THCB

Categories

Tag: Mike Magee

Doctors As Legislators: Is that a good idea?

• 0

By MIKE MAGEE

As we entered the 2026 Mid-terms, twenty physicians held seats in Congress, four in the Senate and 16 in the House, a record for physicians in the highest offices of the land. (I provide a list below.)

In the wake of Tuesday’s remarkable display of democracy, many have shined a light on several new elected physicians, including Sen. Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.), Sen. Annie Andrews (D-S.C.), and notably the election of a woman physician as governor of Ohio, Gov. Amy Acton (D-Ohio).

They will join, come January, two standing physician senators – John Barrasso (R-WY) and Rand Paul (R-KY), and leave behind two other Republican Senators, Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Roger Marshall (R-KS), both mired in controversy.

Physician leaders. Is this a good thing for our nation, struggling with an inequitable and prohibitively expensive health care system, a frayed and collapsing public health infrastructure, and a reckless vaccine policy launched by a public official whose own family members describe him as, well, “crazy.”

My short answer is “On the whole with notable exceptions, yes.” In search of an answer why, I go back to a speech I gave, now two decades ago, on March 12, 2006 at the AMA President’s Forum in Washington, D.C.

Continue reading…

2026 Mid-terms: Voting for the Future

• 0

By MIKE MAGEE

This week, New York Times political columnist, Linda Kindler reflected on “How Silicon Valley Stole the Future.” Signaling that this wasn’t simply another article on the binary choices of an AI world – or as she put it “either a world in which A.I. has eliminated all jobs, unleashed bioengineered viruses and enabled catastrophic warfare or a utopia in which the technology gives people ‘greater power to live life as they choose.’”

Instead, the AI discussion steered away from Fellow Times columnist, Thomas Friedman’s scary Halloween AI piece the day before (“We Just Set Off the Second Big Bang”) and focused instead on the work of Jonathan White, the Professor of Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science where he teaches on democracy, political thought and political theory.

Professor White’s message was a clear warning not to abdicate control over AI to the Tech bro’s, in that “the capacity to imagine alternatives that may be improbable and to pursue them against the odds” is a “democratic resource.” In Kindler’s words, White argues, “When the future increasingly seems like something to avoid rather than something to look forward to, the very foundations of democracy are weakened. The future has been the primary terrain upon which all politics are practiced since the French Revolution challenged the divine right of kings.”

And Americans have made it pretty clear over the past two years that they reject Kings in the White House. Last week’s “No Kings” rally at thousands of sites across the nation were in fact a recurring event. Back in June 19, 2025, the Guardian took notice commenting that “The scale of last weekend’s “No Kings” protests is now becoming clearer, with one estimate suggesting that Saturday was among the biggest ever single-day protests in US history.”

Americans apparently want control of their own future destinies, AI and otherwise. With 5 days remaining before the 2026 Mid-Term elections, the levels of participation by the electorate are projected to set a record nationwide at 54% (past record was 49% in 2022) with a projected 135 million of the eligible 250+ million casting votes.

Continue reading…

Have doctors given up on doctoring?

• 0

By MIKE MAGEE MD

I read with interest, Dr. Rachael Bedard’s September 25, 2026 New York Times article titled “Being a Doctor Will Never Be the Same After A.I.” In her second paragraph she writes “Amid our recent doom cycle about whether A.I. will lead to extreme societal harms, a parallel anxiety has taken hold in medicine about whether A.I. will one day replace physicians.”

Dr. Bedard self-identifies as a primary care physician trained in internal medicine, geriatrics and palliative care. Her practice focuses on the special challenges of homeless and incarcerated elders. She is also heavily involved in political advocacy for pro-choice health policy.

But her Opinion piece mainly considered the impact of AI on current medical students and residents in training.

In her view, “It’s impractical and counterproductive to train physicians in 2026 without exposure to A.I. Doctoring . . .”

Her words seem to reinforce my own bias that physicians are increasingly distancing themselves from the human side of health care, finding it easier (and less messy physically and emotionally) to focus on diagnosis, treatment options, and chronic care team management within the confines of a work week closer to 40 hours than 80 hours as in the past.

Internet connectivity and AI efficiency certainly make this migration more realistic. But even before AI, patient empowerment and ready data access encouraged patients to self-manage many of their own health care decisions. In addition, urgent care and pharmacy based clinics filled the gap left by uneven access to care that occurred as more and more physicians became employees of merging corporate health care organizations and the numbers of primary care physicians necessary for ready patient access lagged behind demand.

