Could Medical Tech be “Coded to Kill”? This Medical School Dean Has Thoughts.

From clean water to food safety standards, to pandemic preparedness, public health saved your life today. At the DeBeaumont Foundation, they create practical solutions that improve the health of communities across the country, enabling everyone to achieve their best possible health. To learn more about how advancing policy, creating partnerships, strengthening public health, and improving communication can make a difference, visit DeBeaumont.org.

A new AI-based startup says it can detect sexually transmitted infections by looking at dick pics. A CDC study finds that alcohol-related deaths are increasing among American seniors. And a new case of bird flu was linked to a dairy cow. This is America Dissected. I'm your host, Dr.

Abdul El-Sayed. Happy Public Health Week, everyone.

We've covered lots of novel science here on. America Dissected, but a novel about science? That's new territory for us. That said, it's not every day that a dean of one of America's most prestigious medical schools writes a novel, which is what forced me to perk up when I heard about it. Before we talk about the book, though, I wanted to explain why we should probably talk more about fiction when we think about science.

Science is, of course, about what's observable, what is known and knowable. So you'd think that fiction, literally content that is not real, would be orthogonal to it. But they're actually a lot more related than you might think. We're used to thinking about science in hindsight, using what science has already demonstrated to make decisions about what we ought to do for the future. But that's what we do with science after it's already been done.

But if you're doing science, you're, by definition, dealing with the unknown. I know it's important to replicate experiments to make sure we know what we think we know, but scientific breakthroughs happen specifically when we experiment with the unknown. When you're dealing with the unknown, the most powerful thing in science is how you can use what is known to imagine what is unknown. And when you're dealing with the unknown, the most powerful tool you have is how you use what you know to imagine what you don't know. That's how the best hypotheses are generated.

And, as any real scientist will tell you, the most powerful thing in science is a great hypothesis. So science really is about imagination, and we need it most when things are moving fast. Right now is one of those moments.

ChatGPT4.

. The man, widely seen as the godfather of artificial intelligence, has quit his job at Google, warning of the dangers of AI. If this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong,

That's the upside. We had Dr. Eric Topol, one of the world's foremost health care futurists, on to talk about AI and health care a few months back. It was a stimulating conversation. Some of you might remember that he was a lot, we'll say, more bullish about AI than I was.

I'm a child of the internet era. I remember watching one of the first educational live feeds of a trek in the Amazon rainforest back in the sixth grade in 1996, and despite the glitchiness of dial-up, I remember marveling at how we could be watching each other in real time. And nearly 30 years later, I'm not so sure that I love the world that unparalleled connection has wrought. So forgive me if I'm a lot more focused on what AI might take away, how it opens up opportunities to be exploited by malign actors, fundamentally changes our relationship with our work, and creates scenarios we can't even imagine from here. Which is why we need to try so hard to imagine them.

And that's exactly what Dean Marshall Runge is doing in his book Coded to Kill. In a fast-paced, whodunit style, Runge explores what happens when an electronic medical record is exploited by the worst people. Speaking of EMRs exploited by the worst people...

S. healthcare system to date.

And I want to ask you to step back. I want to understand the journey to writing a novel. So tell me a little bit about your day-to-day as a dean and as a VP of Medical Affairs. What is your day-to-day? What are the things that you work on?

What are the things that you've got to be thinking about when you run a large healthcare system like the University of?

But my main efforts in healthcare are overseeing our health system, which is a large health system. What I like most about it is that I can believe that everything we do is oriented toward trying to improve health. So we're trying to educate physicians, nurses, allied health professionals to provide healthcare. We're doing research that we hope will be impactful for health and we're providing healthcare. And I think that the most important area, and with your background in public health, in addition to your being a physician, I think the future for us is to try to improve health.

And if we improve health, we may be able to afford the healthcare that we provide, because so much can be prevented. And it's a hard thing. But I think, in collaboration with our colleagues here in public health and across country, we're very interested in trying to just help improve the health. And our main impact, of course, is in Michigan and even more so in Southeast Michigan. So all those things tie together.

And on any given day, I may spend half the day working on certain aspects of our health system, either here in Ann Arbor or across the state. Another day, I'll spend half the day in an educational setting. The job, like you.

