THCB

Categories

Tag: Kim Bellard

Red Alert about Red Buttons

By KIM BELLARD

In a week where, say, the iconic brand Tupperware declared bankruptcy and University of Michigan researchers unveiled a squid-inspired screen that doesn’t use electronics, the most startling stories have been about, of all things, pagers and walkie-talkies.

Now, most of us don’t think much about either pagers or walkie-talkies these days, and when we do, we definitely don’t think about them exploding. But that’s what happened in Lebanon this week, in ones carried by members of Hezbollah. Scores of people were killed and thousands injured, many of them innocent bystanders. The suspicion, not officially confirmed, is that Israel engineered the explosions.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about the Middle East quagmire, and I condemn the killing of innocent civilians on either side, but what I can’t get my mind around is the tradecraft of the whole thing. This was not a casual weekend cyberattack by some guys sitting in their basements; this was a years-in-the-making, deeply embedded, carefully planned move.

A former Israeli intelligence official told WaPo that, first, intelligence agencies had to determine “what Hezbollah needs, what are its gaps, which shell companies it works with, where they are, who are the contacts,” then “you need to create an infrastructure of companies, in which one sells to another who sells to another.”  It’s not clear, for example, if Israel someone planted the devices during the manufacturing process or during the shipping, or, indeed, if its shell companies actually were the manufacturer or shipping company. 

Either way, this is some James Bond kind of shit.

The Washington Post reports that this is what Israeli officials call a “red-button” capability, “meaning a potentially devastating penetration of an adversary that can remain dormant for months if not years before being activated.” One has to wonder what other red buttons are out there.

Many have attributed the attacks to Israel’s Unit 8200, which is roughly equivalent to the NSA.  An article in Reuters described the unit as “famous for a work culture that emphasizes out-of-the-box thinking to tackle issues previously not encountered or imagined.”  Making pagers explode upon command certainly falls in that category.

If you’re thinking, well, I don’t carry either a pager or a walkie-talkie, and, in any event, I’m not a member of Hezbollah, don’t be so quick to think you are off the hook. If you use a device that is connected to the internet – be it a phone, a TV, a car, even a toaster – you might want to be wondering if it comes with a red button. And who might be in control of that button.

Just today, for example, the Biden Administration proposed a ban on Chinese software used in cars.

Continue reading…

We Should Learn to Have More Fun (or Vice-Versa)

By KIM BELLARD

For several years now, my North Star for thinking about innovation has been Steven Johnson’s great quote (in his delightful Wonderland: How Play Made the Modern World): “You will find the future where people are having the most fun.” No, no, no, naysayers argue, inventing the future is serious business, and certainly fun is not the point of business.  Maybe they’re right, but I’m happier hoping for a future guided by a sense of fun than by one guided by P&Ls.

Well, I think I may have found an equally insightful point of view about fun, espoused by game designer Raph Koster in his 2004 book A Theory of Fun for Game Design: “Fun is just another word for learning.”

Wow.

That’s not how most of us think about learning. Learning is hard, learning is going to school, learning is taking tests, learning is something you have to do when you’re not having fun. So “fun is just another word for learning” is quite a different perspective – and one I’m very much attracted to.

I regret that it took me twenty years to discover Mr. Koster’s insight. I read it in a more current book: Kelly Clancy’s Playing With Reality: How Games Have Shaped Our World. Dr. Clancy is not a game designer; she is a neuroscientist and physicist, but she is all about play. Her book looks at games and game theory, especially how the latter has been misunderstood/misused.

We usually think of play as a waste of time, as something inherently unserious and unimportant, when, in fact, it is how our brains have evolved to learn. The problem is, we’ve turned learning into education, education into a requirement, teaching into a profession, and fun into something entirely separate. We’ve gotten it backwards.

“Play is a tool the brain uses to generate data on which to train itself, a way of building better models of the world to make better predictions,” she writes. “Games are more than an invention; they are an instinct.”  Indeed, she asserts: “Play is to intelligence as mutation is to evolution.”