Physicians salaries have risen to $280,000 a year as numbers of primary care physicians declined with projected shortages by 2038 of 24% for Family Medicine and 17% for Internal Medicine. Their work hours are more reasonable, but over 1/2 reported “burnout”, complaining of excessive paperwork, medical school debt, being hostage to patient satisfaction scores, and work/life balance issues (women 56%, men 44%). Too many bureaucratic tasks topped the list of complaints at 62%, while lack of respect from patients was near the bottom of their concerns at 22%.

As for solutions, what would bring them psychic relief? Increased compensation (48%), more support staff (47%), more flexible work schedules (46%), increased physician autonomy (41%), more respect from administrators (35%), lighter patient loads (33%).

Continue reading…

A Unified Sense of Self

By MIKE MAGEE

Stanford neuroscientist, David Eagleman, reminded us this week that “A coherent explanation of consciousness eludes modern science.” That was his opening line in the New York Times book review of Michael Pollan’s latest effort, “A World Appears.” In it, Pollan asks innocently, “How does the brain generate a unified sense of self?”

According to Eagleman, “Pollan is not able to furnish the answers (no one can, yet), but he presents a captivating exploration, one that is highly personal and sensitive.” In this, he is not alone. Other fields are engaged in the same pursuit.

To begin with, there are the epigeneticists. They study “how our environment influences our genes by changing the chemicals attached to them.” In the hands of these scientists, genes are not “set in stone and (fully) predetermined.” Of late, these investigators have been unraveling how various chemicals, working on the surface and inside cells are constantly altering and adjusting how our genes work. Thus the title, since “epi” is Greek for “over, outside of, around.”

Other investigators like Professor Eddy Keming Chen in the department of Philosophy at University of California San Diego come at the problem from a different direction. She bolstered her PhD in Philosophy with a Masters in Mathematical Physics, and a graduate certificate in Cognitive Science. She teaches the PHIL 130 course on Metaphysics.

In the UCSD college syllabus, she tees up the question, “Why study metaphysics?” She promises enrollees that if they sign up, they’ll find a bit of magic in exploring tough questions, like: “Do we have free will? Is it compatible with causal determinism? What is the place of the mind and of the consciousness in a physical world?”

In the Jesuit world that I came from, such courses were mandatory as part of the core curriculum. In my own alma mater, they no longer carry the same mandate, but still remain alive and well.

Consider, for example PHL 365 – a 3 credit course at LeMoyne College titled Philosophy of Mind. Once again, there is magic in the air for inquiring minds.

Continue reading…

Liberal Arts Education As a Counterbalance To Trumpian AI

By MIKE MAGEE

What’s wrong in the social science realm of health? Consider for example the mental health crises affecting teens across the nation, or the sharp decline in relationships and child bearing in young adult men and women, or the attack on vaccine policy by the wayward Kennedy, or the attempted dismantling of ACA health insurance coverage for millions, or the outright cruelty of ICE agents toward citizens and legal aliens, or the callous attitude toward Middle East casualties of soldiers and civilians by the President and the “Secretary of War”… and I could go on.

How should our nation begin to address these grievances? With our grandchildren either in or fast approaching higher education, I’ve been making a related case (as I see it) for the value and importance of a liberal arts education. In a strange way, Trump, in his attacks on the law and democracy, has instigated a resurgence of interest in history, philosophy, religion, political science, literature and the arts – even in this age of fantastical AI exuberance.

My own alma mater has been steadfast in its vision. As they state on their own website, “The liberal arts education at Le Moyne is rooted in the Jesuit tradition, which emphasizes the education of the whole person and the search for meaning and value as integral parts of an intellectual life. This commitment to a liberal arts education allows students to develop a broad range of skills and knowledge, fostering ethical leadership, service, and a commitment to social justice. The college’s Core Curriculum is central to its mission, ensuring that all students receive a thorough education in the liberal arts, which includes knowledge across multiple disciplines and the confidence to engage in intellectual inquiry as members of a global community.”

In simpler terms, LeMoyne’s front page headlines “We strive for greatness always through the eyes of goodness.” I thought of this last week as I watched James Talarico’s speech accepting his Democratic Primary nomination for Senate in Texas. In part explaining his convincing victory numbers as a result of his ability to attract a large turnout of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, he issued what will certainly be his rallying cry: “The people of this state have given this country a little bit of hope, and a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing.”