And if you're doing it really well, all of those tactical things on a good day add up to a strategy. And then, if you're doing it really, really well, then all of those strategies add up to a vision for something that changes on orders of time, of years. And the thing about it, though, is that it really does come down to a lot of tactical, small decisions. Now, one of the things about writing, and particularly literary writing, is that you have to architect a vision on a page. And so it really does take a certain leap of mind to get yourself out of the tactical meeting movement that you spend a lot of your days doing, to be able to look at an empty page and then fill it out with something.

Now, one of the cool things about what you've done here is that you've written a novel. And I want to ask, A, how did you find the time? But then, B, why a novel? Like I said, it's uncommon for folks in your area to write fiction. You see a lot more commonly nonfiction books about an area of research.

But a fiction book is a really interesting piece. So walk me through the thinking about what led you to this and why you wrote the book. Well, it starts with, I love.

And I had never heard of John Grisham. And so we talked. He said, I'm going to bring you a book. And I read that book. And I thought, man, this is awesome.

I bet I can do this. Well, that was like 20 years ago. There you go. You had a lot of meetings between then and now, though. So this book, I worked on it off and on for probably 15 years.

And it was 90% done when I moved to Michigan. But trying to finish that last 10% took a lot of time. So what I found about it is I love writing fiction. It's just fun. And it's interesting.

You can write whatever you want. And there's no risk of expanding on the truth, because it's not truth. It's fiction. And so that's how I got going on it. And I would write in the morning, and sometimes on weekends.

I'm an early morning riser anyway. But then, at some point, when I came here, Mark Schlissel, who was the president of the University at the time, said, we need every executive to go out and do something to help promote the university. And some people go to Washington. Some people get involved in politics. Some people get involved in delivery of public health, all kinds of things.

But I decided I would try to write op-eds. That was one of the choices. And I enjoyed that. But I realized it just wasn't having much impact. I thought, huh, op-eds, novel.

So I thought, well, maybe I could talk about what I found to be really important topics in a way that people who read fiction might read it. And it'll trigger them to think about these areas. That was part of it. Another part of it is this novel is about things that could go wrong with electronic medical records. And it's very analogous to what we are looking at today in terms of this transformation with artificial intelligence.

This was an earlier version of connecting medical records all over the place. But I was involved in having to deal with, not here, previously with faculty members who had inappropriately accessed medical records of a high-profile person. And I realized how easy that was to do. And things are much more secure now. But I thought, well, if all this promise of having all this genetic data and incorporating it into healthcare, the benefit if you have a huge electronic medical records, you have all that data, you can try to assimilate it.

And I think AI will push it way faster. But the other concern is, what if somebody gets into that database? What if they decide to do bad things with that database? Then, as I learned that all the devices in a hospital are connected. So I didn't realize this, but if someone writes, if a doctor writes an order for an IV solution, it doesn't go to a pharmacist anymore, it goes to a robot.

And those robots are connected to the medical record. And so if somebody was in a medical record, they could presumably disrupt what was going on. So I tried to build on that premises, but making it a fun, exciting kind of beach novel, but one that had a message, which is, let's be careful. as we think about gigantic databases and protecting protected health information, which I think is for doctors, it's just sacred.

So Thomas Friedman, who's a well-known writer for the New York Times, I like to use his description, which I'm not going to quote exactly, but I want to attribute it to him. He said, we're at a point in time when there's a technology that's coming, that is such a shift, it's going to change everything we do and the way we do it. And others have, computer science experts here at the university have said, this will be more impactful than the formation of the internet. So you think of, wow, I can compare 1990 to now and what we can do on the internet. This is going to be yet another step forward.

And the power is unbelievable. Anybody who's played around with chat, GPT or any of those, it's just mind boggling what it can do in terms of generative AI. But the real power in medicine is going to be analyzing vast amounts of data. And so that takes vast numbers of people and all kinds of data. But I'm convinced that generative AI will be able to analyze and put together patterns that we couldn't possibly do before.

So there's huge promise there. Overall, what worries me is two factors. One is the old adage about computers garbage in, garbage out. These are entirely dependent on the quality of the data that goes in. Make sure that's high fidelity data, that it doesn't carry biases that might have been part of creation of that data.

So the fidelity of the product that comes out is really important.

