Month: June 2005


  • Dawn Villella for The New York Times

    Libby Rupp of St. Paul, whose 3-year-old daughter, Isabella, has autism, says she is not convinced by studies that say there is no link between autism and childhood vaccines that include mercury.

    June 25, 2005
    On Autism’s Cause, It’s Parents vs. Research
    By GARDINER HARRIS and ANAHAD O’CONNOR

    Kristen Ehresmann, a Minnesota Department of Health official, had just told a State Senate hearing that vaccines with microscopic amounts of mercury were safe. Libby Rupp, a mother of a 3-year-old girl with autism, was incredulous.

    “How did my daughter get so much mercury in her?” Ms. Rupp asked Ms. Ehresmann after her testimony.

    “Fish?” Ms. Ehresmann suggested.

    “She never eats it,” Ms. Rupp answered.

    “Do you drink tap water?”

    “It’s all filtered.”

    “Well, do you breathe the air?” Ms. Ehresmann asked, with a resigned smile. Several parents looked angrily at Ms. Ehresmann, who left.

    Ms. Rupp remained, shaking with anger. That anyone could defend mercury in vaccines, she said, “makes my blood boil.”

    Public health officials like Ms. Ehresmann, who herself has a son with autism, have been trying for years to convince parents like Ms. Rupp that there is no link between thimerosal – a mercury-containing preservative once used routinely in vaccines – and autism.

    They have failed.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all largely dismissed the notion that thimerosal causes or contributes to autism. Five major studies have found no link.

    Yet despite all evidence to the contrary, the number of parents who blame thimerosal for their children’s autism has only increased. And in recent months, these parents have used their numbers, their passion and their organizing skills to become a potent national force. The issue has become one of the most fractious and divisive in pediatric medicine.

    “This is like nothing I’ve ever seen before,” Dr. Melinda Wharton, deputy director of the National Immunization Program, told a gathering of immunization officials in Washington in March. “It’s an era where it appears that science isn’t enough.”

    Parents have filed more than 4,800 lawsuits – 200 from February to April alone – pushed for state and federal legislation banning thimerosal and taken out full-page advertisements in major newspapers. They have also gained the support of politicians, including Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and Representatives Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, and Dave Weldon, Republican of Florida. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote an article in the June 16 issue of Rolling Stone magazine arguing that most studies of the issue are flawed and that public health officials are conspiring with drug makers to cover up the damage caused by thimerosal.

    “We’re not looking like a fringe group anymore,” said Becky Lourey, a Minnesota state senator and a sponsor of a proposed thimerosal ban. Such a ban passed the New York State Legislature this week.

    But scientists and public health officials say they are alarmed by the surge of attention to an idea without scientific merit. The anti-thimerosal campaign, they say, is causing some parents to stay away from vaccines, placing their children at risk for illnesses like measles and polio.

    “It’s really terrifying, the scientific illiteracy that supports these suspicions,” said Dr. Marie McCormick, chairwoman of an Institute of Medicine panel that examined the controversy in February 2004.

    Experts say they are also concerned about a raft of unproven, costly and potentially harmful treatments – including strict diets, supplements and a detoxifying technique called chelation – that are being sold for tens of thousands of dollars to desperate parents of autistic children as a cure for “mercury poisoning.”

    In one case, a doctor forced children to sit in a 160-degree sauna, swallow 60 to 70 supplements a day and have so much blood drawn that one child passed out.

    Hundreds of doctors list their names on a Web site endorsing chelation to treat autism, even though experts say that no evidence supports its use with that disorder. The treatment carries risks of liver and kidney damage, skin rashes and nutritional deficiencies, they say.

    In recent months, the fight over thimerosal has become even more bitter. In response to a barrage of threatening letters and phone calls, the centers for disease control has increased security and instructed employees on safety issues, including how to respond if pies are thrown in their faces. One vaccine expert at the centers wrote in an internal e-mail message that she felt safer working at a malaria field station in Kenya than she did at the agency’s offices in Atlanta.

    An Alarm Is Sounded

    Thimerosal was for decades the favored preservative for use in vaccines. By weight, it is about 50 percent ethyl mercury, a form of mercury most scientists consider to be less toxic than methyl mercury, the type found in fish. The amount of ethyl mercury included in each childhood vaccine was once roughly equal to the amount of methyl mercury found in the average tuna sandwich.

    In 1999, a Food and Drug Administration scientist added up all the mercury that American infants got with a full immunization schedule and concluded that the amount exceeded a government guideline. Some health authorities counseled no action, because there was no evidence that thimerosal at the doses given was harmful and removing it might cause alarm. Others were not so certain that thimerosal was harmless.

    In July 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service released a joint statement urging vaccine makers to remove thimerosal as quickly as possible. By 2001, no vaccine routinely administered to children in the United States had more than half of a microgram of mercury – about what is found in an infant’s daily supply of breast milk.

    Despite the change, government agencies say that vaccines with thimerosal are just as safe as those without, and adult flu vaccines still contain the preservative.

    But the 1999 advisory alarmed many parents whose children suffered from autism, a lifelong disorder marked by repetitive, sometimes self-destructive behaviors and an inability to form social relationships. In 10 to 25 percent of cases, autism seems to descend on young children seemingly overnight, sometime between their first and second birthdays.

    Diagnoses of autism have risen sharply in recent years, from roughly 1 case for every 10,000 births in the 1980′s to 1 in 166 births in 2003.

    Most scientists believe that the illness is influenced strongly by genetics but that some unknown environmental factor may also play a role.

    Dr. Tom Insel, director of the National Institute for Mental Health, said: “Is it cellphones? Ultrasound? Diet sodas? Every parent has a theory. At this point, we just don’t know.”

    In 2000, a group of parents joined together to found SafeMinds, one of several organizations that argue that thimerosal is that environmental culprit. Their cause has been championed by politicians like Mr. Burton.

    “My grandson received nine shots in one day, seven of which contained thimerosal, which is 50 percent mercury as you know, and he became autistic a short time later,” he said in an interview.