Who is in danger? Talarico has tagged not only billionaires, but especially Christian Nationalists who he says “divide us by party, by race, by gender, by religion so that we don’t notice that they’re defunding our schools, gutting our health care and cutting taxes for themselves and their rich friends. It is the oldest strategy in the world: Divide and conquer. But we will not be conquered.”

This week CUNY Political Scientist, Peter Beinart, laid out a remarkable opinion piece in the New York Times, leaning heavily on liberal arts to make a convincing case against empire building and king Trump. In opposing  national sovereignty and international law conventions, he spotlights the President’s source of guidance – “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Beinart bolsters his case against Trump by digging deep into our own history, political science, literature and religion. Included in the journey are President William McKinley (intent on Caribbean Empire building), and his opponent, William Jennings Bryan, who claimed McKinley’s action “is not a step forward toward a broader destiny; it is a step backward, toward the narrow views of kings and emperors.” John Quincy Adams appears in 1821 stating such purposeful aggressions would undermine “the fundamental maxims of American policy (and) would insensibly change (democratic practice) from liberty to force.”

Others come forward as well including Frederick Douglass, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, W.E.B. Du Bois, John Kenneth Galbraith. Taken into account Beinart’s impressive essay and Talarico’s acceptance speech, side by side in a short 24 hours, reminds us all that the soul of our democracy requires health, unity, and the capacity to awaken “our better angels.”

To paraphrase the LeMoyne motto, our greatness must flow from our goodness. The core of a well educated electorate is knowledge, wisdom, and values. In its absence, we are left with ignorance, greed, and hatred.

Mike Magee MD is a Medical Historian and regular contributor to THCB. He is the author of CODE BLUE: Inside America’s Medical Industrial Complex. (Grove/2020)

Father Christmas Reminds Us We Can Do Better Than This

By MIKE MAGEE

The Ghost of Christmas Past, in the form of Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, has returned this season to torture one RFK Jr who refuses to fully share life saving vaccines with children. In the encounter, the ghostly Koop reviews a time 37 years ago when citizens came together to celebrate separating scientific fact from fiction with life-saving effects.

Beginning in 1988, the United States, along with the rest of the world, had formally acknowledged and celebrated World AIDS Day on December 1st each year – that is until 2025. At President’s Trump’s direction the State Department, and with HHS support, turned their back on an inconvenient truth – the Republican early record on HIV/AIDS. Let’s channel the truth-telling Surgeon General from Christmas past and remember this telling story.

On June 5, 1981, the CDC reported 6 cases of Pneumocystis carinii associated with a strange immune deficiency disorder in California men. Drs. Michael Gottlieb and Joel Weismann, infectious disease experts who delivered care routinely for members of the gay population in Los Angeles, had alerted the CDC. Inside the organization, there was a debate on how best to report this new illness in gay men.

The vehicle that the CDC chose was a weekly report called the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report or MMWR. So as not to offend, the decision was made to post the new finding, not on page 1, but on page 2, with no mention of homosexuality in the title. Almost no one noticed.

On April 13, 1982, nine months after the initial alert, Senator Henry Waxman held the first Congressional hearings on the growing epidemic. The CDC testified that tens of thousands were likely already infected. On September 24, 1982, the condition would for the first time carry the label, AIDS – acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

The new Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop’s focus at the time, along with the vast majority of public health leaders across the nation, was not on a new emerging infectious disease, but rather on the nation’s chronic disease burden, especially cardiovascular disease and cancer being fed by the post-war explosion of tobacco use. He had already surmised that the power of his position lie in communications and advocacy.

One month after his swearing in, he appeared on a panel to release a typically boring Surgeon General update report on tobacco. He was not intended to have a big role. When Koop rose to deliver what all thought would be brief, inconsequential remarks, he wasted no time disintegrating the lobbyist organization, the Tobacco Institute. For print journalists in the audience, he was clear, concise and quotable. For broadcast journalists, he was a dream come true – tall, erect with his Mennonite beard, in a dark suit with bow tie, exuding a combination of extreme confidence and legitimacy mixed with “don’t mess with me” swagger.

As Koop would later say, after that, “I began to be quoted as an authority. And the press from that time on was all on my side… I made snowballs and they threw ‘em.” The other thing that Koop noticed early was that the Reagan Administration didn’t shut him down. That was surprising since Koop’s major supporter in a year long confirmation battle (the AMA opposed his appointment) was NC arch-conservative Senator Jesse Helms.