Secondly, though, by its very nature, generative AI can put together patterns that we could never put together, even with the most powerful computers in the world. And I had heard this five or 10 years ago, and I believe it is absolutely the case now, that even before AI, a computer scientist gone rogue at a big data aggregator like Google or Amazon, they know who we are. They could know who we are. I think that gets multiplied by 1,000 when AI starts to be able to analyze these data. And then the last part, and you know this as a physician, I know this as a physician, is that people are different.

Everybody's different. And patients are different. And so there has been such an emphasis on care protocols. So 60-year-old has these risk factors for cancer or for heart disease or whatever. This is what you do.

You do this test and that test and the next test.

And then what AI might be able to do is say, well, here's how you might treat that person. But we all know that maybe that person doesn't want that treatment, or maybe that person has a real fear of certain kinds of medications or certain kinds of procedures or taking vaccines. And I don't see how AI can bring that all together without that really sort of personal interaction between physicians and their patients, which I think stands the potential of being lost.

And I think the challenge with it is that we look at our systems now and say, oh man, that system is broken because so-and-so human biases. And because it's happening at a slower pace, we can actually see the way that our biases shape those systems and then try and fix them. The problem is, is that when all of that's happening inside of a black box at near warp speed in ways that are incoherent to us, or at least non-identifiable to us, that we are going to assume that somehow this is all on a higher order, rather than, as you said, junk in, junk out, right? Or a function of the problematic incentives that shaped the system as it started and then leveraged in a certain way. And I had a good conversation with Dr.

Eric Topol, whom I know, and who's one of the foremost futurists in medicine. And one of the challenges that we sort of came to and he agreed with, he's much more of a techno-optimist than I think you or I are, is that there's a real risk that the way that AI is moving right now is that it's being captured by a small number of very, very, very large, very powerful organizations. And that's actually going to be even harder given how much computing power you need to be able to train AI models. And so you're going to have the top 0.000001% of corporations who are then leveraging this incredible power to their own incentive set. And I worry that that's just going to make it a lot worse.

And one of the things that I loved about the book is that, because you're able to create characters who sit on different sides of a system, you're able to almost slow down and demonstrate the frustrations of that from a number of different perspectives of these protagonists in the book. As you think about this, you illustrate some of the big dangers. And obviously, it's a thriller that's intended to entertain, but the kernel of truth upon which it's based is really quite real. So I wanted to ask you, what did you find you were able to say in a book, as your imagination took hold and you wrote this thing out, that you wish more people.

And so, for example, what I learned, and I owe any technical knowledge I have in these areas, I owe to other people. But I had lots of great conversations. For example, I said, would it really be possible for somebody to hijack a pharmacy robot? Or would it really be possible for somebody to erase a person's allergies from their electronic medical record without a trace, and even put in a history that makes it seem like they don't have any really severe, potentially lethal allergies? And they walked me through, and yes, it is possible.

I hope and I believe that we have the systems to prevent that, and that there's nobody so nefarious that would try to do it. But I want people to understand that what we do is not risk free. And we do depend on systems that work. I mean, they work every single day, but they could be caused to malfunction. I don't know.

I haven't yet to read any reason that the AT&T network went down in a big way last week. Something happened there. But I am very familiar with instances where electronic medical records have been hijacked by bad actors who either insert ransomware so you can't use your medical record, or they even insert disinformation, or they grab the information from your medical record and they put it on the dark web. And I think, if you think about any of those, what I end up believing is, man, we have to redouble our efforts to protect all of this information. And so this novel is sort of, I don't know that it's the worst case scenario, but it's a bad case scenario of that happening.

And I think, for example, University of Michigan, Michigan Medicine, we get over 500,000 attempted hacks into our medical record every day. And those are all screened out. And so far,

knock on wood, thank goodness, whatever, we have not had a hijacking of our electronic medical records. But if you think of it even just from a purely day-to-day logistics, when you and I were training, well, maybe you're not as old as me, but when I was training, everything was on paper. So you wrote medical orders on paper, medical records were on paper. Now there's, we don't even have the paper to put, I mean, we do have a sort of a disaster plan, but if all those things grind to a halt, you can't write medical orders, you can't get laboratory results. It's really a bad situation for people that are in the hospital.

There was a case of a hospital that was hijacked for ransomware for about a week. And basically all they could do was try to transfer the patients out of the hospital because they couldn't really care for them.