Mr. Koster’s fuller quote about fun and learning is on target with this:

That’s what games are, in the end. Teachers. Fun is just another word for learning. Games teach you how aspects of reality work, how to understand yourself, how to understand the actions of others, and how to imagine.

We don’t look at our teachers as a source of fun (and many students barely look at them as a source of learning). We don’t look at schools as a place for games, except on the playground, and then only for the youngest students. We drive students to boredom, and, as Mr. Koster says, “boredom is the opposite of learning” (although, ironically, boredom may be important to creativity).  

Learning is actually fun, especially from a physiological standpoint.

Continue reading…

The Fantastic Fungi — Biohybrid Bots Are Mushrooming

By KIM BELLARD

I hadn’t expected to write about a biology-related topic anytime soon after doing so last week, but, gosh darn it, then I saw a press release from Cornell about biohybrid robots – powered by mushrooms (aka fungi)! They had me at “biohybrid.”  

The release talks about a new paper — Sensorimotor Control of Robots Mediated by Electrophysiological Measurements of Fungal Mycelia – from the Cornell’s Organic Robotics Lab, led by Professor Rob Shepherd. As the release describes the work:

By harnessing mycelia’s innate electrical signals, the researchers discovered a new way of controlling “biohybrid” robots that can potentially react to their environment better than their purely synthetic counterparts.  

Or, in the researchers’ own words:

The paper highlights two key innovations: first, a vibration- and electromagnetic interference–shielded mycelium electrical interface that allows for stable, long-term electrophysiological bioelectric recordings during untethered, mobile operation; second, a control architecture for robots inspired by neural central pattern generators, incorporating rhythmic patterns of positive and negative spikes from the living mycelia.

Let’s simplify that: “This paper is the first of many that will use the fungal kingdom to provide environmental sensing and command signals to robots to improve their levels of autonomy,” Professor Shepherd said. “By growing mycelium into the electronics of a robot, we were able to allow the biohybrid machine to sense and respond to the environment.”

Lead author Anand Mishra, a research associate in the lab, explained: “If you think about a synthetic system – let’s say, any passive sensor – we just use it for one purpose. But living systems respond to touch, they respond to light, they respond to heat, they respond to even some unknowns, like signals. That’s why we think, OK, if you wanted to build future robots, how can they work in an unexpected environment? We can leverage these living systems, and any unknown input comes in, the robot will respond to that.”

The team build two robots: a soft one shaped like a spider, and a wheeled one. The researchers first used the natural spike in the mycelia to make them walk and roll, respectively, using the natural signals from the mycelia. Then researchers exposed them to ultraviolet light, which caused the mycelia to react and changed the robots’ gaits. Finally, the researchers were able to override the mycelia signals entirely.

“This kind of project is not just about controlling a robot,” Dr. Mishra said. “It is also about creating a true connection with the living system. Because once you hear the signal, you also understand what’s going on. Maybe that signal is coming from some kind of stresses. So you’re seeing the physical response, because those signals we can’t visualize, but the robot is making a visualization.”

Dr. Shepherd believes that instead of using light as the signal, they will use chemical signals. For example: “The potential for future robots could be to sense soil chemistry in row crops and decide when to add more fertilizer, for example, perhaps mitigating downstream effects of agriculture like harmful algal blooms.”

It turns out that biohybrid robots in general and fungal computing in particular are a thing. In last week’s article I quoted Professor Andrew Adamatzky, of the University of the West of England about his preference for fungal computing. He not only is the Professor in Unconventional Computing there, and is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal for Unconventional Computing, but also literally wrote the book about fungal computing.  He’s been working on fungal computing since 2018 (and before that on slime mold computing).

Professor Adamatzky notes that fungi have a wide array of sensory inputs: “They sense light, chemicals, gases, gravity, and electric fields,” which opens the door to a wide variety of inputs (and outputs). Accordingly, Ugnius Bajarunas, a member of Professor Adamatzy’s team, told an audience last year: “Our goal is real-time dialog between natural and artificial systems.”

