Stocks Open With Little Movement


Stocks opened little changed on Wall Street on Tuesday at the start of a busy week for corporate earnings after major indexes notched five-year highs.


In early trading, all three major equities indexes — the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, the Dow Jones industrial average and the Nasdaq composite index — moved very little. Both the Dow and S.&P. 500 closed last week at their highest levels so far in this earnings season, with the gains largely coming on better-than-expected results.


But despite bullish statements from major companies, including big banks, many investors were worried other reports would reflect economic uncertainty in the fourth quarter.


“The market has been pleased with earnings thus far, and it is encouraging to see a cyclical company like DuPont show revenue strength,” said Adam Sarhan, chief executive of Sarhan Capital in New York, “but I’m waiting on more tech and energy earnings until I come down one way or the other on this season.”


DuPont reported revenue that was ahead of Wall Street expectations, sending shares up 1.4 percent. However, slumping demand for pigment and solar panel parts hurt fourth-quarter profit.


Travelers gained 2.9 percent after forecasting higher premiums across its businesses, though it also posted earnings that fell by half from losses related to Hurricane Sandy.


Johnson & Johnson, the diversified health company, fell 0.9 percent after forecasting 2013 earnings below expectations, while Verizon Communications lost 1.5 percent after reporting a steep loss on pension liabilities and charges related to Sandy.


All four companies are Dow components.


Overall, S&P 500 fourth-quarter earnings are forecast to have risen 2.5 percent, according to Thomson Reuters data. That estimate is above the 1.9 percent forecast from a week ago but well below the 9.9 percent fourth-quarter earnings forecast from Oct. 1, the data showed.


Monday was a market holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the United States. President Barack Obama at his inauguration for a second term on Monday called for aggressive action on climate change, economic equality and the federal budget.


Markets have recently been pressured by uncertainty stemming from Washington about the federal debt limit and spending cuts that could hamper American economic growth. Republican leaders in the House of Representatives said they aim to pass on Wednesday a nearly four-month extension of the U.S. debt limit, allowing the government to borrow enough to meet its obligations during that period.


In New York trading, Research in Motion jumped 7 percent a day after its chief executive said the company may consider strategic alliances with other companies after the launch of devices powered by RIM’s new BlackBerry 10 operating system.


Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: The Brutal Truth of 'Amour'

It has been a few days since I left the movie theater in a bit of a daze, and I’m still thinking about “Amour.”

So much of this already much-honored film rings utterly true: the way a long-married Parisian couple’s daily routines, their elegant life of books and music and art, can be upended in a moment. The tender care that Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) provides for Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) as multiple strokes claim her body and her mind, and the inexorable way that care wears them both down. Their withdrawal into a proud dyad that seeks and accepts little help from outsiders, even family. “We’ve always coped, your mother and I,” Georges tells their daughter.

The writer and director Michael Haneke’s previous movies, which I haven’t seen, tend to be described as shocking, violent, even punitive. “Amour,” which Times critic Manohla Dargis called a masterpiece, includes one brief spasm of violence, but the movie remains restrained, not graphic. It’s brutal only because life, and death, can be brutal.

Is popular culture paying more attention to aging and caregiving? In the last couple of years, I have written about these subjects surfacing in a YouTube series (“Ruth & Erica”), in movies like “The Iron Lady,” in novels like Walter Mosley’s “The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey.”

A couple of weeks back, watching a play called “The Other Place,” starring the remarkable Laurie Metcalfe, I suddenly realized that the dynamic physician and businesswoman onstage had some sort of early-onset dementia. Dementia seems a particularly popular subject, in fact. Intrinsically dramatic, it suffuses the Mosley novel and Alice LaPlante’s “Turn of Mind,” and some of my favorite movies about aging, “Away From Her,” “Iris” and “The Savages.”

“Kings Point,” Sari Gilman’s compelling documentary about a retirement community in Florida where nobody seemed to expect to grow old, just won an Oscar nomination for best short-subject documentary and will be shown on HBO in March. And “Amour,” which won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, is up for five Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and a best actress nomination for the 85-year-old Ms. Riva. (Academy voters: Just give it to her.)

