Most Recent Posts

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders got into the presidential race Thursday, becoming Hillary Clinton's first official challenger for the Democratic nomination. His website has a disclaimer: "Paid for by Bernie not the billionaires."

Although he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, he's not a registered Democrat — he's actually the longest-serving independent in congressional history. (There's no rule, by the way, barring candidates who are not registered Democrats from running in the Democratic primary.)

Sanders is one of those politicians known by only one name — everyone in the Capitol knows who "Bernie" is. He's a fiery, left-wing voice who calls himself a democratic socialist. And he's never lost his Brooklyn accent or his absent-minded professor look.

Here are three reasons why Sanders' candidacy could actually help the Clinton campaign:

1. Progressives now have a champion

OK, he's not Elizabeth Warren. But the left-wing base of the Democratic Party has been hungering for an alternative to Clinton and now they have one. HRC herself welcomed him into the race by tweeting: "I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America's middle class."

I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America's middle class. GOP would hold them back. I welcome him to the race. –H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 30, 2015

Sanders will force her to focus on issues important to the progressive base of the party, like climate change, campaign finance reform and income inequality. All of which she has already been talking about. But the contrast with Sanders may help her find that sweet spot between the left wing of the party and the center of American politics a little faster. She's a progressive who says "the deck is stacked in favor of those at the top," she supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and she wants an "end to the era of mass incarceration." But, in comparison to Sanders, it's clear she's no socialist.

2. All candidates need a sparring partner

Clinton can't stand on the debate stage alone. Having challengers will help her sharpen her message and her skills, which are rusty from being out of the arena for eight years. And the sparring will not be lethal because Sanders has said that although he thinks questions of Clinton's ethics are "fair game," he will not air any negative ads against her. Sanders will be joined by other Clinton challengers. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is expected to join the race; so is former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb and the former Republican senator and Democratic governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee.

3. He can't beat her

Sanders is a long shot. So are the other three potential Democratic candidates. But they're all serious, substantive challengers. All of them are current or former governors or senators — there's not a talk show host or a House member in the bunch. Democratic activists all over the country have been saying they want a real debate, not a coronation. And now they have one. Even though HRC's position as the leader of the Democratic pack hasn't changed, a multicandidate race could make the eventual nominee a much stronger general election candidate.

Newly released documents from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration show that it initially declined to grant a medical certificate to Andreas Lubitz, the pilot who is believed to have intentionally crashed an airline into the French Alps last month.

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, provide an eerie glimpse into Lubitz's mental history and an effort to conceal that from U.S. medical examiners.

In the summer of 2010, Lubitz was enrolled in a training program for Lufthansa Airlines. As part of that program, he applied for a U.S. pilot's license so he could continue his training in Arizona, where weather conditions are favorable to flying all year round. But he needed a medical certificate to get a license.

The FAA documents show Lubitz checked "no" in response to an online application question about whether he had been treated for any mental disorders. But a later copy of the questionnaire shows it had been changed to "yes" by the aviation medical examiner after discovering Lubitz had been treated for severe depression a year earlier.

Dr. Warren Silberman, the former head of the FAA's aerospace medical certification unit, told NPR that the aviation administration declined to give Lubitz a medical certificate. But Silberman says Lubitz was offered a chance to clarify things.

"We sent a request for information, saying hey Lubitz, we see here that you had depression, please provide us with a status report," he said.

Lubitz's psychologist in Germany provided the FAA with a letter, translated from German, saying Lubitz had been treated with several drugs for his depression disorders. The psychologist, whose name is redacted, states that Lubitz was "completely recovered."

Silberman says the FAA let Lubitz know he would receive his medical certificate. "Meaning that somebody in the division reviewed the statement from the psychiatrist, thought that it was adequate and cleared him," he said.

The letter warned Lubitz that he would be prohibited from flying if his depression returned.

Lubitz was ultimately able to secure a job as a co-pilot for Germanwings.