With fungal computing, TechHQ predicts: “The future of computing could turn out to be one where we care for our devices in a way that’s closer to looking after a houseplant than it is to plugging in and switching on a laptop.”

But how would we reboot them?

Continue reading…

Biology to the Rescue?

By KIM BELLARD

I feel much about synthetic biology as I do AI: I don’t really understand it from a technical point of view, but I sure am excited about its potential. Sometimes they even overlap, as I’ll discuss later. But I’ll start with some recent developments with bioplastics, a topic I have somehow never really covered.

Let’s start with some work at Washington University (St. Louis) involving, of all things, purple bacteria. In case you didn’t know it – I certainly didn’t – purple bacteria “are a special group of aquatic microbes renowned for their adaptability and ability to create useful compounds from simple ingredients,” according to the press release. The researchers are turning the bacteria into bioplastic factories.

One study, led by graduate student Eric Connors, showed that two “obscure” species of purple bacteria can produce polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), a natural polymer that can be purified to make plastics.  Another study, led by research lab supervisor Tahina Ranaivoarisoa, took another “well studied but notoriously stubborn” species of purple bacteria to dramatically ramp up its production of PHAs, by inserting a gene that helped turn them into “relative PHA powerhouses.” The researchers are optimistic they could use other bacteria to produce even higher levels of bioplastics.

The work was done in the lab of associate professor Aripta Bose, who said: “There’s a huge global demand for bioplastics. They can be produced without adding CO2 to the atmosphere and are completely biodegradable. These two studies show the importance of taking multiple approaches to finding new ways to produce this valuable material.”

“It’s worth taking a look at bacteria that we haven’t looked at before,” Mr. Conners said. “We haven’t come close to realizing their potential.” Professor Bose agrees: “We hope these bioplastics will produce real solutions down the road.”

Meanwhile, researchers at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, led by Sang Yup Lee, have manipulated bacteria to produce polymers that contain “ring-like structures,” which apparently make the plastics more rigid and thermally stable.  Normally those structures would be toxic to the bacteria, but the researchers managed to enable E. coli bacteria to both tolerate and produce them.  The researchers believe that the polymer would be especially useful in biomedical applications, such as drug delivery.

As with the Washington University work, this research is not producing output at scale, but the researchers have good confidence that it can. “If we put more effort into increasing the yield, then this method might be able to be commercialized at a larger scale,” says Professor Lee. “We’re working to improve the efficiency of our production process as well as the recovery process, so that we can economically purify the polymers we produce.”

Because the polymer is produced using biological instead of chemical processes, and is biodegradable, the researchers believe it can be important for the environment. “I think biomanufacturing will be a key to the success of mitigating climate change and the global plastic crisis,” says Professor Lee. “We need to collaborate internationally to promote bio-based manufacturing so that we can ensure a better environment for our future.”

Environmental impact is also very much on the minds of researchers at the University of Virginia. They are working on creating biodegradable bioplastics from food waste. “By creating cost-effective bioplastics that naturally decompose, we can reduce plastic pollution on land and in oceans and address significant issues such as greenhouse gas emissions and economic losses associated with food waste,” said lead researcher Zhiwu “Drew” Wang.

The team is developing microorganisms that convert food waste into fats, which are then processed into bioplastics. Those bioplastics then should easily be composed. “Our first step is to make single-layer film to see if it can be utilized as an actual product,” said Chenxi Cao, a senior in packaging and system design. “If it has good oxygen and water vapor barriers and other properties, we can move to the next step. We aim to replace traditional coated paper products with PHA. Current paper products are often coated with polyethylene or polyactic acid, which are not fully degradable. PHA is fully biodegradable in nature, even in a backyard environment.”

The approach is currently still in the pilot project stage.

If all that isn’t cool enough, our own bodies may become biofactories, such as to deliver drugs or vaccines. Earlier this year researchers at UT Southwestern reported on “in situ production and secretion of proteins,” which in this case targeted psoriasis and two types of cancer.

The researchers say: “Through this engineering approach, the body can be utilized as a bioreactor to produce and systemically secrete virtually any encodable protein that would otherwise be confined to the intracellular space of the transfected cell, thus opening up new therapeutic opportunities.”