Learn about how the pharmaceutical and medical device industries manufacture medical knowledge along with medical products. Pharm Manipulation's next episode will cover opioids, which are still oversold, and recommendations for shaping up the Food and Drug Administration. Previous episodes cover differences in cultural conceptions of disease, how drug samples are pharma's best marketing tool, the overpromotion of weight loss drugs, and much more. You can find Pharm Doubt's Pharm Manipulation podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

Marguerite Casey Foundation is proud to partner with NationSwell to present Doppelganger, a trip into the mirror world, a Marguerite Casey Foundation book club event designed to make sense of the vertigo-inducing, post-pandemic shadow world that feels all too familiar. Join the MCF book club for an in-person event in New York City on Wednesday, April 24th for a conversation with author Naomi Klein, scholar, author, activist, and 2020 Marguerite Casey Foundation, Freedom Scholar Keonga Yamada-Taylor, as well as filmmaker, writer, and activist Astra Taylor, and Dr. Carmen Rojas, president and CEO of Marguerite Casey Foundation, as they make sense of this parallel social universe and chart a path toward a shared purpose and power. RSVP today to your seat for this free event at caseygrants.com book club. That's C-A-S-E-Y-G-R-A-N-T-S.com book club.

And if you won't be able to join the club in New York City, please consider sharing with.

You know, it's interesting because this example exactly illustrates one of the real risks I worry about, and one that you actually somewhat highlight with one of your characters, who is a medical resident and a daughter of the hospital president. And she's one of the protagonists in the book. And we're, it's almost that we're at a tipping point. So I graduated medical school in 2014.. Uh, uh, Marshall, when did you graduate?

Would have been 83, 83, 83.

. Okay. So, so in your time, I would imagine, and you correct me if I'm wrong, but, but doc, but, but, but computers themselves were just starting to make their way into clinical practice, I would imagine. Right. And for very, very few purposes, I would imagine.

Fair. I mean, for, for interfacing.

And then my little brother is a, a first year resident at the university of Michigan. He's a, he's an intern. Go blue. Go blue. And he, he just graduated.

Uh, and EMRs today have AI built in so they can do a lot of complex calculation, which we somewhat take for granted. Now, the interesting thing is, if all three of us were in a situation where, like you, talked about a ransomware attack happened, you would be able to operate in a scenario where we were still using pen and paper. I think my brother and I would be like, what is going on right now? Right. We'd have to find some other.

it enabled capacity, simply because that's a reality that, that none of us have ever experienced. And I think the same is true for a lot of the calculation that happens inside a medical encounter. And I worry that we're hitting a tipping point on which we're losing the scaffolding on which we've built all of our knowledge. And so you end up in a scenario where, when computers, aren't just enabling you to take a note, right. And store certain information and make sure it gets coordinated and goes to a certain place.

But the, the computer itself is actually doing a lot of the most complicated thinking for you in real time that you lose the ability to understand what's happening inside that calculation. And when that calculation goes away, you then realize that you were almost a glorified human, I hate to say uniform for the AI, right? You kind of made the AI look human versus actually being the calculator inside, which is how we think about physicians. And you talked about a lot of your role as a Dean, your big role is to train. the future of physicians.

And I know a lot of that is about being able to bring the humanism back into medicine. I think that's one of the best things that AI will enable. And I fully concede that point, it lets you be a human again, rather than have to just think all about all of this. But I do worry that when you get enough crutches, you forget how to do the basics. And I talked to physicians, my father-in-law is a retired nephrologist.

And he said, physical exams are dead. I don't see any medical students graduating who know how to do a good physical exam. Because the reality of it is you do the physical exam to generate a differential. And at the end of the day, the cost of doing the test is either lucrative enough for the healthcare system, or not expensive enough that you're just going to do the test anyway. So a lot of these arts are sort of dead.

And I worry that may be true for a physical exam. Now, what happens when you're talking about even generating a differential? You can dictate a note and you're going to get a differential, which I would argue is the whole goal of graduating medical school is knowing how to generate a differential and knock down some of the most important ones. So what happens when that goes away? And when we get this point where we lose our ability to do the things that physicians of yore used to be able to do, do we have an ability to adjust?

And do we even have an ability then to counteract the AI inside? I'd love to get your sense on how, is there a way for us to train physicians to be future-proof? Or should we just embrace the future, where doctors aren't really gonna have to think that much?

You said your father-in-law's a nephrologist, you shouldn't give it to this person because his renal function's abnormal.

