<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: defending</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'defending'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22defending%22&t=%22defending%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:00:17 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Gates’s Cuts that Aren’t</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4318315&amp;cid=t_165968_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FRL1Ek73Yq44%2F</link>
            <description>By Christopher PrebleSecretary of Defense Robert Gates is poised to axe or significantly restructure a number of high-profile weapons platforms, and otherwise rein in the Pentagon&amp;#8217;s budget. The reports present these initiatives as intended to preempt greater scrutiny of the military&amp;#8217;s budget by Congress.
The cuts will be announced later today, but it seems pretty clear that Gates will call for terminating the unnecessary Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), a Marine Corps program that is more than 176 percent over its original per-vehicle cost. Unhappily for taxpayers, the Pentagon has already spent $3 billion on the program, which has managed to deliver only prototypes. The Marine Corps&amp;#8217;s version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will also be delayed, according to...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4318315</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:47:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4318315</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Deficit Reduction Commission Says Military Spending Can and Must be Cut</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4219730&amp;cid=t_165968_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3BFss3qvpBg%2F</link>
            <description>By Christopher PreblePresident Obama’s Fiscal Commission’s report is out and they have wisely kept military spending on the table. Having not seen the accompanying list of specific cuts, it seems that rather than micromanage DoD&amp;#8217;s decisions with respect to which weapons systems to cut or keep, the commissioners have laid down a different marker: find the cuts that make sense, but understand that the business-as-usual of the past decade is over.
The report fixes on a number of spending cuts and reforms that Benjamin Friedman and I call for in the Cato Policy Analysis “Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint” including cuts to the civilian workforce (see recommendation 1.10.4). They also hold fast to the proposition that all spending must be on the table, and reject out of ha...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4219730</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:46:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4219730</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The ‘Spectacularly Misnamed Radicals’ Fire Back on Military Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4074024&amp;cid=t_165968_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F5v9OuZ4Vkyw%2F</link>
            <description>By Justin LoganBill Kristol has a plan to help the US military
George F. Will has called neoconservatism “a spectacularly misnamed radicalism” whose adherents are “the most radical people in this town.”  (It is a shame that the Heritage Foundation has fallen so far from its sensible opposition to the neoconservative vision and evidently bought into the neoconservative program in toto.)
Like other radicals, however, they are pretty good at politics, which is clear from reading their latest offering, a talking points document [.pdf] produced by the &amp;#8220;Defending Defense&amp;#8221; initiative intended to demonstrate that U.S. military spending is not that large and should not be cut.
I have several things to say about the document, but all of the internet sniping and providing adversa...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4074024</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:06:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4074024</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Top 3 Thoughtful Reads Today plus an Overdue Rant</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1325122&amp;cid=t_165968_145_f&amp;fid=35710&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoryofhealing.com%2F2008%2F03%2F25%2Ftop-3-thoughtful-reads-today-plus-an-overdue-rant%2F</link>
            <description>1. Panda Bear, M.D.&amp;#8217;s Defending the Pie. A clarifying thought on medical quackery, &amp;#8220;dis-ease&amp;#8221;, and what one should be conscious of as a potential patient.
Sure, anybody can see somebody with a cold or some other minor complaint and the odds are good that nothing they do, provided they don’t get too jiggy with it, will do much harm. But let’s suppose that you have never rotated on a medical service or done your share of critical care. Suppose you have never worked in an emergency department or spent a few sloppy months on the labor and delivery floor. Imagine, if you can, seeing a provider for your family’s medical care who is treating your kids but has never had a lick of formal pediatric training or so little that she has never seen the really bad pediatric disease...</description>
            <author>the story of healing</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1325122</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:16:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1325122</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An Analysis of Not Publishing Negative Drug Studies</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1173129&amp;cid=t_165968_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2008%2F01%2F23%2Fan-analysis-of-not-publishing-negative-drug-studies%2F</link>
            <description>We examined the study after its publication and agreed that there are significant issues that must be addressed in the disclosure and publication of drug studies. Some steps have already been undertaken individually by drug companies, but they should all be required to ensure all negative study data is as readily available as the positive study data.
	CL Psych has gone one step further if you&amp;#8217;re interested in an even more in-depth analysis of the study (and its critics) in an entry entitled, Defending the Hiding of Negative Clinical Trial Data. It&amp;#8217;s a long but thorough analysis (even though it goes off on a tangent about Vioxx). Leave it to CL Psych to tell it like it is! (Source: World of Psychology)</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1173129</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:23:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1173129</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

