Peri Dwyer Worrell

9.7K posts

Peri Dwyer Worrell

@dcperi

Biomedical copy editor, novelist, poet. Retired chiropractor boarded in pediatrics and certified in acupuncture. Pilot. Grandma.

Beigetreten Nisan 2009

798 Folgt891 Follower

Peri Dwyer Worrell retweetet

The HighWire@HighWireTalk·1d

🚨A MOLE? Dr. Robert Malone (@RWMaloneMD) is revealing that Secretary Kennedy appointed someone to be operationally in charge of ACIP and several other aspects of the CDC who now appears to have been a saboteur. That is the backdrop to everything else happening inside the CDC right now. Malone describes the environment as guerrilla warfare. When Kennedy asked him to stay on, he said no. His assessment was direct: The CDC is not redeemable, and the people still entrenched inside are carrying the safe and effective narrative because many of them have culpability around the COVID crisis - including suppression of information and manipulation of data. As for why he stepped down entirely, Malone was equally plain. Through thousands of hours of work, the 17 highly trained professionals were treated like chattel, told what to say and when to say it, told not to discuss vaccine harms, and told not to recommend pulling PREP Act liability protections. There was mo cover provided when the attacks came. They lost grants, had their careers damaged, and were isolated. "The government's attitude is basically we're expendable." He is done with it. Watch in full at TheHighwire.com/watch👇

English

384

4.2K

9.2K

540K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·9h

This is truly horrifying

Jessica Rose 🤙@JesslovesMJK

How dare they use the word "sacred" in a propagandized promotion video for suicide? @brownstoneinst SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG IN CANADA. GLAMORIZING DEATH IS EVIL. LIFE IS PRECIOUS. Why not glamorize life?

English

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·10h

@Ilhan 🎉🎶😁🥳

QME

Rep. Ilhan Omar@Ilhan·10h

House Republicans just rejected the Senate's deal to end the DHS shutdown. 🤦🏽‍♀️ They would rather let TSA workers go unpaid than sacrifice a single dollar of funding for ICE. It's reprehensible.

English

1.9K

913

6.8K

153.7K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·10h

Until the doors slammed shut during COVID, most people thought the internet was free. This thread documents the steps taken during the previous five years to gradually increase restrictions on political writing and speech.

arctotherium@arctotherium42

Master thread on the 2015-2022 closure of the Internet, the process by which every major Internet platform went from broadly open with a few basic guidelines to strict narrative enforcement, often with the collaboration of govts and outsourcing moderation power to NGOs.

English

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·10h

@jeffreytucker The euphoria of a year ago seemed too good to be true. Complete reversal seemed within the realm of possibility, but it was shocking how quickly it all unraveled.

English

138

Jeffrey A Tucker@jeffreytucker·12h

Just to show how naive I am, a year ago I would never have imagined that today the US would be bombing and killing in Iran and sending troops, gas would be $4.00 a gallon, crypto would have sunk 25%, the Dow would be headed back where it started, and unemployment rising.

English

629

11.6K

Peri Dwyer Worrell retweetet

Stuart Hameroff@StuartHameroff·14h

The Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF) attempted a lofty achievement, compare leading theories of consciousness in a kind of tournament. Two theories were to design a common experiment whose results would favor one or the other. Winner moves on. The idea, I was told at the outset, was to eliminate theories till there was a ‘champion’ (kinda like the March Madness college basketball tournament so many of us are now obsessed with). TWCF initially invited 5 theory groups, Four of them IIT, GNW, HOT and PC/RP. I lovingly refer to as cartoon neuron theories because they’re based on simple threshold logic devices at one low classical frequency, so not biological at all. The fifth theory was our Orch OR theory and we attempted an adversarial collaboration with IIT but couldn’t come to a common experiment. TWCF gave us funding to do experiments to falsify Orch OR ourselves. We predicted we would 1) show warm temperature functional quantum mechanisms in a microtubule, and 2) the effect would be inhibited by anesthesia. My colleagues feared I had promised too much. The experiment was done in a neutral lab (Greg Scholes at U Penn) and indeed showed quantum optical excitations persisting and propagating beyond classical limits, hence quantum. And they were inhibited by isoflurane and etomidate anesthetics. pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac… The cost was $100k TWCF gave $5 million to IIT and GNW for a massive study which was inconclusive and found fault with both theories, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…

English

1.2K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·16h

Exactly right. And hospital industry newsletters are full of stories lamenting the small-town hospitals that can’t survive on their low margins so they are being closed by the huge regional system that bought them. The article then calls for more government subsidies for such hospitals. More extraction. No acknowledgment of the government imposed administrative costs that weigh disproportionately on smaller hospitals, of course.