A number of these artists, Mr. Haneke included, have spoken about their own experiences with aged relatives. Perhaps, as the population ages and more people confront the consequences, the stories our culture tells itself have evolved to include more old people, more caregivers. Or maybe I just want that to be true.

“Do not go see this,” my movie-going buddy had been warned, probably because her mother has dementia and friends who had seen the film wanted to spare her. I know some people found “Amour” too slow-paced or claustrophobic — like many elderly couples’ lives, it basically takes place in four rooms — or too grim. (If you’ve seen it, tell us what you thought.)

If you’re a full-time caregiver or you’re coping with a relative with dementia, perhaps you would prefer to spend your 2 hours 7 minutes of precious time off watching something funny. Escapism has its virtues.

But I found “Amour” unflinching and provocative and beautiful.

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: The Brutal Truth of 'Amour'

It has been a few days since I left the movie theater in a bit of a daze, and I’m still thinking about “Amour.”

So much of this already much-honored film rings utterly true: the way a long-married Parisian couple’s daily routines, their elegant life of books and music and art, can be upended in a moment. The tender care that Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) provides for Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) as multiple strokes claim her body and her mind, and the inexorable way that care wears them both down. Their withdrawal into a proud dyad that seeks and accepts little help from outsiders, even family. “We’ve always coped, your mother and I,” Georges tells their daughter.

The writer and director Michael Haneke’s previous movies, which I haven’t seen, tend to be described as shocking, violent, even punitive. “Amour,” which Times critic Manohla Dargis called a masterpiece, includes one brief spasm of violence, but the movie remains restrained, not graphic. It’s brutal only because life, and death, can be brutal.

Is popular culture paying more attention to aging and caregiving? In the last couple of years, I have written about these subjects surfacing in a YouTube series (“Ruth & Erica”), in movies like “The Iron Lady,” in novels like Walter Mosley’s “The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey.”

A couple of weeks back, watching a play called “The Other Place,” starring the remarkable Laurie Metcalfe, I suddenly realized that the dynamic physician and businesswoman onstage had some sort of early-onset dementia. Dementia seems a particularly popular subject, in fact. Intrinsically dramatic, it suffuses the Mosley novel and Alice LaPlante’s “Turn of Mind,” and some of my favorite movies about aging, “Away From Her,” “Iris” and “The Savages.”

“Kings Point,” Sari Gilman’s compelling documentary about a retirement community in Florida where nobody seemed to expect to grow old, just won an Oscar nomination for best short-subject documentary and will be shown on HBO in March. And “Amour,” which won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, is up for five Academy Awards, including best picture, best director and a best actress nomination for the 85-year-old Ms. Riva. (Academy voters: Just give it to her.)

A number of these artists, Mr. Haneke included, have spoken about their own experiences with aged relatives. Perhaps, as the population ages and more people confront the consequences, the stories our culture tells itself have evolved to include more old people, more caregivers. Or maybe I just want that to be true.

“Do not go see this,” my movie-going buddy had been warned, probably because her mother has dementia and friends who had seen the film wanted to spare her. I know some people found “Amour” too slow-paced or claustrophobic — like many elderly couples’ lives, it basically takes place in four rooms — or too grim. (If you’ve seen it, tell us what you thought.)

If you’re a full-time caregiver or you’re coping with a relative with dementia, perhaps you would prefer to spend your 2 hours 7 minutes of precious time off watching something funny. Escapism has its virtues.

But I found “Amour” unflinching and provocative and beautiful.

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

Storm and Pension Costs Leave Verizon With Bigger Loss





Verizon Communications is still adding plenty of customers and selling a lot of phones, but the impact from Hurricane Sandy and pension costs sank the company’s quarterly earnings.


The company on Tuesday reported a fourth-quarter loss of $4.22 billion, or $1.48 a share, more than double the loss a year ago. Damages from Hurricane Sandy cost 7 cents a share, and pension charges reduced earnings by $1.55 a share, Verizon said. Revenue climbed to $30.05 billion, a 5.7 percent increase compared with a year ago.


Analysts had expected adjusted earnings of 50 cents a share, compared to actual adjusted earnings of 45 cents a share, and revenue of $29.75 billion, according to Thomson Reuters.