Add to Jesse’s wrath, R.J. Reynold’s CEO, Edward Horrigan, complained directly to Reagan about Koop’s “increasingly shrill preachments. Cigarette consumption in the US was in free fall. By 1987, 40 states would have laws banning smoking in public places; 33 states had bans in public transportation; and 17 already had eliminated workplace smoking.

Still Reagan didn’t shut him down. Now everyone from public schools to medical groups to women’s associations to civic enterprises wanted him. And beginning in late 1982, he arrived in full regalia, in a magnificent Public Health Service, Vice-Admiral’s uniform with ribbons and epaulettes. And his aide, also in uniform, always carried with him a bag of buttons for distribution which read, “The Surgeon General personally asked me to quit smoking.”

But in the most pressing public health challenge of the day, HIV/AIDS, the department was AWOL. Koop was actively sidelined by top Administration officials. Not surprisingly, the situation deteriorated rapidly. Everyone was feeling the heat, including the CDC, who removed funding for AIDS education after being accused of promoting sodomy by conservatives.

Continue reading…

Watching Where and How You’re Walking

By MIKE MAGEE

In a speech to the American Philosophical Society in January, 1946, J. Robert Oppenheimer said, “We have made a thing …that has altered abruptly and profoundly the nature of the world…We have raised again the question of whether science is good for man, of whether it is good to learn about the world, to try to understand it, to try to control it, to help give to the world of men increased insight, increased power.”

Eight decades later, those words reverberate, and we once again are at a seminal crossroads. This past week, Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, was everywhere, a remarkably skilled communicator celebrating the fact that his company was now the first publicly traded company to exceed a $4 trillion valuation.

As he explained, “We’ve essentially created a new industry for the first time in three hundred years. the last time there was an industry like this, it was a power generation industry…Now we have a new industry that generates intelligence…you can use it to discover new drugs, to accelerate diagnosis of disease…everybody’s jobs will be different going forward.”

Jensen, as I observed him perform on that morning show, seemed just a bit overwhelmed, awed, and perhaps even slightly frightened by the pace of recent change. “We reinvented computing for the first time since the 60’s, since IBM introduced the modern computer architecture… its able to accelerate applications from computer graphics to physics simulations for science to digital biology to artificial intelligence. . . . in the last year, the technology has advanced incredibly fast. . . AI is now able to reason, it’s able to think… Before it was able to understand, it was able to generate content, but now it can reason, it can do research, it can learn about the latest information before it answers a question.”

Of course, this is hardly the first time technology has triggered flashing ethical warning lights. I recently summarized the case of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT). The US has the largest number of closed circuit cameras at 15.28 per capita, in the world. On average, every American is caught on a closed circuit camera 238 times a week, but experts say that’s nothing compared to where our “surveillance” society will be in a few years.

The field of FRT is on fire. 

Continue reading…

Towards a Tricoder

By MIKE MAGEE

On March 9, 1967, the Star Trek classic episode, “The Devil in the Dark” first aired. The Enterprise had received an urgent distress call from miners on the planet Janus VI. They are literally melting after, Horta, a wounded inhabitant has targeted them with liquifying acid rays.

A sympathetic Spock hears the call, and in an effort to disclose cause and motivation, “mind-melts” with the creature. Turns out, all she’s trying to do is protect her babies from a perceived threat. Kirk agrees, and with Spock, calls in Dr. McCoy to access the patient’s condition.

What McCoy encounters is a “rocky-skinned patient.” With the aid of his tricoder, a handheld diagnostic sensor, “Bones” (McCoy’s nickname referencing the historical 19th century American slang “Sawbones” referring to surgeons) uncovers a serious and deep gaping wound that requires immediate attention.

Kirk manages to “beam down” a hundred pounds of thermoconcrete, and McCoy expertly applies it to the wound. All of which is a set-up for his shipmates to wonder if this will work, which generates the iconic most-repeated line in the series storied history. McCoy (clearly irritated) utters – “How do I know? I’m a doctor, not a bricklayer.”

Similarly challenged modern day doctors have been voicing their own frustrations for more than a few decades. But the AMA has been scientifically tracking their discontent only since 2011. The levels of burnout are somewhat down in 2025 compared to peaked pique in 2021. But among the irritants, integration of new technology remain near the top of the list.

