancy Garrido. From what I can tell of the story, Nancy Garrido was the breadwinner of the household, working for the government - funded Contra Costa ARC until 1998. So far, most of the coverage that I've seen focuses on Phillip Garrido, almost to the exclusion of his wife, Nancy. Historically, criminal women or criminal couples have not been exempted from coverage or opprobrium due to their gender -- think Bonnie and Clyde, or Ma Barker -- but Nancy Garrido has been referred to as a "victim" of Phillip Garrido, rather than a co-perpetrator, in some (not all) accounts in the press. Why the differential coverage?

On to September's next child abuse story. In September 2009, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles uncovered multiple instances in which a federally funded agency, ACORN, enthusiastically offered support for the sex slavery of multiple underage girls in various cities around the country. That would certainly have been child abuse in my opinion. At this time, the only lawsuit that has been brought in this matter is the one against James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles for their role in uncovering these actions on the part of ACORN. Again, agents ("agents" used in this case in the sense of "a representative who acts on behalf of other persons or organizations") of the federal government appear to have been enthusiastic supporters of child abuse. The judicial system of the State of Maryland is, as I write this, engaged in proceedings against those who would uncover use of federal funds to support underage sex slavery.

The next child abuse story: In September of 2009, Roman Polanski was arrested by the Swiss after fleeing punishment for alleged child rape (Polanski had plea bargained down a rape charge, and had been convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He fled the country after serving less than half of an approximately 90 day sentence). As I write this, large segments of the US artistic and political classes are calling for the freeing of Polanski. It remains to be seen what the California and Federal governments -- after years of inaction -- do in this case.

Based on the path I've noted before in this blog, there might as well be a University of California element to this line of inquiry. In fact, I know of two University of California elements that could reasonably be dubbed "child abuse cases in the news in September."

Here's one, from the September LA TIMES: UCI settles a dozen fertility suits. Doctors at the school's Center for Reproductive Health were found to have stolen eggs or embryos for years and given them to other women. Two doctors involved fled the country to avoid prosecution. As described elsewhere on this blog, University of California personnel sold embryonic children for research, where they were presumably boiled for DNA extraction, sliced by microtomes for microscopy, and all the other elements of biological research. Boiling and slicing of embryonic children who were stolen from their parents could, in my opinion, reasonably be described as child abuse. Further, some of the survivors of that University of California clinic would now be young adults. The University has, thus far successfully, managed to keep both the public and the parents of these now young adults from learning their identity, or even their fate. In fact, the very existence of these children was a secret for approximately two decades, leaked to the press, and to their parents, only during the 2006 increased press attention due to the UC Irvine / UC San Diego sham liver transplant program.

This continued separation of children from their parents is, in my opinion, also possible child abuse. In my opinion, the University has been remarkably fastidious about keeping information about their children from the parents of these stolen young adults. The secrecy that the University continues to maintain regarding these children is particularly remarkable, in my opinion, given that many of the embryonic children from the same program were known to have been sold for medical research, that the University of California is known to have performed lethal research, with poor "consent" procedures, on other apparently unwitting young subjects and that the University has been cavalier about other medical information .

The ususal reasons for keeping the identity and fate of these children (now young adults) from their parents, and vice versa, don't seem to apply here. Whatever troublesome conflicts in parenting styles between the biological parents and the "adoptive parents" really should not be much of a problem for children who are now in their 20s. The biological parents did not sign away their parental rights to these children; they didn't even know of their children's existence until 2006.

I also keep in mind the fact that the University of California had at least one known extraordinary business arrangement with the Yakuza, namely running an expedited liver transplant program for Yakuza at UCLA. Of all the transplant operations in the world, the Yakuza apparently were most quickly able to arrange their transplants at UCLA when the time came that those transplants were needed. This suggests, in my opinion, that there may have been previous connections between Yakuza and the University of California. This may relate to the stolen children through this fact: Yakuza are alleged to use child pornography as a base of their income.

Finally, note that the University of California was home to at least two separate groups, at UCLA and at the University of California Irvine, which illegally sold human bodies to outside purchasers.

Given all of this, I shudder to think of the possible reasons that the University of California might be so motivated to have kept the very existence, and now the fate and identity, of these young adults under wraps. There have been no criminal proceedings in this case.

Lest one be tempted to depend on the courts to ensure oversight over the University of California in the context of child abuse, I present this story from the Orange County Register: Prominent doctor gets 30 days in jail for molestation. The prominent doctor in question was Dr. William Moore Thompson III, University of California surgeon for 40 years. Dr. Thompson allegedly molested at least one child under the age of 14 "on 15 to 20 occasions between May 24, 2003 and May 23, 2004," and allegedly violated another child at some point at least ten years ago. Dr. Thompson "pleaded guilty to two felony counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years old, and one count of dissuading a witness from testimony." Dr. Thompson got 30 days in jail, as well as house arrest to precede the jail time.

