Monday Morning Mentions: Dec 21st, 2020

With all the talk about the latest developments regarding the COVID-19 vaccine, there seems to be more questions than answers in the minds of the general public. 

For myself, I have a fairly extensive range of clinical experience. I've worked in hospitals and clinics (among other places) since I was nineteen, but even I was fixated on one particular point: this vaccine seemed to make it to public use awfully quickly. 

The way I saw it, I felt like the companies involved in its development may have cut some corners in their efforts to get the vaccine out as soon as possible. It never even occurred to me to consider the sort of resources and manpower behind it. It was an "all hands on deck" sort of pursuit, and what it left us with was multiple options for a viable and effective vaccine. 

This edition of Monday Morning Mentions belongs to someone with whom I've spoken at length, in the past, and has recently received the COVID-19 vaccine himself. 

A couple of years ago, I interviewed former Cardinals, Mets, and Braves first baseman-outfielder Mark Hamilton, who was about to complete his medical degree and take the boards. Now he's an internal medicine resident and specialist in interventional radiology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, based in New York. Dr. Hamilton studied neuroscience at Tulane University, in New Orleans, as an undergraduate. 

He was kind enough to once again share a bit of his time and insights, answering a few basic questions about the COVID-19 vaccine. 

Clinton Riddle: I was hoping to ask your thoughts on a few details that have concerned me about these vaccines. My first concern is the time it took to get them to the market. Does it seem to you that maybe these companies might have cut some corners in order to rush these out to people who badly need them? 

Dr. Mark Hamilton: No. I do not believe corners were cut. What we saw was an arms race. Vaccines, unfortunately, have been an extremely unprofitable endeavor in the past 30 years. The profitable endeavors have been the next drug for chronic conditions like hypertension. As such, high powered pharma companies have simply not prioritized vaccine research. This pandemic and the public and private money invested into developing a vaccine has changed that paradigm. 

Theses companies dropped everything they were doing and put all resources into development. It’s simply amazing what unlimited resources can do. 

The vaccine itself is extremely simple and something people have been wanting to do for years. The challenge was stabilizing it for delivery. The science is high-school level. They have since animal tested and human tested. And FDA Phase 1 and 2 tested. 

The only step that was skipped was Phase 3, which specifically takes time by design. I believe it to be safe, and its simplicity, to me, makes that even more likely. 

The vaccine itself is just a fat membrane around a completely naturally-occurring product. It causes the body to produce the protein from the virus that the neutralizing antibodies need to be produced against. Extremely precise. Guaranteed to give the outcome desired. 

Can I say what the vaccine impacts are ten years down the road? No. But I would expect much, and I will say that contracting COVID means the same genetic material from the vaccine enters your body anyway (just with the rest of the virus and risks that come with infection). 

CR: Interesting. So it stimulates the production of components of the immune response which will show an affinity to the proteins in the viral shell of this strain of COVID, thereby causing those vaccinated to develop antibodies?

Dr. H: Correct. It delivers the genetic code for a single protein that is on the virus and make your own cells make that single protein. Your body recognizes it as “non-self”, and attacks it.

That attack stimulates the immune systems and results in durable antibodies against that specific protein. So if you come in contact with the virus, your immune cells already know and have antibodies against the protein on the virus surface, thus preventing full-blown infection before it begins. 

CR: It sounds astoundingly simple.

Dr. H: And they specifically chose the protein that binds the virus to our cells. So now the virus cannot enter cells very well. It’s been a pipe dream for decades to do vaccines this way, but the development would cost billions and the result was simply not profitable enough to invest in it. Until now.

Incentivize Big Pharma, and they deliver.

CR: Amazing. Did this require protein sequencing to be carried out first, or is the surface protein of this strain of coronavirus similar enough to other forms of the virus?

Dr. H: Yes. Sequencing first. But that had been underway since the virus was identified. This surface protein is unique to COVID (SARS-COV2). But the virus is very similar to SARS from 2001. 

Reverse sequencing is easy. We’ve had that tech since the 1940-50s. 

CR: True but I thought it took a lot longer. I had no idea.

Dr. H: Not really. Sequencing like this is simple. We had the genetics sequences within one week of identifying the virus as novel. 

CR: Wow

Dr. H: Selecting a target and comparing it to prior viruses took a bit longer. But not that much time.

You just had to know what you were looking for. At first, in China, they had no idea what the hell was causing the infection. Took longer to identify the virus itself than sequence it and computer model it’s proteins.

CR: With its similarity to SARS c. 2001, was this an offshoot of that particular strain?

Dr. H: Hard to say. It’s a coronavirus. There are thousands of them. Only a few impact humans.

CR: True. Did they develop a vaccine for SARS? I can’t remember. Seemed like it barely touched us, comparatively.