    In a series of House hearings held from 2000 through 2004, Mr. Burton called the leading experts who assert that vaccines cause autism to testify. They included a chemistry professor at the University of Kentucky who says that dental fillings cause or exacerbate autism and other diseases and a doctor from Baton Rouge, La., who says that God spoke to her through an 87-year-old priest and told her that vaccines caused autism.

    Also testifying were Dr. Mark Geier and his son, David Geier, the experts whose work is most frequently cited by parents.

    Trying to Build a Case

    Dr. Geier has called the use of thimerosal in vaccines the world’s “greatest catastrophe that’s ever happened, regardless of cause.”

    He and his son live and work in a two-story house in suburban Maryland. Past the kitchen and down the stairs is a room with cast-off, unplugged laboratory equipment, wall-to-wall carpeting and faux wood paneling that Dr. Geier calls “a world-class lab – every bit as good as anything at N.I.H.”

    Dr. Geier has been examining issues of vaccine safety since at least 1971, when he was a lab assistant at the National Institutes of Health, or N.I.H. His résumé lists scores of publications, many of which suggest that vaccines cause injury or disease.

    He has also testified in more than 90 vaccine cases, he said, although a judge in a vaccine case in 2003 ruled that Dr. Geier was “a professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise and experience.”

    In other cases, judges have called Dr. Geier’s testimony “intellectually dishonest,” “not reliable” and “wholly unqualified.”

    The six published studies by Dr. Geier and David Geier on the relationship between autism and thimerosal are largely based on complaints sent to the disease control centers by people who suspect that their children were harmed by vaccines.

    In the first study, the Geiers compared the number of complaints associated with a thimerosal-containing vaccine, given from 1992 to 2000, with the complaints that resulted from a thimerosal-free version given from 1997 to 2000. The more thimerosal a child received, they concluded, the more likely an autism complaint was filed. Four other studies used similar methods and came to similar conclusions.

    Dr. Geier said in an interview that the link between thimerosal and autism was clear.

    Public health officials, he said, are ” just trying to cover it up.”

    Assessing the Studies

    Scientists say that the Geiers’ studies are tainted by faulty methodology.

    “The problem with the Geiers’ research is that they start with the answers and work backwards,” said Dr. Steven Black, director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif. “They are doing voodoo science.”

    Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, the director of the disease control centers, said the agency was not withholding information about any potentially damaging effects of thimerosal.

    “There’s certainly not a conspiracy here,” she said. “And we would never consider not acknowledging information or evidence that would have a bearing on children’s health.”

    In 2003, spurred by parents’ demands, the C.D.C. asked the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the nation’s most prestigious medical advisory group, to review the evidence on thimerosal and autism.

    In a report last year, a panel convened by the institute dismissed the Geiers’ work as having such serious flaws that their studies were “uninterpretable.” Some of the Geiers’ mathematical formulas, the committee found, “provided no information,” and the Geiers used basic scientific terms like “attributable risk” incorrectly.

    In contrast, the committee found five studies that examined hundreds of thousands of health records of children in the United States, Britain, Denmark and Sweden to be persuasive.

    A study by the World Health Organization, for example, examined the health records of 109,863 children born in Britain from 1988 to 1997 and found that children who had received the most thimerosal in vaccines had the lowest incidence of developmental problems like autism.

    Another study examined the records of 467,450 Danish children born from 1990 to 1996. It found that after 1992, when the country’s only thimerosal-containing vaccine was replaced by one free of the preservative, autism rates rose rather than fell.

    In one of the most comprehensive studies, a 2003 report by C.D.C. scientists examined the medical records of more than 125,000 children born in the United States from 1991 to 1999. It found no difference in autism rates among children exposed to various amounts of thimerosal.

    Parent groups, led by SafeMinds, replied that documents obtained from the disease control centers showed that early versions of the study had found a link between thimerosal and autism.

    But C.D.C. researchers said that it was not unusual for studies to evolve as more data and controls were added. The early versions of the study, they said, failed to control for factors like low birth weight, which increases the risk of developmental delays.

    The Institute of Medicine said that it saw “nothing inherently troubling” with the C.D.C.’s adjustments and concluded that thimerosal did not cause autism. Further studies, the institute said, would not be “useful.”

    Threats and Conspiracy Talk

    Since the report’s release, scientists and health officials have been bombarded with hostile e-mail messages and phone calls. Dr. McCormick, the chairwoman of the institute’s panel, said she had received threatening mail claiming that she was part of a conspiracy. Harvard University has increased security at her office, she said.

    An e-mail message to the C.D.C. on Nov. 28 stated, “Forgiveness is between them and God. It is my job to arrange a meeting,” according to records obtained by The New York Times after the filing of an open records request.

    Another e-mail message, sent to the C.D.C. on Aug. 20, said, “I’d like to know how you people sleep straight in bed at night knowing all the lies you tell & the lives you know full well you destroy with the poisons you push & protect with your lies.” Lynn Redwood of SafeMinds said that such e-mail messages did not represent her organization or other advocacy groups.

    In response to the threats, C.D.C. officials have contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and heightened security at the disease control centers. Some officials said that the threats had led them to look for other jobs.

    In “Evidence of Harm,” a book published earlier this year that is sympathetic to the notion that thimerosal causes autism, the author, David Kirby, wrote that the thimerosal theory would stand or fall within the next year or two.

    Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year, he said.

    No such decline followed thimerosal’s removal from vaccines during the 1990′s in Denmark, Sweden or Canada, researchers say.

    But the debate over autism and vaccines is not likely to end soon.

    “It doesn’t seem to matter what the studies and the data show,” said Ms. Ehresmann, the Minnesota immunization official. “And that’s really scary for us because if science doesn’t count, how do we make decisions? How do we communicate with parents?”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • Truth and consequences
    A handful of new Web sites are making it harder for people to fudge the truth in their online personal ads. But isn’t a little deception in matters of love almost a necessity?Life


    - – - – - – - – - – - -
    By Anna Jane Grossman


    printe-mail


    June 25, 2005  |  When Los Angeles resident Jessica Walters turned 21, her mother gave her a wad of cash and a mission: “You need to get on JDate,” she said, of the online Jewish singles site.