“Verizon seized growth opportunities in the fourth quarter to cap a year of solid progress across the entire business,” said Lowell McAdam, chief executive of Verizon, in a statement. “We delivered a total return of 13.2 percent to shareholders in 2012, and we enter 2013 ready to accelerate the momentum we’ve achieved and create significant shareholder value in the years to come.”


The company, based in New York, said that its wireless business was growing. Over the quarter, it sold 9.8 million smartphones, compared with 7.7 million in the same quarter a year ago, and added 2.1 million contract subscribers, the most valuable type of customer, versus 1.2 million a year ago. The company said its new shared data plans helped increase the money it made from subscribers; average monthly revenue from each account grew 6.6 percent to $146.80.


Verizon Wireless, the largest American wireless carrier, is leading the race to build out its fourth-generation network, called LTE, which is faster and more efficient than its predecessor. The company has deployed LTE in 476 cities; AT&T, the second-biggest American carrier, is in a distant second with 135 cities.


Read More..

Japan Makes Overture to China in Islands DisputeJapan Makes Overture to China in Islands Dispute





BEIJING — A member of Japan’s coalition government arrived in Beijing on Tuesday carrying a letter for the head of the Communist Party, Xi Jinping, from the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to try to help calm the escalating dispute between the two countries over contested islands in the East China Sea, Japanese officials said.




Separately, the Philippines announced Tuesday that it would formally challenge China’s claims in the South China Sea before a United Nations tribunal that oversees the Convention on the Law of the Sea.


The Philippines has been in bitter argument with China since last spring, when China effectively took control of an island in the South China Sea known in the Philippines as Scarborough Shoal, and as Huangyan island in China.


The Filipino secretary of foreign affairs, Albert del Rosario, said in Manila that China’s claim to much of the South China Sea — an area China refers to as the nine-dash line — was “unlawful.” China has “interfered with the lawful exercise by the Philippines of its rights within its legitimate maritime zones,” Mr. del Rosario said.


He stressed that resorting to the tribunal meant that the Philippines could “present our case against China and defend our national interest and maritime domain before an independent international tribunal.” International law, he said, will be “the great equalizer.”


China has consistently said it will not agree to arbitration by an international tribunal. Legal experts said a matter brought before such a panel required negotiations, and without China’s presence it was unlikely that a proceeding could take place.


“This is what I don’t see taking place,” said Jay L. Batongbacal, an assistant professor of law at the University of the Philippines in Manila.


A Chinese expert on the Asia-Pacific region, Professor Su Hao of China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing, agreed with that assessment.


Both China and the Philippines needed to agree on arbitration for the case to proceed, said Professor Su. “The Philippines action is ineffective,” he said. “It’s making trouble out of nothing.”


Aside from China and the Philippines, three other countries in Southeast Asia — Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam — make claims to islands in the South China Sea. So does Taiwan.


China’s increasingly aggressive claims in the South China Sea, and the tensions with Japan in the East China Sea, have raised concerns in the Obama administration at the very moment when Washington has indicated that it plans to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.


The Philippines, an American ally, has felt particularly aggrieved because China has kept patrol boats in the waters around the Scarborough Shoal, preventing Filipino fishermen from using their traditional fishing grounds in a lagoon within the shoal.


Washington brokered an agreement last spring that called for the Philippines and China to withdraw government vessels from the area, American officials said. But after withdrawing its vessels, China sent surveillance ships back, and stretched a cable across the mouth of the lagoon, preventing Filipino fishermen from venturing there, the officials said.


The Philippines plans to contest all of China’s claims in the South China Sea, not just its claims on Scarborough Shoal, Mr. del Rosario said. By some estimates, the nine-dash line that China draws in the South China Sea as part of its territory incorporates about 80 percent of the sea.


In the dispute between Japan and China, it was not immediately clear whether the visiting Japanese politician — Natsuo Yamaguchi, the head of the New Komeiti Party, a party considered less hawkish than the ruling Liberal Democratic Party — would meet with top Chinese officials.


An official of the China Japan Friendship Association, which appeared to be handling Mr. Yamaguchi’s visit, said after his arrival that the schedule for Mr. Yamaguchi during his stay in Beijing had not been finalized.