As NPR reported earlier, it was discovered after Flight 9525 crashed into the French Alps that Lubitz had been treated for suicidal tendencies, and that investigators found boxes of medication in his home, along with torn up doctor's notes for sick leave, including one note for the day of the crash.

Silberman says in May, members of the Aerospace Medical Association will meet to discuss Lubitz's case. "We're going to get together because of the Germanwings accident and come up, you know, is there anything else we should do now," he says.

Andreas Lubitz

germanwings Flight 4U 9525

FAA

United States

mental health

Germany

If you can live stream movies, why not live stream medical care?

Insurance company UnitedHealthcare will start covering visits to the doctor's office — via video chat. Patients and physicians talk live online — on smartphones, tablets or home computer — to get to a clinical diagnosis. This move to cybermedicine could save insurers a ton of money — or have unintended consequences.

Cybermedicine has been long-discussed by the experts. Now, Eric Neiman, father to a little girl in San Francisco, can explain how it works — from personal experience.

"So I'd gotten a text from my wife earlier in the day," he says. "One of our daughter's eyes was a little bit red and she was rubbing it."

A few hours passed and it got more red and started oozing. "Well, unfortunately that sounds like it could be pinkeye. So we would look at it together when I got home," Neiman says.

Which was close to 8 p.m. — too late to see their regular pediatrician. And kind of late to see any doctor. If they went to the local urgent care center, they'd get back home at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m.

Shots - Health News

Telepsychiatry Brings Emergency Mental Health Care To Rural Areas

National Security

For Ailing Vets In Rural Areas, Telemedicine Can Be The Cure

Shots - Health News

Can Free Video Consults Make Parkinson's Care Better?

Science

The Parkinson's Doctor Will Video Chat With You Now

Then, Neiman remembered something, from his Instagram account, a post for an app called Doctor On Demand. It pairs users up with doctors who are licensed in their state for a video screening.

Neiman decided to log in. "The pediatrician came on, introduced himself, and then asked to see our daughter, asked to hold the iPhone up to her eye, checked her throat, everything that he could see via the phone."

Within minutes, the doctor called in a prescription for pinkeye. The visit cost Neiman $40.

Neiman was so impressed, he says, he used the app just a few days later for himself. He thought he was getting a sinus infection, and logged in from his car.

"I was sitting on the side of the street. It's not the first time I pulled over to use my phone," he says. "But to actually go to the doctor — I was just hopeful nobody was watching!"

Save On Cost Or Break The Bank?

UnitedHealthcare's move to cover all or part of the cost of these e-visits — for up to 20 million customers by 2016 — is big. A major company is putting its stamp of approval on a process that, until now, has been largely experimental.

Three mobile-doc startups – Doctor on Demand, NowClinic and Amwell – are the initial providers.

Karen Scott, who directs innovation initiatives at UnitedHealthcare, says the company is studying cost: "What happens if somebody is more likely to use virtual care? Maybe they would have gone in to urgent care. How many of them will choose the virtual visit instead?"

It could be that people grab a doctor online for skin rashes, colds and coughs — and by getting care early on, they prevent an expensive catastrophe. Or maybe people wait too long when they really just need to see a doctor in person. Or it could be this service brings out the inner hypochondriac in us and leaves the insurer with a bigger bill to co-pay.

"Those are the sorts of health care economics and actuarial questions that our experts will be watching," Scott says.

Convenience For Doctors

This move has big implications for physicians, too.

Dr. Tania Elliott, an allergist with Doctor on Demand, says that through the app, patients with a rash show her their symptoms in the moment — not a week later. She takes virtual tours of people's homes to search dust mite sources. Instead of tedious planning, she gives patients a ballpark of when to do a follow up visit.

"They have access to essentially my schedule. And so when they log into the app they can see when I'm online," she says.

The doctor has even gotten to work remotely — from a hotel room in Hawaii.