    Meeting people on the Internet was nothing new to Walters, who had spent her high-school years talking to people all over the world in chat rooms. “I remember feeling like people were pretty straightforward about themselves when we’d chat,” she said. “They didn’t seem to be pretending they were something they weren’t.”


    So when the first guy who contacted her through JDate revealed on his profile that he was only 5-foot-3, Walters assumed he was telling the truth.


    “I’m 5-foot-5 so I thought it wasn’t that big a difference,” said Walters. “I thought I could deal with it.”


    The pair made a date to hang out at his house. But when Walters arrived, the 30-year-old who came to the door resembled an Oompa Loompa. “He was maybe 4-foot-11,” Walters said. To be polite, she spent hours with him playing Trivial Pursuit — a friend was supposed to give her a “rescue call” but then forgot. When Walters finally wrangled her way out of his place, her date presented her with a sweatband he had made out of a tube sock and a teddy-bear decal. “It’s awful,” said Walters, now 24. “But I haven’t thrown it out. I keep it as a reminder of how bad online dating can be.”


    Fortunately for Walters, earlier this year she found a way to stave off future dating dramas. She started using TrueDater.com, one of a handful of new Web sites that promise to make it easier to get an honest assessment of a potential paramour — before you waste an afternoon playing board games with him or her.


    With the explosive growth of Internet dating — last year 21.8 million people browsed online dating sites, and one out of every 10 Americans who use the Internet posted a personal ad online — it’s not surprising that sites are emerging that help people vet their dates and do more sophisticated probing than a simple Google or Friendster search. Yet for all its potential benefits, rating sites can feel a little like an idea hatched over a bong. “Dude, what if after you go on a date with a girl that’s a real dog, you could warn everyone else in the world who might eventually want to go out with her!”


    At TrueDater.com, those who have met the three-dimensional person behind an online profile review him or her, not unlike seller evaluations on eBay or customer reviews on Amazon. “She claims to be 44, actually is 51. Uses people, then discards them. Thinks she’s smarter than God,” read one recent post on the site. Another read: “If he doesn’t get his way, he’ll throw a tantrum, complete with mundane name calling and finger pointing.” All that’s missing is a few stars and a tally of total satisfied customers.


    “We’re fostering a movement in truth in online dating,” said Mark Geller, 36, who co-founded Los Angeles-based TrueDater in January. (TrueDater allows users to read reviews of people with personal profiles on Nerve.com, which is hosted by Salon, Match.com, JDate.com, American Singles and Yahoo Personals, and doesn’t charge for the service.) “It’s not about reviewing someone as a human being, it’s about reviewing the truthfulness of the profile. It’s basically answering the question: Is what you see what you get?”


    Dishonesty, it seems, is a quiet thwarter of online love. According to a poll conducted on TrueDater, 34 percent of the site’s users said that the biggest problem with online dating was people lying about their weight; 13 percent said it was lying about marital status. Fibs about income and height were also top offenders.


    Geller’s goal is to get these numbers down; he estimates 100,000 people have used the site in hopes of minimizing their chances of meeting a dud. “You spend a few weeks talking to someone or e-mailing, and then you meet him at a Starbucks and maybe he’s nothing like what he said he was,” he said. “And it makes you feel like you’ve just wasted time.”


    After a lot of wasted time — with men who posted fake pictures and one who said he was single but was really married — Natanya Levioff, a 32-year-old who works at an education consulting firm in Washington, D.C., has become a TrueDater devotee. “There’s a lot of temptation to lie or exaggerate with online dating,” she said. “I’ve had people tell me they’re 35, but they’re actually 50. ‘But I look 35!’ they’ll tell me. One guy I contacted was really good-looking with black hair and light eyes. Kind of rugged guy-next-door look. I was like, ‘Wow, he’s cute!’ Well, it turns out the guy was using a stock image and I saw another guy a few weeks later using the same one.”


    On a similar site, LemonDate.com, users are charged $9.95 a month to browse dater “reviews,” but they have to know what site a person is registered on as well as their precise screen name and state of residence. They can also sign up for LemonDate personals, a dating forum that stresses truthfulness.


    “I’d completely stopped using online dating for a while because I felt like people were so dishonest,” says LemonDater Denise Wagoner, a bookkeeper in Irvine, Calif. Wagoner had good reasons for abstaining. Five years ago, she uprooted her life in Albuquerque, N.M., and moved to Colorado Springs, Colo., to be closer to a man she’d met on American Singles and had been dating for two years. Weeks after the move, she learned he was engaged to someone else, and had five other girlfriends, to boot.


    “But then I found LemonDate,” she said. “I’m an honest person and have nothing to hide — what I’ve described myself to be is exactly who men have met. If I’d had something like this, maybe some other woman could have warned me not to fall for the man I fell for.”


    A handful of other sites approach the whole business of finding an honest date in the same way they approach, say, finding a good plumber. At the San Francisco-centric NiftyGuy.com, people can write reviews of pretty much anything, be it a manicurist in the Tenderloin, a dentist in Berkeley, or a date — either an online one or the real flesh-and-bones kind.


    “This guy thinks inviting you over to his house is a ‘date,’” writes “Alethia” about someone named Simon in San Francisco. “He’ll show you photo albums of him and his friends, watch TV [with you and give you] a wimpy massage.”


    She also describes a University of Southern California student as “stalker-esque” because he sent her an instant message complimenting her looks upon seeing her in the Face Book, an online college community. In retaliation, she posted his full name on NiftyGuy — middle name included.