English

Dutch Rojas@DutchRojas·1d

Dear Hospital Lobbyists & Trolls: If you were right about anything, just remember I’d be on your side. The “average margin” argument is what is used when you don’t want or like people looking at the actual numbers. Mix a broke rural hospital with a $40B nonprofit empire and call it an average. Genius! Meanwhile CommonSpirit posted a $2B operating surplus. Kaiser’s sitting on $50B+ in reserves. Their CEOs are clearing $15M tax-free. It would be great if it was earned, but it’s extracted… They pay zero property tax, zero income tax, enjoy 340B drug discounts they pocket, charge facility fees for a doctor’s office visit, and have successfully lobbied to make physician-owned competition illegal. But yeah. Margins are tight. 🤡 The “average hospital is struggling” narrative exists for one reason: to protect the systems that aren’t.

Cash is Trash@kfederline76

@DutchRojas Why don’t you tell me the average margin of an average hospital? Yea they’re just raking it in right? 🤣

English

154

Peri Dwyer Worrell retweetet

Chris Martz@ChrisMartzWX·1d

Tony could be right. And, if he is, it is to be expected. I did some digging a while back on this topic, and it turns out that “Dust Bowl-like” droughts have occurred many times before, and on average occur once or twice per century. When we have multiple La Niña events and a warm North Atlantic, this is what usually happens. There were two in the 19th century: The first was from 1818–1823 and the other (dubbed the “Civil War Drought”) which occurred 1856–1865. 🔗 journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/… 🔗 ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/dr… The problem, of course, is that a decade-long drought of such proportions today would have serious implications for both water and food supply simply because of the tens of millions of people living there that didn’t 150+ years ago. While such drought extremes are not at all unprecedented, their socioeconomic impacts could very well be. The biggest climate change that people should be concerned about would be natural, unforced internal variability like this. You can’t tax it, but you can adapt and prepare.

Tony Heller 🇺🇸 🇯🇵@TonyClimate

The US may to be descending into a drought like the 1930's Dust Bowl droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/Sta…

English

229

29.4K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·18h

IF both postponed taking social security until age 70. Meaning they had white collar jobs they could continue working at as they aged and/or they were prudent or wealthy enough to accumulate enough money to live on in retirement. Social Security takes money from low-wage workers with low life expectancy and transfers it to highly paid professional retirees with longer life expectancy. It is a ridiculous Ponzi scheme.

English

188

CBS News@CBSNews·23h

Rich couples are collecting over $100,000 in Social Security. A new proposal would cap that. cbsn.ws/41tdd9F

English

104

60.5K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·18h

@ZubyMusic If you think people were saner and more regulated back then, you lived a blessed life. Rage and despair were kept behind closed doors.

English

ZUBY:@ZubyMusic·1d

When I was younger, I never heard about anybody going to therapy unless they were a war veteran or victim of some horrific crime. And people were saner and better regulated back then. I'm not convinced modern therapy helps most people. The opposite is possible.

English

1.4K

802

11.3K

226.8K

Peri Dwyer Worrell retweetet

Jeffrey A Tucker@jeffreytucker·1d

Amazing to watch the inevitable unfold in real time, same pattern as Spring 2020. Aids promise glorious things with bold action. Trump acts. Doesn't work. Tries harder. Makes it worse. Tries to walk it all back. Doesn't work. Tells everyone to make it stop. It doesn't. wsj.com/politics/elect…

English

143

7.5K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·18h

Biomedical copy editor here. AI makes it slightly less obvious when you’re editing ESOL content. But it slips in some really incoherent text too. Pre-AI, an editor familiar with the subject matter could figure out what the non-native writer was trying to say. Now, it’s often complete gibberish.

