Sanjay Gupta's impartial expert: Political contributions. Care to guess?

[Gabi Hayes]

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=BRENTWOOD&st=TN&last=Keckley

he worked at Vanderbilt

could this be a different Paul Keckley?

to how many democrats did he give money?

I'll wait for the transcript...not up yet...but I'm almost positive that Gupta said Keckley had NO OTHER connections than to Vanderbilt, and, from another DUer's link, he doesn't even work there anymore, but for Deloitte and Touche

can't find the link, but when I do, I'll post it

EDIT: D and T
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/employee_profile/0,1007,cid%253D159872,00.html

RE-EDIT....thanks to Rusty Charly for both links, actually. this is the wikipedia link, asserting that ''Evidence-based medicine (EBM) or scientific medicine'' is a 'scientifically' couched means of saving money for the insurance companies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1297937&mesg_id=1298327

surprised?

[Gabi Hayes]

1. "evidence-based pathways" to medical care. what does it mean?

this?

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=3658

or this?

creative means of denying insurance coverage?

somebody else has a link on that, and I'll post it when I find it

[Gabi Hayes]

21. 'evidence based medicine'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine#Criticism_of_evidence-based_medicine

[PA Democrat]

2. You've got the right guy. Check out the live chat Michael Moore did over on Huffington Post.

He confirms the political contributions. Also guess who Keckley's boss is over at Deloitte Center for Health Solutions? Tommy Thompson.

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/employee_profile/0,1007,sid%253D80772%2526cid%253D86217,00.html

Anyone who still believes that Sanjay Gupta isn't pushing the Republican's agenda is fooling themselves.

Link to live chat at Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/exclusive-huffpost-live-c_b_55659.html

[Gabi Hayes]

4. did you see the Thompson quote at the bottom of the DT link?

too funny

[eleny]

15. "the interplay of forces that affect health care outcomes and costs"

Yeah, he knows how to do it on the cheap!

[Gabi Hayes]

16. As Michael Moore said, in essence, on TDS a moment or two ago:

the way health care companies maximize profits is to DENY AS MANY CLAIMS as possible

the obvious key to health care reform, as Moore says, is to TAKE the MIDDLEMAN out of the equation between doctor and patient.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. I could only get the first page....nothing past that.

I was sort of disappointed, as somebody else said on another thread.

glad the political contributions are getting out there, and I HOPE Gupta's denial of Keckley's background isn't scrubbed from the Xscripts, as they did Larry Flynt's comments about Dumbo's abortion-forcing back in the day.

I'm going to tape the rerun at 11PM to see if they altered it. his comments about his 'expert' are at the very end of the segment.

[PA Democrat]

12. That's all I could get as well.

[tandot]

3. Great find. K & R.

[EFerrari]

5. Good work. K&R

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. And off to the greatest.

Good work!

[Gabi Hayes]

9. thanks! Moore is on Daily Show rerun at this moment!

good timing

[HughMoran]

8. I could tell Sanjay was being defensive and "lying" when he said that

It was a reactionary response that he knew he could "deny" later claiming faulty memory or that he thought it was not "significant"

He's busted...

[panader0]

10. You are correct. Gupta did say his only connection was to Vanderbilt.

He said something like "we research this stuff too." Moore kept his cool. I have a degree of respect for Gupta, but on Larry King, he seemed like a CNN apologist. It's a shame he won't jump on MM's bandwagon.
Edited to recommend.

[caligirl]

26. I heard this exactly as well. No wiggle room here.

Sent this to CNN situation room and gupta via the shows comments email;

Dr. Gupta,
You had to know we would find Mr Keckley's weak spots and we did. Two glaring
omissions on your part today sir.
1)He gave $11,000 to Republican candidates and the Tennessee Republican
committee, no democrats among them. The candidates include Lamar Alexander and
Fred Thompson to name two high profile and 'connected'(as in crooked)
Republicans.
2)In addition Mr. Keckley appears to be employed by Deloitte and Touche, and no
longer works at the single place you gave as his only connection, Vanderbilt
U.And his boss is none other than Bush friend Tommy Thompson:
"Meet Paul H. Keckley, Ph.D.
Executive Director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions
Paul Keckley

Paul H. Keckley, Ph.D., is the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions (the Center), a part
of Deloitte & Touche USA LLP (Deloitte & Touche USA). He provides strategic
guidance on the development of Center research and thought leadership. Paul has
had 30 years of experience in academic medicine and the private sector. He is
well-regarded for his knowledge of health care economics, health policy and
trend analysis.