    And herein lies one of the problems with rating sites. How can you separate truth tellers from those who are simply seeking revenge? While not as blatant as the Dick List or CheaterNews.com, any rating site can be used by an angry — and possibly spurned — dater who wants to make sure his or her ex maintains a healthy post-breakup diet of ice cream and tears. When the USC student found out that he had been flamed on NiftyGuy, he asked the site’s founders to take down the post. So far they haven’t. “I expressed my disapproval of having my full name on the site without due respect to my individual privacy,” he said in an e-mail. “In principle there are two things I object to on these sites: They don’t take appropriate steps to ensure individual privacy and the reviews seem to be out of hate not honesty.”


    I know these issues well. Last summer, a friend and I started the Web site Breakup News with an eye to reporting the facts of a breakup, the way wedding announcements often report how a couple fell in love. But it wasn’t long before our readers were issuing warnings about their exes and posting their Match.com IDs, photos, and in some cases phone numbers (which we removed).


    “Beware, ladies, beware,” wrote one 19-year-old of her ex. “He’s a lying, cheating, dirty loser and no girl should even think about giving him the time of day.” One man said his former wife gave him herpes. Another announced that her ex was a closeted Republican. “I was hoping he was being ironic, because he was ridiculously good looking,” she wrote. And another woman divulged that her ex had a third nipple. We made no attempt to sort the liars from the truth tellers, because, alas, there’s no site you can go to check the veracity of someone who says she’s telling the truth about a liar.


    We regularly receive e-mails from men and women around the country who ask us to remove the information their ex has posted, and we usually do. They inevitably find the site by Googling their own names; many of them are single, and chances are that people with whom they’ve set up dates have Googled them as well and have then called to cancel. It’s a frighteningly possible answer to the age-old question: Why can’t I ever meet anyone?


    Even some non-dating sites are getting into the ratings game. Opinity.com and Trufina.com, both of which focus on business transactions, recently added free dating verification services. Opinity, started by an amateur photographer who wanted to get better information on people selling camera equipment online, will tell you your potential date’s “reputation” on Amazon and eBay, just in case you decide you want to buy a used Cuisinart from him or her. At Trufina credit reports are used to verify names, addresses and age. The site will issue you a certificate to prove to someone you are the person you profess to be, and encourages users to tell potential dates they’ve been “Trufina’d.” (It could be the new “I’ve been tested.”) If that’s not enough insurance, you can always head to True.com, a dating site that pre-screens all its subscribers to make sure they’re not married and don’t have a criminal record. People apparently don’t mind undergoing such scrutiny in order to get a date. According to the Internet measurement site ComScore Networks, the not-yet 2-year-old True.com had five times as many unique visitors last month as JDate and Nerve.com, combined.


    But can a site tell you if your date will hate your cat or love your parents? You’re going to have to figure that one out on your own.


    Indeed, these sites threaten to completely alter our approach to dating, an area where a certain degree of deception has for millennia been the norm. (Yes, it was good for me. Really, I’ve never felt this way before. No, you don’t look fat.) While rating sites may be able to weed out the snaggletoothed and smelly, they could also needlessly rule out a real catch who might have harmlessly varnished the truth by giving himself an extra inch of height.


    “What about subjective criteria, like sense of humor?” asks Esther Kustanowitz, a singles columnist for New York Jewish Week and an online dating blogger. “I may not think someone’s funny, and someone else will — that’s a matter of chemistry and personal taste, not truth and deception.”


    What’s more, does knowing the whole truth necessarily mean we’re going to like someone more? Love frequently needs the kind of blur created by lies or half-truths in order to blossom. After all, once you get to the “Till death do us part” stage of the romance, there will be plenty of time to discuss overbearing parents and urine aim.


    There’s one site that’s taken the trend toward truth in dating to an extreme. At Esquire’s Brutally Honest Personals site, more than a dozen brave souls have posted nothing but the absolute truth about themselves.


    “I work a lousy, low-paying job and live with my parents,” 24-year-old Rachel Tropp wrote in hers, which she posted on a whim last year. “I don’t spend much time on my appearance; I’m skinny and small-breasted. I have moles in odd places and should probably clip my toenails more often. I prefer sitting around playing video games to doing things. I drink a good deal and make fun of people I don’t even know.”


    Apparently, the truth was more attractive than she thought it would be: She got more than 300 responses.


    “The responses fell into two categories: really desperate guys my age, or skanky guys in their 50s who thought I had low self-esteem and felt like they alone could convince me I’m attractive,” said Tropp, an administrative assistant in Los Angeles. “One guy e-mailed me offering to buy me breast implants.”


    She went out with only one of the younger online suitors, but she rebuffed him when he tried to bed her at a Halloween party after they had only “hung out” a few times.


    Had she done any research on him before meeting him?


    “Lord, no!” she said. “People are way too frightened. Most people aren’t going to be evil serial killers or lecherous married men. Actually, a lot of them might be lecherous married men. But still, just go out for a drink! Just meetsomeone. One in-person date isn’t going to kill you … probably.”



    - – - – - – - – - – - -







    About the writer
    Anna Jane Grossman is a freelance writer in New York. She is currently co-writing a book about breakups, which will be published by Da Capo Press in February 2006.

    Sound Off
    Send us a Letter to the Editor


    Related stories
    My date with Mr. eHarmony
    Neil Clark Warren is the Christian evangelical who runs Internet dating titan eHarmony. I’m a pagan feminist who’s leery of the religious right. Would sparks fly?
    By Rebecca Traister
    06/10/05

    Holding out for a “horse person”
    Randy Ayn Randian? Amorous astral-plane dweller? Whatever your passion, there’s a specialty online dating site for you.
    By Lynn Harris
    02/13/04


















    Salon.com >> Life
     


  • June 23, 2005
    Beyond Wi-Fi: Laptop Heaven but at a Price
    By DAVID POGUE

    PLENTY of technologies can get you online wirelessly these days, but there’s always a catch. Wi-Fi Internet hot spots are fast and cheap, but they keep you tethered to the airport, hotel or coffee shop where the hot spot originates. A Bluetooth cellphone can get your laptop online, but at the speed of a slug. And smoke signals – well, you know. The privacy issues are a nightmare.