“Instead of going to the hospital or outpatient clinic frequently for infusions, this technology may someday allow a patient to receive a treatment at a pharmacy or even at home once a month, which would be a significant boost to their quality of life,” said study leader Daniel Siegwart, Ph.D. Professor Siegwart believes this type of in situ production could eventually improve health and quality of life for patients with inflammatory diseases, cancers, clotting disorders, diabetes, and a range of genetic disorders.  

I promised I’d touch on an example of synthetic biology and AI overlapping. Last year I wrote about how “organoid intelligence” was a new approach to biocomputing and AI. Earlier this year Swiss firm FinalSpark launched its Neuroplatform, which uses 16 human brain organoids as the computing platform, claiming it was: “The next evolutionary leap for AI.”   

“Our principal goal is artificial intelligence for 100,000 times less energy,” FinalSpark co-founder Fred Jordan says. 

Now FinalSpark is renting its biocomputers to AI researchers at several top universities…for only $500 a month. “As far as I know, we are the only ones in the world doing this” on a publicly rentable platform, Dr. Jordan told Scientific American. Reportedly, around 34 universities requested access, but FinalSpark so far has limited use to 9 institutions, including the University of Michigan, the Free University of Berlin, and the Lancaster University in Germany.

Scientific America reports related work at Spain’s National Center for Biotechnology, using cellular computing, and at the University of the West of England, using – I’m serious! – fungal networks. “Fungal computing offers several advantages over brain-organoid-based computing,” Andrew Adamatzky says, “particularly in terms of ethical simplicity, ease of cultivation, environmental resilience, cost-effectiveness and integration with existing technologies.”

Bioplastics, biofactories, biocomputing — pretty cool stuff all around. I’ll admit I don’t know where all of this is leading, but I can’t wait to see where it leads.   

Tiny Is Mighty

By KIM BELLARD

I am a fanboy for AI; I don’t really understand the technical aspects, but I sure am excited about its potential. I’m also a sucker for a catchy phrase. So when I (belatedly) learned about TinyAI, I was hooked.  

Now, as it turns out, TinyAI (also know as Tiny AI) has been around for a few years, but with the general surge of interest in AI it is now getting more attention. There is also TinyML and Edge AI, the distinctions between which I won’t attempt to parse. The point is, AI doesn’t have to involve huge datasets run on massive servers somewhere in the cloud; it can happen on about as small a device as you care to imagine. And that’s pretty exciting.

What caught my eye was a overview in Cell by Farid Nakhle, a professor at Temple University, Japan Campus: Shrinking the Giants: Paving the Way for TinyAI.  “Transitioning from the landscape of large artificial intelligence (AI) models to the realm of edge computing, which finds its niche in pocket-sized devices, heralds a remarkable evolution in technological capabilities,” Professor Nakhle begins.

AI’s many successes, he believes, “…are demanding a leap in its capabilities, calling for a paradigm shift in the research landscape, from centralized cloud computing architectures to decentralized and edge-centric frameworks, where data can be processed on edge devices near to where they are being generated.” The demands for real time processing, reduced latency, and enhanced privacy make TinyAI attractive.

Accordingly: “This necessitates TinyAI, here defined as the compression and acceleration of existing AI models or the design of novel, small, yet effective AI architectures and the development of dedicated AI-accelerating hardware to seamlessly ensure their efficient deployment and operation on edge devices.”

Professor Nakhle gives an overview of those compression and acceleration techniques, as well as architecture and hardware designs, all of which I’ll leave as an exercise for the interested reader.  