But the first, oh, I would guess for me, the first five or 10 years, I was at the University of North Carolina. And, like Michigan, we had our own homegrown electronic medical record. Then we transitioned to Epic. But over about a 10-year period, five years on our own, five years on Epic. there, it did, that ability for the computer to help us matured.

But at first, it wasn't. And I worry about that transition time with AI. So I think it's going to be transformational, but it may not be perfect. It may not be perfect for a while. But I think what you're hitting is an even more important point.

And that is,

as physicians, we have to understand the disease process. People sometimes ask me, why do we still have to study some of these more basic concepts in medicine? And I think that will move to a higher level. So it won't be biochemistry so much. But it's all about trying to understand the disease process.

So if you get a crazy result, I hope that we will all think, wait a minute, that doesn't quite fit with what I'm looking at and talking to. I don't know how AI will fix that. I think probably it can.

So I think we need to be training our students and our health staff and everybody else to embrace it and use it, but to learn everything they can about medicine and embrace that as well. One example that I think a lot of us are concerned about, has to do with an interface that's really important. With the advent of electronic medical records and use of the patient portal for many care providers, physicians and others,

they get so many messages in that portal to respond to that it has really changed how much time they can spend with patients because they have to go spend another two hours that day answering portal messages. So we've done a pilot at Michigan, and these are being done all over, to see, could AI help us. And it's like any other use of AI, you can cut and paste. So the patient, the person, sends a query. that is two paragraphs, you can cut it in, cut it and paste it into AI and say, please respond.

And it will respond. And what we have found is that those responses are excellent, but they're not perfect. But I worry that a person will get in a hurry. So at least, I don't know what percent, 5% or something, they're giving the wrong advice. Maybe not that high, maybe 1%.

So we have to be very diligent to look at that. And it's the same with analyzing images, radiologic or pathology images, by AI. I think it's uncontestable that that very much speeds up what a radiologist or pathologist can do, because it can really screen out most things and say, focus on this area.

But still, despite what the hyperbola and the medical media, as well as lay media, you can't just substitute a machine. I don't want a machine making the final diagnosis on whether that thing I'm worried about in my chest is normal or not. I'd like to be sure a radiologist looks at that. This is what makes it so tough, is in.

And I worry that if so, much of medical practice is about identifying the zebras from the and that's what you really look for in the most top-notch doctors, most everybody can address the horses. It's the one who you want to find that one minute detail to hold onto and say, no, no, no, this one does not sound like a horse. I think this is a zebra. I worry, though, that, as physicians spend less time having to suss that out themselves, because the AI is doing it, we're actually going to lose the ability to second guess the AI. Because here's the thing, there are going to be times, you talked about that 5% or 1% of the times.

it's wrong, that's going to look like it saying it's a zebra and us saying it's a horse or vice versa. And I worry that over time, as the AI becomes more and more common, our ability, both intellectually, but also bureaucratically, to remand the AI goes away. And intellectually, it's just that we just haven't had to do the hard thinking because we just take the AI answer as wrote. And bureaucratically, we talk about, you always want a doctor on the loop. Now, it's kind of like a self-driving car.

We say, we believe that humans have to be on the loop because humans are better drivers than self-driving cars, which is actually not true. If you had a whole road of self-driving cars, yes, you would have accidents, but you probably have far fewer than a bunch of humans driving who check their texts and change the radio and don't pay attention and have fights in the car with their significant other, whatever else it is that people do in cars. The automated driving is actually better. We just don't trust it because it's not normal. But there's going to come a tipping point where enough of these automated cars reduce the cost enough that actually, you could imagine a world where you get in trouble because you put your hand on the wheel.

The automated car is better than you, and you made a bad decision. You can imagine the same thing with doctors. And this is the moment that I actually think it breaks all of medicine, which is to say, you're a doctor who's like, I'm sure this is a horse, not a zebra, or I'm sure this is a zebra and not a horse. But if I second guess the AI, then I'm going to get in trouble. So I might as well just let the AI do what the AI is going to do.

And that's the thing I'm worried about. So I don't know what happens to doctors as doctors moving forward because of this reason, the litigation, the liability involved in second guessing a machine that on average is just more accurate.