Dr. H: No. Tried and failed. But they only tried conventional methods. Which are harder. More guess work. The big issue was figuring out mRNA delivery and stabilization. But like I said, before (COVID-19), it wasn’t profitable to figure that part out. Vaccines are not money makers. You get one shot, and then you're done. Hypertension drugs (for example) you take everyday for the rest of your life

CR: Makes one wonder how many diseases we could vaccinate against, if money weren't the primary impetus.

Dr. H: I feel this will open many doors. I hope, at least. But again, they won’t bother if it won’t make them money...a sad reality.

These companies can not only say they are the ones who solved the problem, but a crazy amount of public and private money was given to them to solve it. (They) demonstrated that they could do something others couldn’t. 

(For more information on vaccine development, human immunological response, and other details involved with the research and development of new treatments, a good place to start is Merck Online, which covers a broad range of medical topics. It's long been a go-to for young doctors and medical students, and most definitely an old favorite of mine. 

(Also, fda.gov released a fact sheet regarding the COVID-19 vaccine, and what prospective recipients need to know before receiving it. ) 

In Other Words: Jack Clark and 'The Accusation'

AUGUST 9^th, 2013-Well, here we go again.

Former ML outfielder-first baseman Jack Clark, in his first week of co-hosting an afternoon drive show on St. Louis's WGNU (920 AM), decided to stir the PED pot a bit.

After his partner on the show, Kevin Slaten, mentioned the possibility that former Cardinals first baseman, current LA Angels' DL denizen and living legend Albert Pujols had used steroids in the past, Clark responded in the resoundingly affirmative:

“I know for a fact he was. The trainer that worked with him, threw him batting practice from Kansas City, that worked him out every day, basically told me that's what he did.”

The four-time ML All-Star Clark, who played with the Cards from 1985-87, has now twice made this claim in his first week on the show. Slaten didn't even finish his statement about Pujols' alleged use of steroids before Clark jumped in. Commenting on trainer Chris Mihlfeld, who worked with Pujols (as well as Jason Grimsley, who was busted after being caught shipping PEDs directly to his own home), Clark said the following:

“(Mihlfeld) had told me what he was doing with 'Poolie' (Pujols, in lame baseball nickname-speak). He threw him batting practice, worked him out, shot him up, all that stuff.”

OK. Let's start with the character of the man making said statement.

Clark was not one to shy away from expressing his opinions during his MLB career. For that matter, he seemed to engender negative feelings from his teammates from time to time.

In his time with the San Francisco Giants in the early-80's, Clark often complained about the playing conditions at old Candlestick Park. In fairness, I remember The 'Stick: it was cold, windy and damp. Frequently. But this sort of attitude, along with concerns from manager Frank Robinson and the front office that he was, perhaps, 'milking' his injuries, led to his trade to the Cards in 1985 for SS Jose Uribe, pitcher Dave LaPoint and 1B-OFs David Green and Gary Rajsich.

In 1987, Clark had managed to get on SS Ozzie Smith's bad side. In 1988 he had signed a two-year contract with the New York Yankees, but while he enjoyed playing for manager Billy Martin, he didn't much care for Martin's replacement Lou Pinella. At the end of '88, he was on his way out of The Big Apple and heading to San Diego, traded with Pat Clements for Ps Lance McCullers and Jimmy Jones, and OF Stan Jefferson. He took one last shot at NY and the American League, in general, saying “I hate that damn league. Every game lasts 3 ½ to 4 hours. No wonder the fans are bored over there.”

In San Diego, Clark's newest target for criticism was OF Tony Gwynn (of all people). Clark felt that Gwynn was more concerned about his batting average than he was about winning, and that he often bunted in situations which seemed inappropriate in order to preserve said average. “No one bothers Tony Gwynn because he wins batting titles, but the Padres finish fourth or fifth ever year”, said Jack the Ripper, ostensibly a nickname gained from his run-producing talent, though it could just have easily come from his frequent character attacks on other players.

As much as Clark (supposedly) hated the AL, he returned there in 1991 when he signed with the Boston Red Sox. Again, he took aim at one of his former comrades:

“(Padres manager) Greg Riddoch is a bad, bad man, and he's sneaky. He's a snake. Well, not just a snake, but a s-s-s-n-n-n-a-ke.”

...as well as firing off a few rounds at the Padres' fans:

“Everything that they should cheer for, they'd boo for, and everything they should boo for they'd cheer for...Tony, he's perfect for them. He just plays the whole thing up, and the town is so stupid that they can't see (emphasis added).”

It was around this time that Gwynn decided he'd had quite enough:

“Let's talk about him walking 104 times, being a #4 hitter. Let's talk about his not flying on team flights. Let's talk about him getting booted out of games on a called strike three.”