English

Amit Kumar Sharma@iamitkumars·1d

@aidangcw AI agents and models are tools. same like Word and Powerpoint. You don't have to declare that you wrote the paper on Word. I personally don't understand what is the argument about? If anything, AI is atleast making non-native speakers write a good draft. Editors shall be happy.

English

723

Aidan Wright@aidangcw·1d

So, I edit a journal, and when you submit a paper it asks if you used AI in the preparation of the paper...it's a checkbox, and then an open response if you check yes. It's obvious that a lot of people are liars. People are submitting work that obviously used AI in various ways, but they check "no" 1/2

English

58.6K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·1d

@SenWarren … So it would only take 33 years to destroy all the wealth of anyone who has the ability to oppose the government.

English

Elizabeth Warren@SenWarren·1d

Today, I'm introducing my wealth tax — and more than 50 members of Congress are joining me. It’s time for the government to start working for American families, not just the ultra-rich.

English

16.6K

3.9K

17.7K

2.3M

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·1d

Voting is a suggestion box for cowards.

Geri Perna@GeriPerna

Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg, instead of being held accountable for the thousands of conservatives that he censored on FB, was given a position on the White House advisory panel on AI and technology. Matthew Perna's FB account, along with the rest of the J6ers was taken away before being convicted of a crime. He lost his business and thousands of friends instantly because of Zuckerberg. I am deeply disappointed that Trump would appoint him to anything when he should be in prison for contributing to the mental suffering of my nephew. Matthew ki11ed himself. No one in the government gives a shit! So, get upset with me, I don't care! I am DONE VOTING!

English

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·1d

Same here, at Northwestern. And I went there because their financial aid package was more generous than Columbia, Cornell, or UPenn offered. I didn’t realize that the net price difference was due to the value of the social connections available at the different universities. In retrospect I was naïve.

English

379

Michael Strong@flowidealism·2d

As a working class kid going to Harvard, I was completely caught off guard by the role of high status socializing as a big part of college for both the elites and savvy outsiders. I had gone in thinking college was about taking classes.

Anna Stansbury@annastansbury

We often think that the effects of class background are washed out by education. But we show that two people who did the same subject at the same university at the same time, and got the same grade …. end up earning quite different amounts when they enter the labour market

English

178

2.8K

268.8K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·1d

I’d at least *try* to find a way to report the vendor to Visa/MC. Merchant contracts require them to accept the branded cards for payment. But in today’s Alice in Wonderland financial environment, there might be some sort of perverse incentive for them to avoid enforcing that provision.

English

275

Ann Bauer@annbauerwriter·1d

Last night, I spent 20 extra minutes in a small local business that had a Visa/Mastercard sign (and POS system), trying to pay. The service provider repeatedly refused my credit card, telling me she would take only Venmo or cash. What would you do in this situation?

English

13.5K

Peri Dwyer Worrell retweetet

Anthony DiGiorgio, DO, MHA@DrDiGiorgio·1d

The US has plenty of doctors. Policymakers turned them from owners and entrepreneurs into data entry clerks. Now we spend all our time on a computer until we burn out and quit. Change that and there’s no longer a shortage.

Dutch Rojas@DutchRojas

This healthcare mess is not a shortage. It’s a managed workforce pretending to be a profession. The US of A did not run out of doctors. We stripped them of ownership, buried them in administration, and handed pricing power to the people who bill them. $300–500K in debt. 30 patients a day. Five minutes per chart. Insurance approval on clinical decisions. It is assembly line labor with a medical license. And training more of it won’t fix it. Here’s what happened: While physicians were in lecture halls and call rooms, health systems, insurers, and administrators were in boardrooms. They consolidated. They lobbied. They bribed lawmakers. They captured regulation. Doctors stayed fragmented and called it independence. It was a fatal economic error. The exodus continues until physicians organize the way every other actor with leverage does: as owners. Until then, “shortage” is polite language for what this actually is, a workforce replacement strategy.