UnitedHealthcare

telemedicine

Doctors

Chipotle is trumpeting its renunciation of ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The company says that using GMOs — mainly corn in its tortillas and soybean oil for cooking — "doesn't align" with its vision of "food with integrity." According to Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold, it represents "our commitment to serving our customers the very best ingredients we can find."

Here at The Salt, though, we've been hearing from people who think Chipotle's stance shows little integrity at all. Rather, it shows a double helping of marketing hype, they say. Greg Jaffe, the expert on GMOs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, calls it "hypocritical" and based on "smoke and mirrors." The Washington Post, meanwhile, accused the company of joining a "global propaganda campaign."

Why? Here are five reasons.

1. Soda

Way, way down at the bottom of the page that announces Chipotle's new policy, far below the headline that says "Food With Integrity; G-M-Over It," you'll find this sentence: "Many of the beverages sold in our restaurants contain genetically modified ingredients, including those containing corn syrup, which is almost always made from GMO corn."

Well. It appears that Chipotle is making a massive exception to its GMO-free policy when it comes to selling sugary drinks.

2. The "superweed" double standard

i

A sunflower greenhouse in Fargo, N.D., where Brent Hulke is breeding plants that produce oil that's dramatically lower in saturated fat. Dan Charles/NPR hide caption

itoggle caption Dan Charles/NPR

A sunflower greenhouse in Fargo, N.D., where Brent Hulke is breeding plants that produce oil that's dramatically lower in saturated fat.

Dan Charles/NPR

As an example of the ways that GMOs can damage the environment, Chipotle points to the problems caused by herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and how they encourage farmers to use a single herbicide, usually glyphosate, or Roundup. This, in turn, has led to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, which Chipotle calls "superweeds."

Chipotle's answer to this, per its new non-GMO policy, is to switch from soybean oil to sunflower oil.

The problem is, many sunflower varieties, while not genetically modified, also are herbicide-tolerant. They were bred to tolerate a class of herbicides called ALS inhibitors. And since farmers starting relying on them, many weeds have evolved resistance to those herbicides. In fact, many more weeds have become resistant to ALS inhibitors than to glyphosate.

Why should Chipotle bemoan the emergence of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, yet not to other weedkillers?

3. Salt

The Salt

Farmers Face Tough Choice On Ways To Fight New Strains Of Weeds

The top reason to back away from GMOs, according to Chipotle's web site, is uncertainty about the long-term safety of growing and consuming this food. Yet the company apparently has no problem with salt, a substance that poses risks that are far more clearly documented, Jaffe points out. A recent survey by the New York Times showed that the typical meal consumed at Chipotle contains close to a full day's recommended allowance of sodium, along with 1,070 calories.

For CSPI's Jaffe, the company's highly publicized move away from GMOs serves merely to distract consumers from "the real problem with Chipotle food, which is that it's just not healthy."

4. Science

Chipotle can't quite make up its mind what to say about the safety of GMOs. In an email, Chipotle spokesman Arnold told The Salt that "we didn't say we were doing this because we think GMO foods are not healthy." Yet the company's website casts doubt: "While some studies have shown GMOs to be safe, most of this research was funded by companies that sell GMO seeds and did not evaluate long-term effects. More independent studies are needed," it says.

The fact is, scientific studies have shown ill effects from eating lots of things on the Chipotle menu, if you eat them to excess. At the top of the list, of course, are sugar in those sodas, the refined carbohydrates in the white rice and flour tortillas, and salt. There's no such evidence about GMOs.

5. Meat

Chipotle says it wasn't too difficult or expensive to remove GMO ingredients from its burritos. It simply had to find new suppliers for corn flour and cooking oil.

It would be much harder, and presumably more expensive, to use only meat from pigs, chickens that consumed a non-GMO diet. Because the amount of corn or soybeans required to feed Chipotle's animals is vastly larger than what's needed for its tortillas or cooking oil. Find a new supply of animal feed would raise costs, so Chipotle isn't doing it.

Chipotle