So we all know that there are certain kinds of, whether they're genetic or otherwise, medical problems that are said to be undruggable. Nobody can find, pharma has been looking at it forever. They can't find a drug that will inhibit that particular pathway and prevent that particular disease. So now many of the biotechs and big pharma have decided, this has started several years, at least two or three years ago, decided, well, we could use AI and we can just take our chemists and have them develop the perfect drugs. And what they found was, the coolest thing was that AI would generate.

chemical structures that nobody has ever seen and they could be made. And so I'm familiar with one setting in which, in the period of a month or so, AI generated like 30 or 40 drugs that should address a specific disease.

And that would have taken years with medicinal chemists. Now, not all of them work. They had to be tested. But I believe that the conclusion that the people who are experts in drug development and in AI, and these are massive uses of computer power, by the way, the conclusion they've come to is you can't find the drug by AI alone. You have to combine AI with the biology of the disease.

And so it's foolish to think, go down the AI path and then try to put some of those drugs in humans if you don't really understand the biology of the disease and put those together. And the reason I give you that example is it is one that's out there, but I think if we could figure out, and I can't figure it out right now, how do you do the same with AI in medicine? So you can't just have the AI. The AI can terrifically augment what a doctor or a nurse or another healthcare provider can do, but you have to put them together.

And I guess I'm really enthusiastic about the future of generative AI, but I think we're going to have a period of time. I don't know how long. Is it going to be five years or 10 years while we're still trying to understand how the two augment each other? I think you're absolutely right. Whatever process might cause a zebra in me might only be a horse in you.

And we just have a lot to learn. Yeah. No, I really appreciate that perspective.

And he was right. It changed everything in my life. I mean, I get to host this podcast because of the internet. Right. And at the same time, I look at the world that the internet has wrought.

And I don't know that I like this world better. And that cognitive dissonance of the impact of this thing for me personally versus the emergent impact across the scale of all of us, that's the thing that breaks my mind a little bit. And I think AI is just going to do that even more. And the analogy of breaking my mind that may just be it, right? It's just like, well, listen, this thing that you relied on, that was your own personal supercomputer that all of us have between our ears, is just not as super as you thought it was.

And I think that should give us pause. It should also give us awe. And one of the things I appreciate about your book is that you force us to appreciate both of those at the same time. I want to just finish off on a note about doctor. as novelist.

One of the most powerful lessons that I learned in medical school, and I don't practice medicine every day, was the power of a story, both the story that a patient tells a physician, the ability of a physician to understand that story and sit inside of that story with that patient. And then the story that the physician tells the patient when they give them a diagnosis and walk them through, what the potential outcomes could be. next. I want to ask, as someone who's now written a novel where you allow your mind to imagine a whole set of scenarios and you pick the one you want to tell,

I think what it has really encouraged me to do is to spend that extra time listening to people and what they have to say when I'm seeing them, and not rushing through it and thinking, okay, well, let's do this, this, and this. So the terrible story about myself is, oh, 15,, 20, 20, 25 years ago, sometimes I'd be covering a massive cardiology service over the weekend. And it was all I could do to just see all the patients, much less. if they needed something done that I would do a procedure or something, you know, it was, it was tough. And so I got in this mode where I would just try to go in and get just the details I needed and then scoot out of there.

And, you know, I was dealing with, with that shortage of time. And I think what it tells me is a few things. First, I think.

the physicians of your generation are right. We shouldn't be telling people to see an unreasonable number of patients. It's not good medical care. Furthermore, if you just listen for a little while, they'll tell you things, people will tell you things that they might not tell you otherwise, if you bond with them. And we know that about any kind of relationship.

And it reminds me of, you know, I am another generation or so back, there were people who had during their career, some of my professors had been in the area where you did a lot of house calls. And I don't know if you ever heard these discussions, but they used to talk about this to us as students and say, you learn a lot about a person when you go to their house and you see where they live and you see what the environment is like. And we don't do that anymore or rarely. But I think that kind of getting to know a person really,

it's good for the relationship. I think the doctor-patient relationship is important to people and it's important to health. But it also, you learn things that you wouldn't learn if you were the old me just buzzing and saying, okay, any chest pain? No. Any problem with your groin?

No. Or they had catheterization. Great. Be back to see you later. I mean, it wasn't quite that.

It was this active caring. There's no other way to me to explain the placebo effect except for that. I think this thing will help me. And so much of that is in another human taking the time to listen and care. And so I really appreciate you taking the time to share with us and tell us a little bit more about your book, why you wrote it, the juxtaposition of intersecting trends at the heart of it and where you feel like we go from here.