Mr. Yamaguchi’s visit comes against a drumbeat of bellicose commentary in the Chinese state-run press about the need for China’s military to prepare for war, and criticism of Mr. Abe for trying to form alliances with China’s neighbors in Southeast Asia.


The feud over the islands, known as Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan, reached a dangerous new level nearly two weeks risks ago. when both Japan and China scrambled jet fighters over the East China Sea. The United States is obligated under a security treaty with Japan to defend the islands, which were handed back to Japan by Washington in 1972 as part of the return of Okinawa.


In a speech in Hong Kong on Wednesday, a former Chinese diplomat, Ruan Zongze, said China wanted a peaceful resolution of border issues.


“We are absolutely committed to peaceful resolution, peaceful dialogue,” said Dr. Ruan, a vice president at the China Institute of International Studies, a research group in Beijing that is affiliated with the Foreign Ministry.


Dr. Ruan, a former senior diplomat at the Chinese embassies in Washington and London and the author of a new book in Chinese last month on the decision-making process in Washington, said the Chinese military remained under the control of the Communist Party.


“Even if the military wants to be more aggressive, the party will push the brake,” he said in an interview before his speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong.


Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Hong Kong, and Bree Feng contributed research from Beijing.



This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 22, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the timing of the Philippines’ argument with China over its claims in the South China Sea, and the timing of a temporary resolution brokered by the United States. The standoff and the resolution both took place last spring, not last summer.



Read More..

How M.I.T. Ensnared a Hacker, Bucking a Freewheeling Culture



Months earlier, the mysterious visitor had used the school’s computer network to begin copying millions of research articles belonging to Jstor, the nonprofit organization that sells subscription access to universities.


The visitor was clever — switching identifications to avoid being blocked by M.I.T.’s security system — but eventually the university believed it had shut down the intrusion, then spent weeks reassuring furious officials at Jstor that the downloading had been stopped.


However, on Jan. 3, 2011, according to internal M.I.T. documents obtained by The New York Times, the university was informed that the intruder was back — this time downloading documents very slowly, with a new method of access, so as not to alert the university’s security experts.


“The user was now not using any of the typical methods to access MITnet to avoid all usual methods of being disabled,” concluded Mike Halsall, a senior security analyst at M.I.T., referring to the university’s computer network.


What the university officials did not know at the time was that the intruder was Aaron Swartz, one of the shining lights of the technology world and a leading advocate for open access to information, with a fellowship down the road at Harvard.


Mr. Swartz’s actions presented M.I.T. with a crucial choice: the university could try to plug the weak spot in its network or it could try to catch the hacker, then unknown.


The decision — to treat the downloading as a continuing crime to be investigated rather than a security threat that had been stopped — led to a two-day cat-and-mouse game with Mr. Swartz and, ultimately, to charges of computer and wire fraud. Mr. Swartz, 26, who faced a potentially lengthy prison term and whose trial was to begin in April, was found dead of an apparent suicide in his Brooklyn apartment on Jan. 11.


Mr. Swartz’s supporters called M.I.T.’s decision a striking step for an institution that prides itself on operating an open computer network and open campus — the home of a freewheeling programming culture. M.I.T.’s defenders viewed the intrusion as a computer crime that needed to be taken seriously.


M.I.T. declined to confirm any of these details or comment on its actions during the investigation. The university’s president, L. Rafael Reif, said last week, “It pains me to think that M.I.T. played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.” He appointed a professor, Hal Abelson, to analyze M.I.T.’s conduct in the investigation. To comment now, a spokeswoman for the university said, would be “to get ahead of that analysis.”


Early on Jan. 4, at 8:08 a.m., according to Mr. Halsall’s detailed internal timeline of the events, a security expert was able to locate that new method of access precisely — the wiring in a network closet in the basement of Building 16, a nondescript rectangular structure full of classrooms and labs that, like many buildings on campus, is kept unlocked.


In the closet, Mr. Halsall wrote, there was a netbook, or small portable computer, “hidden under a box,” connected to an external hard drive that was receiving the downloaded documents.