If all this sounds futuristic, here are some current examples of TinyAI models:

  • This summer Google launched Gemma 2 2B, a 2 billion parameter model that it claims outperforms OpenAI’s GPT 3.5 and Mistral AI’s Mixtral 8X7B. VentureBeat opined: “Gemma 2 2B’s success suggests that sophisticated training techniques, efficient architectures, and high-quality datasets can compensate for raw parameter count.”
  • Also this summer OpenAI introduced GPT-4o mini, “our most cost-efficient small model.” It “supports text and vision in the API, with support for text, image, video and audio inputs and outputs coming in the future.”
  • Salesforce recently introduced its xLAM-1B model, which it likes to call the “Tiny Giant.” It supposedly only has 1b parameters, yet Marc Benoff claims it outperforms modelx 7x its size and boldly says: “On-device agentic AI is here”  
  • This spring Microsoft launched Phi-3 Mini, a 3.8 billion parameter model, which is small enough for a smartphone. It claims to compare well to GPT 3.5 as well as Meta’s Llama 3.
  • H2O.ai offers Danube 2, a 1.8 b parameter model that Alan Simon of Hackernoon calls the most accurate of the open source, tiny LLM models.   

A few billion parameters may not sound so “tiny,” but keep in mind that other AI models may have trillions.

Continue reading…

It’s in the Blood

By KIM BELLARD

People are fascinated by blood. Well, it would seem so, given our fondness for vampires, gory movies, and true crime stories. I’m not so keen on any of those, but I was struck by several recent developments about how blood tests can help diagnose medical problems faster, more definitively, and less invasively.

Because, really, shouldn’t that be what our healthcare system always should strive for?

Take concussions. If you are a football fan, you’re very familiar with the problem that it seems very subjective about whether a player has suffered a concussion. They’re not the only ones. Millions of people suffer concussions each year – the vast majority of whom are not athletes – and more than half never get it evaluated.

In April Abbott received FDA approval for a rapid blood test, producing results in 15 minutes. It can be done at a patient’s beside, and not require a lab. “Clinicians have needed an objective way to assess patients with concussions,” said Beth McQuiston, M.D., medical director in Abbott’s diagnostics business. “When you look at all the other diseases, or other organs in the body, they all have blood tests to help assess what’s happening. Now, we have a whole blood test that can help assess the brain right at the patient’s bedside – expanding access to more health providers and therefore patients.”

Expect to see the Abbott’s i-STAT TBI cartridge and portable i-STAT® Alinity® instrument in emergency rooms, not to mention on NFL sidelines.

Or Alzheimer’s disease. Many realize that it has historically been very difficult to diagnose, often not definitively until after death. Now a new study suggests a blood test can accurately diagnose it 90% of the time, which is much higher than even neurologists can do. The test is more accurate the later the stage of Alzheimer’s a person has.

Specifically, it measures “the ratio of plasma phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) relative to non–p-tau217 (expressed as percentage of p-tau217) combined with the amyloid-β 42 and amyloid-β 40 plasma ratio (the amyloid probability score 2 [APS2]).” Got that?

“We’d love to have a blood test that can beused in a primary care physician’s office, functioning like a cholesterol test but for Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Maria Carrillo, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, told CNN. “The p-tau217 blood test is turning out to be the most specific for Alzheimer’s and the one with the most validity. It seems to be the front-runner.”

It’s not quite ready for use in your doctor’s office, though. “Right now, we don’t have guidelines for the use of these tests,” Dr. Eliezer Masliah, director of the division of neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging, warned NPR. Dr. Suzanne Schindler, an associate professor of neurology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, added: “Blood tests have developed incredibly fast for Alzheimer disease and I think [doctors] aren’t used to that rate of change.”

“The field is moving at a pace I never imagined 10 years ago,” Dr. Heather Whitson, a professor of medicine at Duke University, marveled to NPR.

We’re increasingly seeing FDA approved drug treatments for Alzheimer’s, so it’d be nice if we had FDA approved blood tests to more accurately use them. 

Last but not least, there’s colorectal cancer (CRC). The FDA recently approved Guardant Health’s Shield™ blood test for colorectal cancer screening, and is the first such blood test approved by the FDA as a primary screening option. A Guardant study found that it identified 87% of cancers that were at an early and curable stage, although it does less well at finding precancerous growths. The test is aimed at adults 45 and older who are at average risk.