Continue reading…

Water, Water, Everywhere . . . but Not a Drop to Drink

By MIKE MAGEE

In the wake of last week’s human tragedy in Texas, it would be easy (and appropriate) to focus on the role played by Trump’s reckless recent dismantling of FEMA and related federal agencies. But to do so would be to accept that the event was an anomaly, or as Trump labeled it on Sunday on his way to a round of golf at Bedminster, “a hundred year catastrophe.”

In reality, tragedies like this are the direct result of global warming, and last week’s suffering and loss are destined to be followed by who knows how many others here and in communities around the world.

In 2009 President Obama joined global leaders in New York City for the Opening Session of the UN. One of the transboundary issues discussed was Global Warming. All agreed that the Kyoto Protocol had failed. It failed because the target to decrease emissions by some 5% was too low. It failed because large transitional nations like India and China were excluded. And it failed because US leadership opted out.

The global community today has a deeper hole out of which it must dig. In doing so we would do well to focus on health and safety as outcome measures, and define strategies to manage the obvious consequences of this ongoing crisis.

Two decades ago, the warnings were clear. Left unattended, we would soon not only need to plan mitigation, but also need to prepare and resource intervention to deal with inevitable human injury and disease fall-out. Of course, back then, we could not have predicted that wise disease interventions in climate ravaged hot spots around the globe, like expansion of USAID funding in the Bush and Obama administrations, would be X’d out under Trump/Musk. Who could have imagined such reckless and ultimately self-destructive moves?

And yet, here we are:

Continue reading…

How Did the AI “Claude” Get Its Name?

By MIKE MAGEE

Let me be the first to introduce you to Claude Elwood Shannon. If you have never heard of him but consider yourself informed and engaged, including at the interface of AI and Medicine, don’t be embarrassed. I taught a semester of “AI and Medicine” in 2024 and only recently was introduced to “Claude.”

Let’s begin with the fact that the product, Claude, is not the same as the person, Claude. The person died a quarter century ago and except for those deep in the field of AI has largely been forgotten – until now.

Among those in the know, Claude Elwood Shannon is often referred to as the “father of information theory.” He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1936 where he majored in electrical engineering and mathematics. At 21, as a Master’s student at MIT, he wrote a Master’s Thesis titled “A Symbolic Analysis Relay and Switching Circuits” which those in the know claim was “the birth certificate of the digital revolution,” earning him the Alfred Noble Prize in 1939 (No, not that Nobel Prize).

None of this was particularly obvious in those early years. A University of Michigan biopic claims, “If you were looking for world changers in the U-M class of 1936, you probably would not have singled out Claude Shannon. The shy, stick-thin young man from Gaylord, Michigan, had a studious air and, at times, a playful smirk—but none of the obvious aspects of greatness. In the Michiganensian yearbook, Shannon is one more face in the crowd, his tie tightly knotted and his hair neatly parted for his senior photo.”

But that was one of the historic misreads of all time, according to his alma mater. “That unassuming senior would go on to take his place among the most influential Michigan alumni of all time—and among the towering scientific geniuses of the 20th century…It was Shannon who created the “bit,” the first objective measurement of the information content of any message—but that statement minimizes his contributions. It would be more accurate to say that Claude Shannon invented the modern concept of information. Scientific American called his groundbreaking 1948 paper, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” the “Magna Carta of the Information Age.”

I was introduced to “Claude” just 5 days ago by Washington Post Technology Columnist, Geoffrey Fowler – Claude the product, not the person. His article, titled “5 AI bots took our tough reading test. One was smartest — and it wasn’t ChatGPT,” caught my eye. As he explained, “We challenged AI helpers to decode legal contracts, simplify medical research, speed-read a novel and make sense of Trump speeches.”

Judging the results of the medical research test was Scripps Research Translational Institute luminary, Eric Topol.  The 5 AI products were asked 115 questions on the content of two scientific research papers : Three-year outcomes of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and Retinal Optical Coherence Tomography Features Associated With Incident and Prevalent Parkinson Disease.

Not to bury the lead, Claude – the product – won decisively, not only in science but also overall against four name brand competitors I was familiar with – Google’s Gemini, Open AI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and MetaAI. Which left me a bit embarrassed. How had I never heard of Claude the product?

For the answer, let’s retrace a bit of AI history.

Continue reading…