At 9:44 a.m. the M.I.T. police were called in; by 10:30 a.m., the Cambridge police were en route, and by 11 a.m., Michael Pickett, a Secret Service agent and expert on computer crime, was on the scene. On his recommendation, a surveillance camera was installed in the closet and a second laptop was connected to the network switch to track the traffic.


There may have been a reason for the university’s response. According to the timeline, the tech team detected brief activity from China on the netbook — something that occurs all the time but still represents potential trouble.


E-mails among M.I.T. officials that Tuesday in January 2011 highlight the pressures university officials felt over a problem they thought they had solved. Ann J. Wolpert, the director of libraries, wrote to Ellen Finnie Duranceau, the official who was receiving Jstor’s complaints: “Has there ever been a situation similar to this when we brought in campus police? The magnitude, systematic and careful nature of the abuses could be construed as approaching criminal action. Certainly, that’s how Jstor views it.”


Some of Mr. Swartz’s defenders argue that collecting and providing evidence to the government without a warrant may have violated federal and state wiretapping statutes.


John Schwartz contributed reporting.



This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 21, 2013

An earlier version of this article misquoted part of statement by a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Referring to a review of M.I.T.’s conduct that was commissioned by the university’s president, she said to comment now on the events surrounding Aaron Swartz’s arrest would be “to get ahead of that analysis,” not “to get ahead of that investigation.” 



Read More..

Well: A Check on Physicals

“Go Beyond Your Father’s Annual Physical. Live Longer, Feel Better”

This sales pitch for the Princeton Longevity Center’s “comprehensive exam” promises, for $5,300, to take “your health beyond the annual physical.” But it is far from certain whether this all-day checkup, and others less inclusive, make a meaningful difference to health or merely provide reassurance to the worried well.

Among physicians, researchers and insurers, there is an ongoing debate as to whether regular checkups really reduce the chances of becoming seriously ill or dying of an illness that would have been treatable had it been detected sooner.

No one questions the importance of regular exams for well babies, children and pregnant women, and the protective value of specific exams, like a Pap smear for sexually active women and a colonoscopy for people over 50. But arguments against the annual physical for all adults have been fueled by a growing number of studies that failed to find a medical benefit.

Some experts note that when something seemingly abnormal is picked up during a routine exam, the result is psychological distress for the patient, further testing that may do more harm than good, and increased medical expenses.

“Part of the problem of looking for abnormalities in perfectly well people is that rather a lot of us have them,” Dr. Margaret McCartney, a Scottish physician, wrote in The Daily Mail, a British newspaper. “Most of them won’t do us any harm.”

She cited the medical saga of Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada. A CT scan performed as part of a checkup in 2005 revealed two small lumps in Mr. Mulroney’s lungs. Following surgery, he developed an inflamed pancreas, which landed him in intensive care. He spent six weeks in the hospital, then was readmitted a month later for removal of a cyst on his pancreas caused by the inflammation.

The lumps on his lungs, by the way, were benign. But what if, you may ask, Mr. Mulroney’s lumps had been cancer? Might not the discovery during a routine exam have saved his life?

Logic notwithstanding, the question of benefits versus risks from routine exams can be answered only by well-designed scientific research.

Defining the value of a routine checkup — determining who should get one and how often — is especially important now, because next year the Affordable Care Act will add some 30 million people to the roster of the medically insured, many of whom will be eligible for government-mandated preventive care through an annual exam.

Dr. Ateev Mehrotra of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who directed a study of annual physicals in 2007, reported that an estimated 44.4 million adults in the United States undergo preventive exams each year. He concluded that if every adult were to receive such an exam, the health care system would be saddled with 145 million more visits every year, consuming 41 percent of all the time primary care doctors spend with patients.

There is already a shortage of such doctors and not nearly enough other health professionals — physician assistants and nurse practitioners — to meet future needs. If you think the wait to see your doctor is too long now, you may want to stock up on some epic novels to keep you occupied in the waiting room in the future.

Few would challenge the axiom that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Lacking incontrovertible evidence for the annual physical, this logic has long been used to justify it:

¶ If a thorough exam and conversation about your well-being alerts your doctor to a health problem that is best addressed sooner rather than later, isn’t that better than waiting until the problem becomes too troublesome to ignore?