Our guest today was Dr. Marshall Runge. He is the dean of the University of Michigan Medical School, as well as the vice president for medical affairs at Michigan Medicine. We really appreciate you taking the time. Thank you.

And once again, the book is Coded to Kill. I hope folks will check it out. Thanks very much. Really a pleasure.

But they've just launched a new platform called Calmera, marketed to Gen Z. women who can get this. use the app to take a picture of their partner to check that it's, quote, clean. To address the obviously creepy scenario, the app claims the pics are deleted immediately, except that really doesn't help. And it's not just that.

most STIs are asymptomatic. You can't identify them on the, So it's bound to create a lot of false negatives. So what's the upshot of all this? People sending a bunch of dick pics to an AI they have no control over and know nothing about. What could go wrong?

The story highlights just how absurd the wild, wild west of health based AI can be and the inherent risks of trusting a product simply because it's got those two magical letters in it. Apps like this won't keep you safe, but they'll have you sending sensitive information to a cloud based supercomputer in the name of it. Moving on, a troubling new study in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC's scientific journal, found that rates of alcohol related deaths are increasing in a group of folks. we really usually don't associate with aggressive alcohol use, seniors over the age of 65.. The study found that rates of alcohol related deaths more than doubled over the past two decades.

There are a number of potential explanations here. First, remember who this generation is. If you're 70 this year, that means you were born in 1954.. You were 20 in 1974.. These are classically the boomers.

And while boomer may take on a particular connotation these days, the boomers made quite the impression in their younger years. They were the hippie generation after all. Unlike their straight-laced parents who bore them, they are a generation known for their substance use. And so perhaps it shouldn't come as a shock that they use more substances as seniors too. But that's not the only explanation.

We've talked a lot about how the social milieu, driven by algorithmically amplified social media, has left young people more alone, anxious, and depressed. But seniors use social media too. And if you don't believe me, just go on Facebook. And while they may have more wealth than life experience to cope, it's likely that it's having an impact on them too. We also just lived through a pandemic, a moment when seniors were among our most vulnerable people and therefore among the most likely to be socially isolated from their families.

How to cope? Unfortunately, based on these numbers, it's likely that a lot of folks found comfort at the end of a bottle. And when we talk about mortality, remember, seniors are just more sensitive. Their bodies don't rebound the same way. And chronic use over a long time horizon can have a cumulative effect.

Finally, this happened.

That said, it's not impossible. What about meat, though? Interestingly, the virus has only been detected in dairy cows and not beef cattle. Not yet, at least. Second, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission, which is the most worrying potential outcome, as efficient transmission between humans could kick off a serious outbreak, or worse.

But this is worrying. Cows weren't previously thought to be at high risk, though scientists speculate that the virus may have made an interspecies transfer through accidental ingestion of the feces of an infected bird by a cow. We know it's affected at least 13 herds across 6 states. And though it's possible that cows are independently being infected by birds, it's also possible that it's spreading between them, a more concerning possibility and probably more likely. That's also concerning because the virus would have more opportunity to evolve in its dairy cow hosts.

Thankfully, analysis of the strain from the infected person doesn't show the kinds of mutations that would make it concerning for efficient person-to-person spread. We'll keep you posted. Finally, before we go, happy Public Health Week to everyone and Eid Mubarak to all of you celebrating. That's it for today. On your way out, don't forget to rate and review.

It really does go a long way. Please take the time. And if you love the show and want to rep us, do drop by the Crooked store for some America Dissected merch. And don't forget to follow us at Crooked Media and me at Abdul El-Sayed, no dash, on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter.

America Dissected is a product of Crooked Media. Our producer is Austin Fisher. Our associate producers are Tara Terpstra and Emil Frank. Charlotte Landis mixes and masters the show. Production support from Ari Schwartz.

Our theme song is by Takashi Sazawa and Alex Uguiera. Our executive producers are Leo Duran, Sarah Geismar, and me, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, your host. Thank you for listening.

This show is for general information and entertainment purposes only. It's not intended to provide specific healthcare or medical advice and should not be construed as providing healthcare or medical advice. Please consult your physician with any questions related to your own health. The views expressed in this podcast reflect those of the host and his guests and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Wayne County, Michigan, or its Department of Health, Human and Veteran Services.