Prior to joining Deloitte & Touche USA, Paul served in several key roles at
Vanderbilt University. "
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/employee_profile/0,1007,cid%253D159872,00.html
Campaign contributions of Paul
Kecklley>http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=BRENTWOOD&st=TN&las
t=Keckley


You did a poor job here sir and you should apologize on air for deceiving the
public. If it wasn't you who withheld this then expose those who misled you sir!
Your MD may still be intact but CNN journalism could do well to replace you.

[Gabi Hayes]

29. EXCELLENT email! would Sanjaya like a little FUDGE to go with his 'facts?'

where's his mohawk?

[Nothing Without Hope]

11. Michael Moore needs to hear about this. K & R n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

13. Thanks, Gabi. Another recommendation to you.

All I want from Sanjay is his teeth. Ohhhh, I'd love to have teeth like that!!!
:D

[FloridaJudy]

32. If you made his money, your teeth would be perfect too

$2000+ per perfect crown, more for implants. Figure about $80,000 for a dazzling smile, but he probably deducts from his income tax (not only a medical expense, but he's in the public eye).

Me, I'm trying to save up for a root canal. Grrrrrrrrrr. I have a feeling I'd have a better chance to win the lottery if I actually bought tickets....

[PBS Poll-435]

34. You and I, ....

Only get to deduct 7.5% of our respective AGI (adjusted gross income) for medical expenses.

However...if it is a cost of doing business.... That goes on schedule "c" not schedule "a."

[Bluebear]

14. R R R R R R R R R R R

[caligirl]

28. Let me add to this, RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

:evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown:

[Hissyspit]

17. Here's where I pointed out last night that he worked for Deloitte and Touche:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=39840&mesg_id=39840

Notice that in the interview with the Deloitte Health-Care Analyst guy, the 'analyst' says almost nothing, really, nothing anyone doesn't know and that wasn't addressed in 'Sicko.' People buy health care outside of the system in these other countries. Good. So what? These systems are paid for by taxes. We know! It says so in the movie. Jeez...!

By the way, about Deloitte, from their website:

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/section_home/0,1041,sid%253 ...

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, its member firms, and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is an organization of member firms around the world devoted to excellence in providing professional services and advice, focused on client service through a global strategy executed locally in nearly 140 countries. With access to the deep intellectual capital of approximately 150,000 people worldwide, Deloitte delivers services in four professional areas — audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services — and serves more than 80 percent of the world’s largest companies, as well as large national enterprises, public institutions, locally important clients, and successful, fast-growing global growth companies. Services are not provided by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein, and, for regulatory and other reasons, certain member firms do not provide services in all four professional areas.

[Gabi Hayes]

19. thanks...first time I've seen that thread

I hope MM has all this on his thread.

do you think CNN will deal with this?

you can imagine how they'll be picking apart Moore's appearance in future shows

this will illustrate in almost textbook fashion the old saw that he who owns the presses owns the news, or whatever it said. point being that Moore isn't going to win this sort of exchange with CNN

I just hope that peoples' revulsion with the system will out.

I'm not holding my breath

[Gabi Hayes]

18. some light reading on Evidence based medicine. very hard to find criticisms online, btw.

scroll down for this part...pretty heavy going

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/3/14

What is EBM?