¶ What if you have a potentially fatal ailment, like heart disease or cancer, that may otherwise be undetected until it is well advanced or incurable?

¶ And wouldn’t it help to uncover risk factors like elevated blood sugar or high cholesterol that could prevent an incipient ailment if they are reversed before causing irreparable damage?

Even if there is no direct medical benefit, many doctors say that having their patients visit once a year helps to maintain a meaningful relationship and alert doctors to changes in patients’ lives that could affect health. It is also an opportunity to give patients needed immunizations and to remind them to get their eyes, teeth and skin checked.

But the long-sacrosanct recommendation that everyone should have an annual physical was challenged yet again recently by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen.

The research team, led by Dr. Lasse T. Krogsboll, analyzed the findings of 14 scientifically designed clinical trials of routine checkups that followed participants for up to 22 years. The team found no benefit to the risk of death or serious illness among seemingly healthy people who had general checkups, compared with people who did not. Their findings were published in November in BMJ (formerly The British Medical Journal).

In introducing their analysis, the Danish team noted that routine exams consist of “combinations of screening tests, few of which have been adequately studied in randomized trials.” Among possible harms from health checks, they listed “overdiagnosis, overtreatment, distress or injury from invasive follow-up tests, distress due to false positive test results, false reassurance due to false negative test results, adverse psychosocial effects due to labeling, and difficulties with getting insurance.”

Furthermore, they wrote, “general health checks are likely to be expensive and may result in lost opportunities to improve other areas of health care.”

In summarizing their results, the team said, “We did not find an effect on total or cause-specific mortality from general health checks in adult populations unselected for risk factors or disease. For the causes of death most likely to be influenced by health checks, cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, there were no reductions either.”

What, then, should people do to monitor their health?

Whenever you see your doctor, for any reason, make sure your blood pressure is checked. If a year or more has elapsed since your last blood test, get a new one.

Keep immunizations up to date, and get the screening tests specifically recommended based on your age, gender and known risk factors, including your family and personal medical history.

And if you develop a symptom, like unexplained pain, shortness of breath, digestive problems, a lump, a skin lesion that doesn’t heal, or unusual fatigue or depression, consult your doctor without delay. Seek further help if the initial diagnosis and treatment fails to bring relief.

Read More..

Well: A Check on Physicals

“Go Beyond Your Father’s Annual Physical. Live Longer, Feel Better”

This sales pitch for the Princeton Longevity Center’s “comprehensive exam” promises, for $5,300, to take “your health beyond the annual physical.” But it is far from certain whether this all-day checkup, and others less inclusive, make a meaningful difference to health or merely provide reassurance to the worried well.

Among physicians, researchers and insurers, there is an ongoing debate as to whether regular checkups really reduce the chances of becoming seriously ill or dying of an illness that would have been treatable had it been detected sooner.

No one questions the importance of regular exams for well babies, children and pregnant women, and the protective value of specific exams, like a Pap smear for sexually active women and a colonoscopy for people over 50. But arguments against the annual physical for all adults have been fueled by a growing number of studies that failed to find a medical benefit.

Some experts note that when something seemingly abnormal is picked up during a routine exam, the result is psychological distress for the patient, further testing that may do more harm than good, and increased medical expenses.

“Part of the problem of looking for abnormalities in perfectly well people is that rather a lot of us have them,” Dr. Margaret McCartney, a Scottish physician, wrote in The Daily Mail, a British newspaper. “Most of them won’t do us any harm.”

She cited the medical saga of Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada. A CT scan performed as part of a checkup in 2005 revealed two small lumps in Mr. Mulroney’s lungs. Following surgery, he developed an inflamed pancreas, which landed him in intensive care. He spent six weeks in the hospital, then was readmitted a month later for removal of a cyst on his pancreas caused by the inflammation.

The lumps on his lungs, by the way, were benign. But what if, you may ask, Mr. Mulroney’s lumps had been cancer? Might not the discovery during a routine exam have saved his life?

Logic notwithstanding, the question of benefits versus risks from routine exams can be answered only by well-designed scientific research.

Defining the value of a routine checkup — determining who should get one and how often — is especially important now, because next year the Affordable Care Act will add some 30 million people to the roster of the medically insured, many of whom will be eligible for government-mandated preventive care through an annual exam.