English

469

16.3K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·1d

The coercion is especially insidious with children. An adult can decline medical testing and treatment for themself. But when it’s a child, the threat of calling child protective services (or whatever it’s called in your state) to potentially take your baby right out of your arms is ever present.

English

491

Tara Ann Thieke@TaraAnnThieke·1d

An anecdote about the insidiousness of medical testing creep. Our first 5 children were all visually evaluated for jaundice as infants at their wellness visits. The pediatrician would say: bilirubin looks a little high, we'll check next visit. We'd go back in 3-4 days, he'd do another simple visual exam and say everything was fine. No problems. With our most recent child, the giant corporate pediatric practice had acquired an in-office bilirubin analyzer. Baby was checked and right at "the threshold." You must go to Children's Hospital right now and get a more accurate test! We do so immediately. The more accurate test says the baby is fine, just slightly elevated levels. Oh, and that'll be 230 dollars, and go back tomorrow to your pediatrician - just in case. We go back the next day. The in-office bilirubin test is still right at the threshold! Go right back to Children's to take the more accurate test! And we do so again immediately. And - what do you think? Baby is fine, still slightly elevated, that's another 230 dollars. Go back to your pediatrician tomorrow to check again. On Day 3 the bilirubin is lower. Just like our other children it went down on its own. But with our youngest we got to pay 460 dollars, make 2 emergency trips to Children's during a holiday break, and caused everyone an enormous amount of stress. The visual test was superior. The in-office testing was inaccurate and just used as cause to order an expensive "more accurate" test which confirmed everything was fine. Even though our other 5 children had visually elevated bilirubin that went down within 3 days, would we have been allowed to reject the inaccurate bilirubin test? No, that gets you flagged. So you pay 460 dollars to stay on the "good side" of a corrupt, impersonal, stress-causing and health-depleting system that shrugs at its own inaccuracies. That's testing creep, and it's what happens when an institution becomes more interested in growing its power than in serving its purpose.

English

333

20.3K

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·1d

He seems to be saying that the world’s BS jobs are safe from the threat of AI.