As has been noticed by others <7,13>, the debate about the value of EBM has been muddied by an unfortunate tendency to define the term "evidence-based medicine" in an overly broad manner. For example, here is one definition of EBM that has some claim to being authoritative: "The conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients" <14>. In a similar vein, Brian Haynes writes "Advocates of evidence-based medicine want clinicians and consumers to pay attention to the best findings from health care research that are both valid and ready for clinical application".<15> Taken at face value, these definitions seem merely to say that EBM is the wise use of the best evidence available. Given that characterization alone, it would be astonishing that there is any dispute about EBM. It would be equally astonishing that anyone could think EBM, defined in this manner, revolutionary or even useful. After all, who could possibly be opposed to using the best evidence wisely?

The very term "evidence-based medicine" seems similarly vacuous – as if any alternative to EBM means doing medicine based on something other than evidence. Even homeopaths base their treatments on evidence of a sort, and we suspect that homeopaths would even claim that they are conscientiously and explicitly using the best evidence available. Of course they are wrong about the latter claim, but nothing in these standard definitions of EBM tells us why homeopathy fails to be evidence-based medicine. Furthermore, few would suggest that the very idea of using evidence in medicine constitutes a revolutionary paradigm shift. Perhaps advocates of the term "evidence-based medicine" have a philosophical theory of evidence, a theory according to which everything that has passed for evidence prior to the EBM movement was not evidence at all. However, if they have such a theory, we have not seen it expressed.

In the Background section, we mentioned a number of criticisms that have been raised against EBM. With such critics, we have the beginnings of an intelligible debate, for we have several reasonably distinct approaches to intervention questions, and we can ask substantive questions about the strengths and weaknesses of each, and we can ask which should be used when or how they should be combined. The present point is simply this: there is a tendency for some proponents of EBM to duck these questions and avoid this debate by defining "evidence-based medicine" such that it includes the best possible combination of basic science, clinical experience, and clinical trials. In so doing, the proponents of EBM come awfully close to simply defining EBM as the best way to practice medicine, whatever that may be. In other words, they respond to the second order conceptual question ("what is EBM?") by saying that EBM is whatever approach to medicine best answers the first order normative question ("how ought we to practice medicine?"). The proponents of EBM thereby give the illusion of having answered both sets of questions when in fact they have answered neither. They thus walk away from an important and substantive debate.

We emphasize that our concern about the definition of EBM stems not merely from an academic desire for philosophical clarity. Our concern is eminently practical: we believe that the debate between EBM and alternative approaches is important and can change medical practice. But if EBM is explicitly defined in a way that is essentially vacuous, the debate will be unproductive. If this debate is to yield fruit, we must therefore clarify what we mean when we speak of EBM.

[Gabi Hayes]

20. never mind

[President Jesus]

22. Gupta's campaign contributions

http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Sanjay_Gupta.php

[Gabi Hayes]

24. thank you, Jesus!

makes him look like even more of a sellout.

wonder if those guys are all DLC

just goes to show you......

[caligirl]

25. thanks for adding that, gupta gave to all dems in various state races.

[CoffeeCat]

23. Too bad the "scrub stud"...

...is a sell out.

If he had any sense at all, he would do a mea culpa, quit CNN and start
telling Americans the truth.

He could end up being "America's Doctor" instead of CNN's pitch boy.

[caligirl]

27. CNN and Gupta should be BOMBARDED with emails about this glaring dicrepancy.

I sent my emails on this and gees I am so disgusted by all this.

[Gabi Hayes]

30. I just saw Sanjaya LIE HIS ASS OFF on the replay:

quote: "His {Keckley} ONLY connection is with Vanderbilt University"

THAT's what he said

his ONLY connection

except that he's not even employed by them, according to DandT.

maybe he's connected, but his only connection?

Sanjaya even had the temerity to say "We check our facts, too!"

you may check them, but you don't pay any ATTENTION to them, do you?

have a little fudge

[Gabi Hayes]

31. speaking of which....trenchant question from the HuffPo MM chat thread:

Michael, everybody in the MSM seems to be "fact checking" you. Why do they never fact check anything this administration ever says?

[Gabi Hayes]

33. contact CNN about this egregious liar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1299261&mesg_id=1299261

how'd you like a neurosurgeon who lies about the most obviously refutable "facts?"

how could you trust a BRAIN surgeon who so easily, provably lies?

appalling