    But for the laptop lugger with an expense account, there may be another option. It’s a relatively new cellular data network called C.D.M.A. 1xEV-DO, which, as you surely knew, stands for Code Division Multiple Access Evolution-Data Only. No wonder Verizon Wireless, the earliest and largest adopter of this technology, just calls it the BroadbandAccess plan.

    To get your laptop onto this very fast wonder-net, you need a special cellular card that slides into its PC-card slot. Novatel and Kyocera have recently given the blossoming EV-DO future a big thumbs-up by releasing new cellular cards for laptops running Windows (and, with a little tweaking, Mac OS X).

    EV-DO offers two addictive benefits. First, it’s cellular. You don’t have to hunt down public hot spots; an entire metropolitan area is a hot spot.

    Second, EV-DO means sheer, giddy speed. EV-DO is a so-called 3G (third-generation) network, the fruits of $1 billion in Verizon development. And when your laptop or palmtop locks onto a good signal, you can practically feel the wind in your hair.

    How fast is that, exactly? Verizon claims you’ll be able to download data at an average of 400 to 700 kilobits per second (kbps), which turns out to be true. That makes EV-DO at least five times as fast as the rival technology offered by Cingular and T-Mobile, called EDGE (70 to 135 kbps), and about seven times as fast as Verizon’s original data network (still available), which it calls NationalAccess (60 to 80 kbps).

    Yeah, but how fast is that? Who besides network geeks measures anything in kilobits per second?

    A more familiar unit might be time, as in how long it might take you to download a two-megabyte attachment. On a dial-up modem, you’d wait over six minutes; Verizon’s older NationalAccess service, about five minutes; the EDGE wireless network, about three minutes; and Verizon’s BroadbandAccess, about 40 seconds.

    In short, using BroadbandAccess (EV-DO), you feel as if you’re hooked up to a cable modem, even when you’re sitting on a beach, your deck or a speeding commuter train. When your signal is strong, you get Web pages in a flash, file attachments in no time and video feeds without a hiccup.

    (Sending data is a different story, however. You average around 100 kbps, because these cards use the older, slower channel for uploading. “When you download a big presentation, it goes really fast,” says Roger Entner, a telecom analyst at the consulting firm Ovum. “But then if you forward it to someone else, you feel as though you’ve hit a wall.” He suspects that the wireless carriers limit upload speeds so that wireless laptops can’t be used as traveling Web sites. “The wireless carriers want to avoid letting people using the card as a wireless Web server,” he explains. “It kind of kills your business model.”)

    So in general, speed is not a problem with EV-DO. But coverage and price may be.

    Verizon’s high-speed wireless network now covers 32 major metropolitan areas, including biggies like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, along with a somewhat baffling selection of smaller cities like West Palm Beach, Fla., and Madison, Wis. Verizon says that the rollout has just begun, and that by the end of this year, half the American population will be EV-DOable.

    Fortunately, even when you’re outside the designated cities, you can still get online. Verizon’s software seamlessly switches you to its older, slower NationalAccess network, which pretty much works wherever Verizon cellphones do. There’s quite a speed hit; you feel as though someone secretly swapped your cable modem for a dial-up modem. But at least you can check your e-mail without having to return to, say, West Palm Beach.

    Finally, there’s the little matter of price: $80 a month, a price that seems expressly designed to milk corporate business travelers. On one hand, that price gets you unlimited service, and it really is $80 a month; at this point, you’re not saddled with the taxes and fees that jack up your cellphone bill. On the other hand, that price doesn’t even include cellphone service. (Of course, you can always use a free program like Skype to make voice calls while you’re connected – but you didn’t hear it from me.)

    Then again, Verizon has the playground all to itself, so it can charge whatever it wants. But wait until Sprint introduces its own EV-DO service later this year. You might not be able to pronounce “C.D.M.A. 1xEV-DO,” but you can sure say “competition.”

    If EV-DO sounds, on balance, as though it would be a good fit, your next step is to choose a cellular card for your laptop. Verizon offers three EV-DO models to individuals: Verizon’s older, slower, less-featured Audiovox card ($100), and two new ones: the Novatel V620 ($50) and Kyocera’s KPC650 ($70). (A fourth card, from Sierra, is offered only to corporations.)

    In general, the cards are pretty much alike. Each can automatically switch to the older NationalAccess network when necessary. Each protrudes from your laptop by over an inch, meaning that you’ll probably have to eject the card each time you put the laptop back in its case.

    The Novatel and Kyocera cards come with Verizon’s VZAccess Manager software, a little dashboard that lets you switch among your three wireless options: BroadbandAccess (EV-DO), NationalAccess (the older, slower network with more coverage) and Wi-Fi (if your laptop is so equipped). This software isn’t especially gorgeous, but it’s rock solid, easy to install and filled with useful displays; one shows a graph of your connection speed, for gloating purposes. It also lets you exchange short text messages with your friends’ cellphones.

    (The software works only in Windows. But at EVDOinfo.com – a great site for EV-DO news and instruction – Mac OS X fans can find step-by-step instructions for making these cards work in PowerBooks, too.)

    Kyocera says there’s quite a difference between its card and its rivals, though: its KPC650 is supposed to provide speeds up to 35 percent faster, especially in low-signal areas. Its tricks include faster circuitry, shielding from interference and a flip-out antenna that swivels in any direction. And sure enough: PC Magazine found that the Kyocera card was faster than the Novatel in two-thirds of its test locations.

    My tests in downtown Tampa, Fla., which has BroadbandAccess coverage, must have fallen into that “other third” category. With the antenna in its best position, the Kyocera averaged 476 kbps, versus the Novatel’s 543. (Test protocol: five runs of the bandwidth tester at www.toast.net.) Clearly, speed tests are flaky and variable, giving different numbers depending on your signal strength, which online bandwidth test page you use, and the mood of the EV-DO gods. (If you really get the bug, you can also buy an external antenna for extra speed and reception.)

    But no matter which card you get, the big winner is EV-DO – or it will be, once its coverage grows and its price shrinks. Someday soon, it may even become the first completely satisfying wireless way to get online.