Dr. Ateev Mehrotra of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who directed a study of annual physicals in 2007, reported that an estimated 44.4 million adults in the United States undergo preventive exams each year. He concluded that if every adult were to receive such an exam, the health care system would be saddled with 145 million more visits every year, consuming 41 percent of all the time primary care doctors spend with patients.

There is already a shortage of such doctors and not nearly enough other health professionals — physician assistants and nurse practitioners — to meet future needs. If you think the wait to see your doctor is too long now, you may want to stock up on some epic novels to keep you occupied in the waiting room in the future.

Few would challenge the axiom that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Lacking incontrovertible evidence for the annual physical, this logic has long been used to justify it:

¶ If a thorough exam and conversation about your well-being alerts your doctor to a health problem that is best addressed sooner rather than later, isn’t that better than waiting until the problem becomes too troublesome to ignore?

¶ What if you have a potentially fatal ailment, like heart disease or cancer, that may otherwise be undetected until it is well advanced or incurable?

¶ And wouldn’t it help to uncover risk factors like elevated blood sugar or high cholesterol that could prevent an incipient ailment if they are reversed before causing irreparable damage?

Even if there is no direct medical benefit, many doctors say that having their patients visit once a year helps to maintain a meaningful relationship and alert doctors to changes in patients’ lives that could affect health. It is also an opportunity to give patients needed immunizations and to remind them to get their eyes, teeth and skin checked.

But the long-sacrosanct recommendation that everyone should have an annual physical was challenged yet again recently by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen.

The research team, led by Dr. Lasse T. Krogsboll, analyzed the findings of 14 scientifically designed clinical trials of routine checkups that followed participants for up to 22 years. The team found no benefit to the risk of death or serious illness among seemingly healthy people who had general checkups, compared with people who did not. Their findings were published in November in BMJ (formerly The British Medical Journal).

In introducing their analysis, the Danish team noted that routine exams consist of “combinations of screening tests, few of which have been adequately studied in randomized trials.” Among possible harms from health checks, they listed “overdiagnosis, overtreatment, distress or injury from invasive follow-up tests, distress due to false positive test results, false reassurance due to false negative test results, adverse psychosocial effects due to labeling, and difficulties with getting insurance.”

Furthermore, they wrote, “general health checks are likely to be expensive and may result in lost opportunities to improve other areas of health care.”

In summarizing their results, the team said, “We did not find an effect on total or cause-specific mortality from general health checks in adult populations unselected for risk factors or disease. For the causes of death most likely to be influenced by health checks, cardiovascular mortality and cancer mortality, there were no reductions either.”

What, then, should people do to monitor their health?

Whenever you see your doctor, for any reason, make sure your blood pressure is checked. If a year or more has elapsed since your last blood test, get a new one.

Keep immunizations up to date, and get the screening tests specifically recommended based on your age, gender and known risk factors, including your family and personal medical history.

And if you develop a symptom, like unexplained pain, shortness of breath, digestive problems, a lump, a skin lesion that doesn’t heal, or unusual fatigue or depression, consult your doctor without delay. Seek further help if the initial diagnosis and treatment fails to bring relief.

Read More..

How M.I.T. Ensnared a Hacker, Bucking a Freewheeling Culture



Months earlier, the mysterious visitor had used the school’s computer network to begin copying millions of research articles belonging to Jstor, the nonprofit organization that sells subscription access to universities.


The visitor was clever — switching identifications to avoid being blocked by M.I.T.’s security system — but eventually the university believed it had shut down the intrusion, then spent weeks reassuring furious officials at Jstor that the downloading had been stopped.


However, on Jan. 3, 2011, according to internal M.I.T. documents obtained by The New York Times, the university was informed that the intruder was back — this time downloading documents very slowly, with a new method of access, so as not to alert the university’s security experts.


“The user was now not using any of the typical methods to access MITnet to avoid all usual methods of being disabled,” concluded Mike Halsall, a senior security analyst at M.I.T., referring to the university’s computer network.


What the university officials did not know at the time was that the intruder was Aaron Swartz, one of the shining lights of the technology world and a leading advocate for open access to information, with a fellowship down the road at Harvard.