It’s not so much that it is better than colonoscopies – it’s not — as it is that it should be easier to convince people to use. Despite the fact that CRC kills over 50,000 Americans annually, more than a third of older Americans are not getting screened. Even worse, more than three-fourths of those who die from CRC are not up-to-date with their screening.

“The persistent gap in colorectal cancer screening rates shows that the existing screening options do not appeal to millions of people,” said Daniel Chung, MD, gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. “The FDA’s approval of the Shield blood test marks a tremendous leap forward, offering a compelling new solution to close this gap.”

Dr. Sapna Syngal, director of strategic planning for prevention and early cancer detection at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston agrees, telling NBC News: “If this test increases the number of people getting screened, it’s going to have a huge impact.” 

The test is on the market now, and Guardant expects approval for coverage by Medicare and commercial insurance.

Most of us are used to getting routine blood tests for things like blood counts or cholesterol levels, so it’s exciting that blood tests are started to be used for other important health issues.

————–

Blood tests are all well and good, but they’re not (yet) the kind of test you’d routinely expect to use at home on your own. ARPA-H has even bigger aspirations. It just announced the Platform Optimizing SynBio for Early Intervention and Detection in Oncology (POSEIDON) program, the goal of which is “to develop first-in-class, at-home, synthetic Multi-Cancer-Early Detection (MCED) tests for the most sensitive and specific stage I detection of 30+ solid tumors* using only breath and/or urine samples.”

No blood draw or lab tech needed, just breath or urine samples done yourself at home. That’s something to shoot for.

“Access to a low-cost cancer screening test that does not need a lab test is so critical to preventing late-stage diagnoses, increasing survival rates, and reducing high treatment costs,” said ARPA-H Director Renee Wegrzyn, Ph.D. “With POSEIDON, we could put the power of cancer screening into homes in the U.S. and around the world.” 

“But what if any adult could, at their discretion, take an at-home test that could detect Stage I cancer? POSEIDON aims to create a future in which any adult can take a simple, over-the-counter test to screen for and detect 30+ cancers at Stage I, when they are still localized, to drastically improve the chances of curative treatment and survival,” said Ross Uhrich, DMD, MBA, ARPA-H POSEIDON’s Program Manager.

“But what if…” indeed.  ARPA-H is thinking big — as it should. And as should we all.

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor

No, Health Care Is NOT Brat

By KIM BELLARD

Until last week, I thought “brat” referred to an obnoxious child. I was vaguely aware of Charli XCX, but I wasn’t aware that earlier this summer she’d dropped a new album with that name, or that the cultural zeitgeist subsequently declared this to be Brat Summer. Then last weekend in the space of a day, Joe Biden dropped out of the Presidential race, Vice President Harris became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Charli XCX tweeted “kamala IS brat.”

V.P. Harris’s campaign exploded. Most of us had kind of been dreading the campaign between two eighty-year-old white guys, and then suddenly we had a mixed heritage woman as a candidate, who even at 59 seemed positively youthful by comparison. And brat to boot!

It’s been hilarious to watch people like Stephen Colbert or Jake Tapper try to explain brat to their viewers. Charli XCX herself described it on TikTok as:

That girl who is a little messy and likes to party, and maybe says dumb things sometimes, who feels herself but then also maybe has a breakdown but parties through it. It’s very honest; it’s very blunt—a little bit volatile, does dumb things, but, like, it’s brat. You’re brat. That’s brat.

It’s been taken much further than that, of course. An article in The Guardian described it: “Because, as we all know by now, brat – inspired by Charli’s most recent album – is more than a name, it’s a lifestyle. It is noughties excess, rave culture. It’s “a pack of cigs, a Bic lighter, a strappy white top with no bra”. It’s quintessentially cool.”  Shirly Li, in The Atlantic, opined: “The essence of “brat”is not defining people as such; it’s being simultaneously provocative and vulnerable.”

But, more to the point, Xochitl Gonzalez, also writing in The Atlantic, made clear how we should think about brat: “If you don’t know what that means, it doesn’t matter.” After all, if you’re not in on the joke, you are the joke.