    E-mail: Pogue@nytimes.com


    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top






































































  • June 23, 2005
    A Choice for the Heart
    By BARRY MEIER

    It seemed like a good idea to both doctors and federal officials.

    Since the government was paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year for hip and knee replacements for Medicare patients, why not create a database showing how competing products performed, a group of orthopedic surgeons suggested last year.

    To do so, just a few pieces of information – the make and model of the device – would need to be added to the claim forms that doctors or hospitals file with Medicare. Such a database would also serve as an early warning system to show when a device is repeatedly failing.

    But a top Medicare official, Dr. Steve Phurrough, said the surgeons’ proposal had not gone far. One reason is that it would require an overhaul of Medicare forms and computer software. But there is an even more significant roadblock: Congress, while allowing Medicare to spend billions of tax dollars on medical devices, effectively bars it from collecting data showing how well competing products work.

    “We would like to have the authority to collect that data,” said Dr. Phurrough, who is the director of the coverage and analysis group at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “But that data is not necessary for payment.”

    The incident underscores an issue at the heart of the recent recall of tens of thousands of defibrillators by the Guidant Corporation. Even as the use of expensive devices like artificial knees and defibrillators expands rapidly, patients and doctors get less information about products that are implanted in bodies than consumers get on the safety and performance of cars.

    Medical experts have long complained about the lack of data showing how competing drugs compare in both safety and effectiveness. But the amount of information available on prescription drugs is impressive when compared with the murky world of medical devices.

    The data vacuum, experts said, reflects the scattershot methods used by both government and industry to collect basic information about device failures. Manufacturers do not regularly disclose why products are failing and there is no way to tell accurately how many implanted devices break down while in use. In addition, both regulators and manufacturers do not disclose all the data they do gather. The Food and Drug Administration requires makers of defibrillators and pacemakers, for example, to report detailed product performance annually, but it does not make those reports public.

    A doctor’s decision to use a particular manufacturer’s artificial hip or pacemaker is often based on subjective factors. Often, physicians will choose the makers’ devices on which they were trained or ones they are used to using.

    “Frankly, we have little information on which one of these devices perform better than others,” said Dr. Robert H. Haralson III, a top official of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, a group whose members met last year with Medicare officials.

    Dr. Robert Hauser, a cardiologist at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, agreed. “We are flying blind,” said Dr. Hauser, who voluntarily maintains a database where several hospitals report problems with pacemakers and defibrillators.

    The overriding problem with gauging device performance is that few studies are conducted that follow patients over time to learn how long a product lasts or what flaws show up repeatedly. Doctors and hospitals place in patient records the name of each prescribed drug, enabling researchers to analyze records and detect if a medication is causing problems. Such reviews helped bring to light the heart problems associated with the drug Vioxx. But implants of devices like hips and defibrillators are recorded as procedures. Because they do not include the make or model of the device, such reviews are all but impossible.

    As a result, doctors often rely on reports issued by manufacturers called product performance reviews to assess devices. In such reports, data about a model of defibrillator, say, is presented in terms of its “survival” rate. That number is derived from the number of units implanted, reduced by the number removed for any reason.

    A defibrillator emits an electrical jolt to restore a chaotically beating heart to normal rhythm.

    Such reports, experts said, suffer from numerous problems. Frequently, doctors do not send failed devices back to a manufacturer unless a patient death or injury is involved, and even then they may not do so. In addition, heart devices are typically not examined after a patient dies to see if its possible failure might have contributed to the death. Such reviews do not require an autopsy.

    “The weak point is the fact that this is a passive system that does not mandate that physicians return all devices or report them to F.D.A. so it is the minority of devices that are returned,” said Dr. N. A. Mark Estes, a professor of medicine at Tufts University.

    Manufacturers’ product reports can also mask serious problems. The reason is simple: while defibrillator makers, for example, provide broad measures of device performance, most companies do not provide doctors with detailed breakdowns of the various ways in which a particular model is failing.

    Such detailed data, as the recent recall by Guidant shows, is critical because not all product failures are equal. Instead, different types of failures can have different consequences for patients.

    For example, when defibrillator batteries fail, patients are typically alerted by a beeping sound, allowing them time to see a doctor. But the type of failure affecting the recalled Guidant model, the Ventak Prizm 2 DR, involved something far more significant – a short circuit that could occur, without warning, when the unit was charging to deliver a potentially life-saving shock.

    Some physicians say that if manufacturers were forced to publicly disclose more of the safety data they collected, the device industry would be spurred to produce better products.

    “Public reporting of malfunctions and malfunction rates would force industry to improve their safety,” said Dr. William H. Maisel, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

    Under little-known F.D.A. requirements, however, makers of pacemakers and defibrillators must report highly detailed product performance data to the agency once a year. But most physicians do not know that the agency collects the data because the F.D.A. has chosen not to make it public.

    For example, under F.D.A. rules, a defibrillator producer must report to the agency not only how many of its units have failed each year, but also must describe all the failure mechanisms involved.

    An F.D.A. spokeswoman, Julie Zawisza, said that she believed that the reports, which manufacturers filed for each model approved, were probably available under the Freedom of Information Act but did not say why the agency did not make the data public automatically.

    Officials of one major device manufacturer, Medtronic Inc., said the performance data provided by the company to the F.D.A. was more detailed than it put in its reports.

    Unlike some manufacturers, Medtronic provides doctors with data on product failures in two broad categories: battery depletions and electrical failures. Guidant and St. Jude Medical, the third major manufacturer of heart devices, do not separate electrical failures from battery problems in their reports about product “survival” rates.

    Tim Samsel, vice president for regulatory affairs at Medtronic’s cardiac rhythm management division, said that the company, in its confidential F.D.A. reports, would break down the category of electrical failures even further, such as by listing the specific components that have failed or the way products are failing electrically, like short-circuiting.

    “For F.D.A, we do break it down more,” Mr. Samsel said.

    Asked why Medtronic did not simply place that same data in its product performance reports, a company spokesman, Robert Clark, said, “The information we provide to F.D.A. for an annual report is not the way physicians want the information presented to them.”