The remarkable thing in Dr. Thompson's case, in my opinion, is not that he allegedly molested two children on multiple occasions. It is that a California court, apparently in recognition of Dr. Thompson's life's work (which, as above, apparently mainly consisted of 40 years as a University of California surgeon) gave him such a light sentence. According to the linked article, "Sentencing guidelines call for a three- to eight-year sentence in state prison for the crime" to which Dr. Thompson pleaded guilty. Clearly, something about Dr. Thompson caused the court to impose a sentence far outside the guidelines. My best guess is that something about Dr. Thompson is his long term status as a government agent, i.e. a University of California surgeon.

So, as the name of the blog says, I'm trying to make sense out of this. One thing that jumps to mind is that there appears to be an unholy (I haven't used the word "unholy" before on this blog, but somehow no other word appears correct) use of allegations of child abuse by government agents when it suits their purposes, and downplaying of actual abuse when government agents, or those in the political class, are the perpetrators. I'm still trying to figure out the nuances, but, based on stories from this month alone, at first glance, it looks bad. Really bad.

(this post slightly edited after initial posting)

Here's a story about ... well, about the same sort of life threatening events, and coverup of same that have become a staple of this blog. The linked story hits most of the main points, so I commend you there.

Update: Actually, on further read, the linked story does not address one of the elements of what appears to be the UC pattern in such cases. That element is aggressive management of public opinion, which may consist of slander regarding a concerned party.

Such apparent aggressive management of public opinion may have occurred in the case described below, in the form of Chancellor Reed's comments about the family of Sheri Sangji.

From my own contacts, I believe that such aggressive management of public opinion may be occurring at UCSF, in this case. I've heard that UCSF administrative personnel have been claiming that Dr. Kessler is not fit to be Dean because he "does not work well with others." Given that Dr. Kessler is apparently alleging significant financial improprieties at UCSF, "not working well" with the people there would, in my opinion, be expected.

addendum: for example, comments on this story by "surfs_up." In a story about the U. of California being audited after Dr. Kessler's allegations, we learn that the U. of California has already twice audited itself and found no financial improprieties, but that a subsequent audit by KPMG "stated it was not able to replicate the methodology used by the internal analysts for their reviews." There was apparently enough uncertainty about these audits that PWC has since been retained to perform another audit. Someone with what appears to be an insider opinion regarding Dr. Kessler rebuts that "[Kessler] is a master at crying foul and his wife's a big shot lawyer on the east coast who, lets just say does not have a stellar reputation."

And now, in the pump failure case, the comments to the Orange County Register story about the case contain evidence that the same aggressive management of public opinion is occurring. See comment 8, the one that begins "This is all about a disgruntled employee trying to avoid termination for misbehaving and now making up stories." Given the facts of the case as known, including the facts that the pumps in question had been recalled by the FDA, that apparently UCI kept its pumps despite the recall, that UCI had pump failures during testing that were so severe that just under 1/3 of the pumps had to be removed from service, and more, I think that the content of comment 8 is suspicious at best.

I think I've just documented another element of the pattern.

Press release from the California Department of Public Health:

SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) announced today that 13 California hospitals have been assessed administrative penalties of $25,000 per violation after a determination that the facilities’ noncompliance with licensing requirements has caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury or death to patients.

There were 355 hospitals (nonfederal, short term, general, and specialty hospitals whose services and facilities were open to the public) in California in 2007, the latest year for which I have an accurate count. There are 5 main University of California medical centers. Of the 14 episodes of noncompliance with licensing requirements that "caused or [were] likely to cause serious injury or death to patients," four of those episodes were at University of California main medical centers. A fifth episode was at the Harbor-UCLA medical center, which, while not one of the main UC medical centers, is run by UCLA.

This means that the five main UC medical centers, in addition to Harbor-UCLA, were over 32 times more likely than all other California hospitals to generate an episode of "noncompliance with licensing requirements that caused or was likely to cause serious injury or death to patients." Something to keep in mind if you are hospitalized. Well, something to keep in mind if you want to live, anyway.

As a visual aid to the disproportion involved, here's one asterisk: *

compared to 32 asterisks: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If the one asterisk represents a chance that a California, but non UC, hospital generated an episode of "noncompliance with licensing requirements that caused or was likely to cause serious injury or death to patients," then the 32 asterisks represent the chance, based on the data above, that a UC hospital generated such an episode.

Further, of the institutions listed in the press release, the one with the largest history of penalties for such episodes of noncompliance was Harbor-UCLA (four such penalties so far). According to the press release, UC Irvine was the only institution to merit two such penalties in this reporting period. Wow.

addendum: well, if you die at UCLA, at least there's historical precedent for your still being involved in the process of commerce. A businessman accused of selling body parts from corpses donated to UCLA medical school in a scandal that tarnished the reputation of the university's willed body program was found guilty today in Los Angeles Superior Court of conspiring to commit grand theft, embezzlement and tax evasion.

Update 03/19/11 regarding the "willed body" scandal:" http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-20110319,0,6741888.column

Update 05/20/10: No University of California hospitals were on the California Department of Public Health most recent list of "hospitals [that] have been assessed administrative penalties after a determination that the facilities’ noncompliance with licensing requirements has caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury or death to patients." Good news. On the other hand, on (just about) the same day, the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced two cases of "immediate jeopardy" at U. California, Irvine.