The Harris campaign is all in on the joke. It fully embraced the appellation, even changing its campaign logo on social media to the easily identifiable lime green of the Brat album cover. The KHive is busy creating memes, posting TikTok clips, and filling the world with coconut emojis (long story). Some have claimed that brat summer is already over, but maybe not so fast.

Whether it is the brat effect or simply a honeymoon period for Ms. Harris, her favorability and enthusiasm ratings have soared, and the Presidential race polls again show a dead heat, after President Biden’s polls had tanked following his disastrous debate performance earlier this month. The simple fact that the Dems have a candidate who can become a cultural meme, in a good way, feels refreshing, especially in a campaign that heretofore had evoked more dread and resignation than enthusiasm.

I wish healthcare was brat.

Continue reading…

Vote, for Health Sake

By KIM BELLARD

If you had on your political bingo card that our former President Trump would survive an assassination attempt, or that President Biden would drop out of the race a few weeks before being renominated for 2024, then you’re playing a more advanced game than I was (on the other hand, the chances that Trump would get convicted of felonies or that Biden would have a bad debate almost seemed inevitable). If we thought 2020 was the most consequential election of our lifetimes, then fasten your seat belt, because 2024 is already proving to be a bumpier ride, with more shocks undoubtedly to come.

I don’t normally write about politics, but a recent report from the Commonwealth Fund serves as a reminder: it does matter who you vote for. It is literally a matter of life and death.

The report is the 2024 State Scorecard on Women’s Health and Reproductive Care. Long story short: “Women’s health is in a perilous place.” Lead author Sara Collins added: “Women’s health is in a very fragile place. Our health system is failing women of reproductive age, especially women of color and low-income women.”

The report’s findings are chilling:

Using the latest available data, the scorecard findings show significant disparities between states in reproductive care and women’s health, as well as deepening racial and ethnic gaps in health outcomes, with stark inequities in avoidable deaths and access to essential health services. The findings suggest these gaps could widen further, especially for women of color and those with low incomes in states with restricted access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

“We found a threefold difference across states with the highest rates of death concentrated in the southeastern states,” David Radley, Ph.D., MPH, the fund’s senior scientist of tracking health system performance, said in a news conference last week. “We also saw big differences across states in women’s ability to access care.”

Joseph R. Betancourt, M.D., Commonwealth Fund President, said: “Where you live matters to your health and healthcare. This is having a disproportionate effect on women of color and women with low incomes.” Dr. Jonas Swartz, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina agreed, telling NBC News: “Your zip code shouldn’t dictate your reproductive health destiny. But that is the reality.”

The study evaluated a variety of health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, maternal and infant mortality, preterm birth rates, syphilis among women of reproductive age, infants born with congenital syphilis, self-reported health status, postpartum depression, breast and cervical cancer deaths, poor mental health, and intimate partner violence. To measure coverage, access, and affordability, it looked at insurance coverage, usual source of care, cost-related problems getting health care, and system capacity for reproductive health services.

There are, as you can imagine, charts galore.

The lowest performing states – and I doubt these will be a surprise to anyone — were Mississippi, Texas, Nevada, and Oklahoma. The highest rated states were Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Continue reading…

Google Hopes Nobody Beats This Wiz

By KIM BELLARD

When I saw the Wall Street Journal article about Alphabet being in “advanced talks” to buy cybersecurity firm Wiz for an eye-popping $23b, I must confess that – never having previously heard of the company – my thoughts flashed back to the Seinfeld episode (“The Junk Mail”) where Elaine dates a man whose job turns out to be an outlandish mascot for electronics store The Wiz, whose motto he gleefully repeats: “Nobody beats The Wiz!”  That firm is long gone but this Wiz is alive and well, enough so that the acquisition would be Alphabet’s largest ever.

The Wiz was only founded in 2020, by four ex-Israeli military officers (they reportedly all originally worked together at Israel’s equivalent of the NSA). They had previously founded cloud cybersecurity firm Adallom in 2012, which they sold to Microsoft in 2015 for its Azure cloud computing firm. Wiz also specializes in cloud cybersecurity, and, according to WSJ, its clients include 40% of the Fortune 500 companies as customers, including Barclay’s, Mars, Morgan Stanley, and Slack. Other notable customers include BMW, DocuSign, EA, and Salesforce.