Peter Girnus 🦅@gothburz

My company rolled out AI tools 11 months ago. Since then, every task I do takes longer. I am not allowed to say this out loud. Not because there is a policy. There is no policy. There is something worse than a policy. There is enthusiasm. There is a Slack channel called #ai-wins where people post screenshots of AI outputs with captions like "this just saved me an hour." There is a VP who opens every all-hands with "the companies that adopt fastest win." There is a Director who renamed his team from Operations to Intelligent Operations. There is a peer review question that now asks: "How have you leveraged AI tools to enhance your workflow this quarter?" If the answer is "I haven't, because I was faster before," that is a career decision. So I leverage. Emails. Before the tools, I wrote emails. This took the amount of time it takes to write an email. I did not measure it. Nobody measured it. The email got written and sent and it was fine. Now I write the email. Then I highlight the text and click "Enhance with AI." The AI rewrites my email. It replaces "Can we meet Thursday?" with "I'd love to explore the possibility of finding a mutually convenient time to align on this." I read the rewrite. I delete the rewrite. I send my original email. This takes 4 minutes instead of 2. The 2 extra minutes are the enhancement. I do this 11 times a day. That is 22 minutes I spend each day rejecting improvements to sentences that were already finished. In #ai-wins I posted a screenshot of the rewrite. I did not post the part where I deleted it. 23 people reacted with the rocket emoji. That is adoption. Meetings. We have an AI notetaker in every meeting now. It joins automatically. It records. It transcribes. It summarizes. After each meeting I receive a 3-paragraph summary of the meeting I just attended. I read the summary. This takes 3 minutes. I was in the meeting. I know what happened. I am reading a machine's account of something I experienced firsthand. Sometimes the account is wrong. Last Tuesday it attributed a comment about Q3 revenue to me. My manager made that comment. I spent 4 minutes correcting the transcript. Before the notetaker, I did not spend 7 minutes after each meeting correcting a robot's memory of something I personally witnessed. I attend 11 meetings a week. That is 77 minutes per week supervising a transcription nobody requested. I mentioned this once. My manager said "think about the people who weren't in the meeting." The people who weren't in the meeting do not read the summaries. I checked. The read receipts show single-digit opens. The summaries exist not because they are useful but because they are there. I read them for the same reason. Documents. I write a weekly status update. Before the tools, this took 10 minutes. I typed what happened. I sent it. My manager skimmed it. The system worked. Now I open the AI writing assistant. I give it my bullet points. It produces a draft. The draft says "Significant progress was achieved across multiple workstreams." I did not achieve significant progress across multiple workstreams. I updated a spreadsheet and sent 4 emails. I rewrite the draft to say what actually happened. Then I run my rewrite through the grammar tool. It suggests I change "done" to "completed" and "next week" to "in the forthcoming period." I click Ignore 9 times. Then I send the version I would have written in 10 minutes. The process now takes 30. I have been doing this every week for 11 months. I have added 20 minutes to a task that did not need 20 more minutes. I call this efficiency. I have been calling it efficiency for 11 months. That is what efficiency means now. It means the additional time you spend to arrive at the same outcome through a longer process. Nobody has questioned this definition. I have not offered it for review. I kept a log once. 2 weeks. Every task, timed. Before-AI and after-AI. The after number was larger in every case. Every single one. Not by a little. The range was 40 to 200 percent. I deleted the log. I deleted it because it was a document that said, in plain numbers, that the AI tools make me slower. And a document like that has no place in a company where AI adoption is a strategic priority. I could not send it to my manager. He championed the rollout. I could not post it in #ai-wins. I could not raise it in a meeting because the notetaker would transcribe it and the summary would read "[Name] expressed concerns about AI tool efficacy" and that summary would be the first one anyone actually reads. So I do what everyone does. I use the tools. I spend the extra time. I post in #ai-wins. I write "leveraged AI to streamline weekly reporting" in my review and my manager gives me a 4 out of 5 for innovation. I have innovated nothing. I have added steps to processes that were already finished. I have made simple things longer and labeled the difference with words that used to mean something. Every week in #ai-wins someone posts a screenshot. And 20 people react with the rocket emoji. And nobody posts the part where they deleted the output and did the task themselves. Nobody posts the revert. Nobody posts the before-and-after timer. Nobody will. Because "I was better at my job before the AI tools" is a sentence that cannot be said out loud in any company that has decided AI is the future. Every company has decided AI is the future. So we leverage. Quietly. Adding steps. Calling them optimization. Getting slightly less done, slightly more slowly, with slightly more steps, and reporting it as progress. My yearly review is next month. There is a new section this year. "AI Impact Assessment." It asks me to quantify the hours saved by AI tools per week. I will write a number. The number will be positive. It will not be true. But the AI writing assistant will help me phrase it convincingly. That is the one thing it does well.

English

Peri Dwyer Worrell@dcperi·1d

@HammondOnHealth @DrDiGiorgio This was predictable by the requirement that EHR software be approved by a government bureaucracy before release.

English

Jackson Hammond@HammondOnHealth·1d

The failure of EHRs is one of the biggest let-downs in medical tech/policy history. The concept of all a patient's information in one place, easily accessible & integrated w/ billing turned into a nightmare where no one has access to anything & billing/ordering is impossible.

Anthony DiGiorgio, DO, MHA@DrDiGiorgio

Clearly document in note “acute on chronic subdural hematoma” Click through a bunch of dropdown menus to find the right icd10 code. Also forced to enter a separate “reason for visit” in addition to the diagnosis. To order the CT scan, click through a separate list of dropdown menus to find the right diagnosis. Then select a CPT code for the visit. Document availability of an interpreter even if the patient speaks English. Have to book a surgery? That’s another 30-50 clicks right there. But don’t worry, the OR won’t receive any of that information. So they’ll call you the night before to ask all the same questions that were just entered into the computer. Then, months later, get a coding query from management asking why the visit was mis coded.

English

3.4K

Entdecken

@RWMaloneMD @Ilhan @jeffreytucker @ZubyMusic @aidangcw @SenWarren @elonmusk @BarackObama