    Some doctors, however, appear to want more information. Dr. Maisel of Brigham and Women’s Hospital said he thought that if Medicare collected data on the performance of defibrillators, cardiologists would know far more about the relative safety and quality of those devices.

    In January, Medicare expanded by one-third the number of people who could qualify for defibrillator implants, extending coverage to about 500,000 patients. As part of that initiative, the program is asking doctors and hospitals to fill out special forms to make sure that the right patients are getting the costly units and so that Medicare can tell how many people are benefiting.

    As part of the form, the agency is asking doctors for a raft of patient data, but the forms do not ask for the device’s make or model.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

  • June 19, 2005

    The Measure of a Woman




    In 1978, I was 10 years old and visiting my grandmother in Florida for the summer. Nothing made me happier. We shopped at the Bal Harbour mall, swam in the condo pool, saw a movie every week. Each morning, she smothered me with kisses. And each afternoon, we’d weigh ourselves. ”Girls have to be thin and beautiful,” Grandma said, always linking the two adjectives together.


    I wasn’t fat — I was a muscular gymnast — but food was certainly a passion, and my grandmother worried that one day I’d ”blow up like an elephant.” This was the worst fate possible. It didn’t matter that Grandma was a college graduate, a teacher of ”intellectually gifted” students, a single mother when few women were and utterly devoted to her family. My mother and her brother adored her, and so did I. For her, beauty was paramount — and fat was decidedly not beautiful. But I didn’t worry. I would never get fat.


    Then puberty hit, and I gained 20 pounds in less than a year. I hadn’t seen my grandmother in almost as long when she came to visit us in Boston. As usual, she looked wonderful, her nails newly manicured, her clothes freshly pressed. She kissed me hesitantly, her hands kneading the strange new flesh on my shoulders and back. She could barely look my way. Later, I overheard her telling my mother that I’d become ”tremendous.” At dinner, I reached for a second slice of bread, and my grandmother slapped my hand away. ”You don’t need another,” she said. ”How can you let yourself go like this? You’ve got such a gorgeous face — don’t you want boys to like you?”


    Then came a warning: ”You need to lose 10 pounds or else you can’t come to Florida this year.”


    ”But why?” I asked. ”Who cares what I weigh?”


    ”Because the world judges on first appearances,” Grandma snapped. ”It’s my home, and I don’t want you there unless you look the way you’re supposed to.” She told me she’d buy me a whole new wardrobe if I lost weight. My mother protested, but she had no control over the matter.


    I know my grandmother was only trying to help a pudgy adolescent avoid teasing and torment. (She was just as harsh when my mother battled extra pounds as a teenager.) But I didn’t lose weight, and I didn’t go to Florida that Christmas.


    I spent the next six summers at various fat camps, trying to make Grandma happy. When I was heavy, I wouldn’t visit her. When I was thin, she’d lavish praise on me as if I were royalty. ”Hello, Skinny!” she’d beam. This both pleased and annoyed me. I desperately wanted her approval, and yet I resented her for making weight an issue. I was only a kid, and I wasn’t that big.


    But she was just as fixated on her own appearance. She was stunning, meticulously groomed and vigilant about what she ate. And she took her obsession through old age and illness — all the way to her deathbed. Even in the last months of her life, she had us weigh her all the time. Despite our sense that the request was deeply sad and, of course, ludicrous, we did what she asked.


    On those mornings, the nurse would feed her three pills, then set her onto the portable potty. After, she’d lift Grandma up, secure the catheter and help her on the scale. There was silence until the nurse announced a made-up number that was sure to please Grandma. But one day we got a new nurse, Nancy, who didn’t know how we did things.


    ”Why?” Nancy laughed. ”You’re skinny as a rail.”


    ”Because I want to know what I weigh,” Grandma said, slurring her words. Her left side was numb, droopy.


    ”It’s true,” I said. ”We do it every day.”


    Nancy looked at us as if we were crazy but then caught on. ”O.K.,” she said with a shrug. She untucked Grandma’s blankets, raised the hospital bed and set down the scale. Grandma swung her good foot onto it while Nancy supported her.


    ”Well?” Grandma gurgled.


    ”Let’s see here.” Nancy pretended to read the numbers. ”It’s about 109,” she told my 80-pound grandmother.


    What?” Grandma said, alarmed. ”Yesterday I was 105.”


    I jumped off the sofa and headed straight for the scale. ”No,” I said, shaking my head at Nancy. ”It’s 105 on the nose. The numbers are just blurry, Gram.”


    ”Are you sure? All I do is lie here and eat. I don’t want to be fat when I get out of here.”


    ”It’s 105,” I said, and suddenly I realized what was happening. The scale was Grandma’s link to the world. Maybe, I thought, she thinks she’ll live. I looked at her lying there, paralyzed and weak and helpless. Her breathing sputtered. Her bones stuck out like pegs. I patted her stomach, rubbing loose flesh.


    ”I just don’t want to get fat,” she murmured once again.


    And at that moment, I forgave her.


    Abby Ellin is the author of ”Teenage Waistland: A Former Fat Kid Weighs In on Living Large, Losing Weight and How Parents Can (and Can’t) Help” (published by PublicAffairs), from which this essay is adapted.




  • ‘Hard-Line’ Headlines
    By Sam Schechner
    Posted Saturday, June 25, 2005, at 2:02 AM PT


    The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times lead with populist hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory in the second round of Iran’s presidential election yesterday. As of 9:45 a.m. in Iran this morning, the country’s official news agency said the Tehran mayor’s tally stood at a crushing 62.3 percent to 35.3 percent. (Meanwhile, the papers’ stories used variants of the term “hard-line” a combined 11 times.) The New York Times off-leads Iran and goes instead with word that an Italian judge issued arrest warrants late Thursday for 13 U.S. intelligence agents who, 2½ years ago, allegedly abducted a terrorist subject from a Milan street and turned him over to Egypt, where he was tortured—a story first broken in March by the LAT.