Mr. Swartz’s actions presented M.I.T. with a crucial choice: the university could try to plug the weak spot in its network or it could try to catch the hacker, then unknown.


The decision — to treat the downloading as a continuing crime to be investigated rather than a security threat that had been stopped — led to a two-day cat-and-mouse game with Mr. Swartz and, ultimately, to charges of computer and wire fraud. Mr. Swartz, 26, who faced a potentially lengthy prison term and whose trial was to begin in April, was found dead of an apparent suicide in his Brooklyn apartment on Jan. 11.


Mr. Swartz’s supporters called M.I.T.’s decision a striking step for an institution that prides itself on operating an open computer network and open campus — the home of a freewheeling programming culture. M.I.T.’s defenders viewed the intrusion as a computer crime that needed to be taken seriously.


M.I.T. declined to confirm any of these details or comment on its actions during the investigation. The university’s president, L. Rafael Reif, said last week, “It pains me to think that M.I.T. played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.” He appointed a professor, Hal Abelson, to analyze M.I.T.’s conduct in the investigation. To comment now, a spokeswoman for the university said, would be “to get ahead of that analysis.”


Early on Jan. 4, at 8:08 a.m., according to Mr. Halsall’s detailed internal timeline of the events, a security expert was able to locate that new method of access precisely — the wiring in a network closet in the basement of Building 16, a nondescript rectangular structure full of classrooms and labs that, like many buildings on campus, is kept unlocked.


In the closet, Mr. Halsall wrote, there was a netbook, or small portable computer, “hidden under a box,” connected to an external hard drive that was receiving the downloaded documents.


At 9:44 a.m. the M.I.T. police were called in; by 10:30 a.m., the Cambridge police were en route, and by 11 a.m., Michael Pickett, a Secret Service agent and expert on computer crime, was on the scene. On his recommendation, a surveillance camera was installed in the closet and a second laptop was connected to the network switch to track the traffic.


There may have been a reason for the university’s response. According to the timeline, the tech team detected brief activity from China on the netbook — something that occurs all the time but still represents potential trouble.


E-mails among M.I.T. officials that Tuesday in January 2011 highlight the pressures university officials felt over a problem they thought they had solved. Ann J. Wolpert, the director of libraries, wrote to Ellen Finnie Duranceau, the official who was receiving Jstor’s complaints: “Has there ever been a situation similar to this when we brought in campus police? The magnitude, systematic and careful nature of the abuses could be construed as approaching criminal action. Certainly, that’s how Jstor views it.”


Some of Mr. Swartz’s defenders argue that collecting and providing evidence to the government without a warrant may have violated federal and state wiretapping statutes.


John Schwartz contributed reporting.



This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 21, 2013

An earlier version of this article misquoted part of statement by a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Referring to a review of M.I.T.’s conduct that was commissioned by the university’s president, she said to comment now on the events surrounding Aaron Swartz’s arrest would be “to get ahead of that analysis,” not “to get ahead of that investigation.” 



Read More..

The Lede Blog: Bulgarian Politician Faces Off With Gunman During Televised Conference

A man climbed onstage and attempted to fire a gas pistol Saturday at the leader of the country’s ethnic Turkish political party while he was giving a speech at his party’s annual conference in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria.

The gun misfired, according to a BBC report citing Bulgarian officials, and Ahmed Dogan, the leader of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, was not harmed. Video of the incident shows Mr. Dogan pushing the gunman’s hand, then diving away as other people at the conference wrestle the man to the floor, then punch and kick him repeatedly. The gun, a small gas pistol, lies nearby at the feet of shocked onlookers.

“A gas pistol is a nonlethal weapon used for self-defense,” The Associated Press reported, “but experts say when fired from close range it can cause life-threatening injuries.”

The gunman was arrested, the news agency said, identifying him as “25-year-old Oktai Enimehmedov, a Bulgarian national and ethnic Turk, from the coastal city of Burgas.” The motive for the attack was not immediately clear. The report said the assailant was also carrying two knives.

Mr. Dogan’s party represents ethnic Turks and other Muslims, according to Reuters, who make up “12 percent of Bulgaria’s 7.3 million-strong population.”

Read More..