Pretty impressive for a four-year-old start-up.

Alphabet’s cloud business – Google Cloud Platform (GCP) — badly trails leaders AWS (Amazon) and Azure (Microsoft), although last year GCP’s revenue’s rose 26% and it recorded its first operating profit. It’s Q1 2024 revenue was up 28%. By the way, Wiz lists both AWS and Azure as partners, along with GCP, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, VMware, and Alibaba Cloud. 

Alphabet had bought security company Mandiant two years ago for $5.4b, as well as Siemplify, another Israeli cloud cybersecurity company, that same year, and evidently sees these acquisition as a way to bolster its cloud business.

For some perspective, just this past May Wiz raised $1b in a funding round that gave it a $12b valuation. Its annual recurring revenues are estimated at $500 million, so Alphabet’s offer is a 46 multiplier. By contrast, WSJ notes that competitor CrowdStrike has a market capitalization that is 25 times annual recurring revenues. “This could be one of the largest and fastest returns ever for a private security company in tech history,” Alex Clayton, a general partner at Meritech Capital, told WSJ.

“There are two advantages of Google acquiring Wiz,” Ray Wang, principal analyst and founder of Constellation Research, told CSO. “One, cloud security is hot and allows Google to cut into AWS and Azure clients, and two, having Wiz would give them some consistently large workloads to monetize.”

If you’re wondering why cloud security is hot, I need only mention AT&T, which recently disclosed that the records of “nearly all” of its cellular customers had been breached. Well, those records came from its cloud provider Snowflake — and that was not the first time Snowflake has been attacked and possibly breached. Azure has also suffered some serious breaches, and has been accused of “repeated pattern of negligent cybersecurity practices.” AWS has had its share of data breaches as well.

So, yeah, a cloud service better have good cybersecurity.

Continue reading…

Health Care Needs a 21st Century Infrastructure

By KIM BELLARD

Matthew Holt is going to tell me I’ve been thinking about infrastructure too much lately (e.g., cybersecurity of them, backup plans for them), but if you don’t have infrastructure right, you don’t have anything right.

And healthcare most definitely does not have its infrastructure right.

We’re spending between 15-30% of our healthcare dollar on administration, and no one views our healthcare system as efficient or even particularly effective. We have numerous intermediaries like PBMs, billing services, revenue cycle management vendors, and all sorts of digital health solutions. There are layers upon layers upon layers, each adding its costs and complications.

In some ways, healthcare’s infrastructure has changed remarkably in the last two to three decades. Most transactions – e.g., claims or eligibility – are sent, and often processed, electronically. Most physicians, hospitals, and other health care clinicians/organizations have electronic health records. You can find out the expected cost for prescription drugs at point-of-sale. You can do a virtual visit with your doctor. There are vast amounts of health information available online. AI is coming to health care, and, in some cases, is already here.

But: we’re still sending faxes. We’re still filling out paper forms, repeatedly. We still make innumerable phone calls, usually spending long waits in queue. Everyone hates provider directories, which are never up-to-date and often inaccurate. Talk of interoperability notwithstanding, there are far too many data silos, leading to at best us lugging around disks with our downloaded records to at worst physicians acting with incomplete information for us. Healthcare has had far too many data breaches, and cyberattacks have held patient data hostage (e.g., Ascension) or put a halt to those electronic transaction (e.g., Change Healthcare). And we’re not at all sure how to govern AI.

The amount of medical literature has been growing exponentially for decades, and the volume of health care data is growing much, much faster. Physicians once guarded health information like the guild they are, but the Internet has democratized health information – while doing the same for misinformation. If anything, we have too much information; we just can’t use it as effectively as we should (e.g., it can take 17 years for evidence to change physician practice).

This is not an infrastructure that is not coping well with the 21st century.

Continue reading…