    Only the LAT makes much of it, but turnout in Iran was estimated last night at only 48 percent, a far cry from 63 percent in the first round, when the race was winnowed to Ahmadinejad and former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Throughout the day yesterday, the Interior Ministry, which is still controlled for the time being by reformists, alleged voter intimidation—including the presence of the Basiji militiamen, Ahmadinejad’s former comrades, at polling stations.


    Instead, the papers play up a pretty straightforward class angle. To wit: Rafsanjani is head of the “Expediency Council” and a millionaire power broker who wears flowing clerical robes that underscore his connections to a political apparatus seen as corrupt; the NYT says his belated attempt to pick up the reformist mantle never took off. (Despite a wave of caustic, anti-Ahmadinejad text messages young voters fired around earlier this week, many disenchanted young voters stayed home.) Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad looks the everyman part and invoked the revolutionary rhetoric of 1979 to appeal to older working-class voters who resent the growing economic and cultural gap between rich and poor. A civil engineer turned radical militia member, he also made a lot of nuts-and-bolts promises: pay raises, more jobs, expanded health care, government pensions, and wiping out official corruption and cronyism.


    I am proud of being the Iranian nation’s little servant and street sweeper,” Ahmadinejad said, referring, according to the WP, to a populist campaign stunt in which he joined Tehran’s street sweepers. The NYT catches him waxing even more lyrical after casting his ballot: “As the people’s servant, it is my honor to be a part of this endless ocean and I am also honored that our dearest people have their trust in me. And I do hope I always remain an ordinary member of the Iranian people.”


    Then there’s prognostication that Ahmadinejad—no fan of America—could, as the NYT says, “complicate” negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, a fear that occasions the best quote in the WP: “A weakness of Ahmadinejad is that he does not have the vaguest idea of international relations, international structures,” said an Iranian professor who, the paper adds casually, “has known Ahmadinejad since first grade.”


    The papers all mention a large suicide car bombing in Fallujah that killed six American troops, including at least four women, the most women to die at once since the war began. The women were on their way to checkpoint duty, assigned to pat down Iraqi women and girls, when a car swerved into their seven-ton transport truck and exploded, “sending metal shards and body parts in all directions, and a huge cloud of black smoke and swirling dust climbing into the evening sky.” It was the second attack in a week within Fallujah, which had been relatively quiet since the U.S. operation to wrest it from insurgent control in November.


    The attacks came only hours before a joint news conference with President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, who was in Washington to meet with lawmakers and top administration officials, and gave an upbeat assessment to match his American counterpart’s. “We want to secure love instead of hatred in our country, coexistence and cooperation in Iraq instead of cursing each other,” Jaafari said.


    The Timeses both catch a federal appeals court decision upholding much of a Bush administration rule that would allow power plants to make upgrades to their plants without installing pollution-control equipment. Both industry groups and environmentalists claimed victory, however, because the decision said any modernization plan must weigh whether pollution will get worse, and the plants must keep records of their emissions, a requirement the new rule had originally exempted.


    The Post has a good profile of the Serbian human rights advocate who tracked down and earlier this month released a harrowing video Serbian troops took while they taunted and executed six Bosnian Muslims in 1995. Some nine members of the unit have since been arrested.


    The WP and LAT have breaking news on a long-running Justice Department cover-up: “Spirit of Justice” and “Majesty of Law” have finally been stripped of John Ashcroft’s dowdy blue drapes.


    The Italian arrest warrants contain a wealth of detail: According to eyewitness accounts, the radical imam was approached on his way to mosque by two men who sprayed him in the face with chemicals and then bundled him into an unmarked van. The agents didn’t hide their tracks very thoroughly—while all but a few used apparent cover names, investigators were able to put together a detailed account of the operation by examining hotel registries, rental-car receipts, and cell-phone calls made in the area at the time, including some to CIA headquarters.


    The NYT and LAT say it’s unclear whether the Italians knew about the operation beforehand, but the WP and Boston Globe say the Italian antiterror squad was taken by surprise. ”By kidnapping him [the Americans] interrupted an investigation already taking place by the Italian police,” an anonymous official told the Globe. ”We had already been tapping his conversations. We had information on his friends and his links.” Interestingly, the WP quotes a former CIA counterterrorism official who doubts it was a CIA operation. “The agency might be sloppy, but not that sloppy,” he said. “There is no way they would sanction a kidnapping on Italian soil.”


    Your intel budget hard at work … After noting that Italian investigators raided one operative’s Italian “villa” for evidence, the NYT says that, according to the warrant, the spooks stayed in five-star hotels for the week of the abduction, amassing $144,984 in charges.


    Even weirder: Part of the rendition then took place on a Gulfstream IV executive jet belonging to a part owner of the Boston Red Sox, who admitted to the Globe in March that he regularly leases it to the CIA—with the team logo covered up, of course.

    Sam Schechner is a freelance writer in New York


  • Alonso aims to usurp Ferrari


  • Corr Hall at Villanova University. This was the Dormatory entrance for my Freshman year at Villanova.


  •  







    Quick Reference: Google Advanced Operators (Cheat Sheet)
    by Nancy Blachman – nancy at googleguide.com (replace at with @)

     
    BASIC EXAMPLES   FINDS PAGES CONTAINING…
    holiday travel   the words holiday and travel
    Bermuda OR Greece   either the word Bermuda or the word Greece
    I have a dream   the exact phrase I have a dream
    salsa dance   the word salsa but NOT the word dance
    Star Wars Episode +I   this movie title, including the roman numeral I
    Google ~Guide   Google info for both the word guide and its synonyms: help, tutorial, tips, etc.
    define:phishing   definitions of the word phishing from the Web
    Nancy * Blachman   the words Nancy and Blachman separated by exactly one word
    CALCULATOR   MEANING   TYPE INTO SEARCH BOX
    + – * /   basic arithmetic   12 + 34 – 56 * 7 / 8
    % of   percentage of   45% of 39
    ^ or **   raise to a power   2^5 or 2**5