Clark had his own faults, beyond his need to point out the flaws of others. In 1992 his lavish spending habits led him into bankruptcy, driven primarily by his obsession with luxury cars. His bankruptcy filing stated that he was paying on 17 car notes at the same time. Seventeen. He would sometimes get bored with a car and simply get rid of it in favor of a new and different one. In the end, he lost his home (valued at approximately 2.4 million) and his drag-racing business, but was once again financially stable by the late-90's.

This leads us to thirteen years ago. In 2000, he was working as hitting coach for the LA Dodgers. It was in this season that he supposedly was told by the trainer Mihlfeld that he was giving Pujols steroids.

Now, the easiest flaw to point out in Clark's statement is that it's pure hearsay; just because Clark says that someone else said that so-and-so was being given steroids, that doesn't make it true. Granted, Mihlfeld was involved with Grimsley, who was most assuredly using PEDs. But this sort of 'guilt-by-association' strategy is what's being used against a number of former players even now, with reporters and fans alike making reckless assumptions (in some cases).

Beyond Clark's assertion that Mihlfeld said he gave steroids to the Angels first-sacker, what else does he have to offer to back up that claim? Not to mention this little tidbit, where he said:

“...basically told me that's what he did.”

“Basically told me...”. OK, so did Mihlfeld come out and say it, point-blank, or did he simply allude to the possibility that he might be doing so? Either he said it or he didn't. This 'basically' crap is close to slander, the way I see it. At first, Clark says that he was told by Mihlfeld that the trainer was giving Pujols steroids. The follow-up statement says “basically...”. So which is it?

For that matter, why are you bringing this up now? I would have to assume that your concern in this matter is that fair play and a clean game are paramount to the success and reputation of Major League Baseball. But if that's what you believe, then why are you coming out thirteen years after the fact with such an accusation, at a time in which you'd be hard-pressed to prove the the conversation even took place, about one of the biggest stars in the last 50 years? What could your motivation possibly be?

Actually, as I was researching for this post, writer Ray DeRousse had already written an excellent article about Clark's possible motivation for making such a (potentially) reckless comment. In this post, he noted that Clark seemed to be jealous of the success of both proven and suspected PED users, citing Clark's own words:

“They got the money, that's what they went for. But when they get off the juice and that stuff's not around, their body starts breaking down and obviously you start seeing some results go away...The greed...they juice up, they grab the money and it's just a free pass to steal is the way I look at it.”

Well, now. That certainly clears up some things, doesn't it? At least it gives some insight as to why Clark might feel the way he does, as well as the timing in which he's chosen to make his accusations.

Granted, there has been some suspicion about Pujols since his earlier days with the Cards, but never has he even been remotely linked with anything in the way of concrete evidence of PED use. Yes, he was associated with Mihlfeld, who was actually cleared from involvement in PED distribution back in 2006 when Brian McNamee was instead linked to the Grimsley affidavit as the guilty party in question. Deadspin.com, on June 8^th, 2006, also pointed the finger at Mihlfeld, going so far as to name Mihlfeld as the individual who connected Grimsley (and others) to a dealer who provided the players with “amphetamines, anabolic steroids and HGH”.

People in the sports media who play this sort of game, in which they may do no more than insinuate the guilt of a player, are on thin ice as soon as they start. Pujols has already stated in the press that he is planning to sue Clark and WGNU, as well.

Pujols told MLB.com:

“It is irresponsible and reckless for Jack Clark to have falsely accused me of using PEDs. My faith in Jesus Christ and my respect for this game are too important to me. I would never be able to look my wife or kids in the eye if I had done what this man is accusing me of.

"I know people are tired of athletes saying they are innocent, asking for the public to believe in them only to have their sins exposed later down the road. But I am not one of those athletes, and I will not stand to have my name, and my family's name, dragged through the mud."

Of course, these are just words. We've all seen the 'Indignant Major Leaguer' card played many times before, and it's a pretty tired approach at this point. All that will matter in the end is whether or not Pujols used PEDs, and following the progression (or lack, thereof) of the libel suit that Pujols plans to file could tell a great deal as to whether Clark was right. Remember: it's only libel if it isn't true.

And Pujols has, to our knowledge, never failed a drug test. It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.

(UPDATE: Early Saturday morning, insideSTL announced the firing of both Clark and Slaten. The company is doing its best to distance themselves from the former co-hosts, as well as their comments. Best of luck with that. )

Great American Ball Park, Great American Game

AUGUST 4th, 2013-I had the pleasure of spending a little time with an old Navy friend and his son, this evening, as the Cincinnati Reds took on the visiting St Louis Cardinals at the Great American Ball Park. My friend Jerry and his son Trey made the trip up from Florida, visiting Jerry's daughter Britney on the way, and were intent on catching a Reds game while they were up here.

 I've been to this park only once before; back in September 2011, I made the trip North to watch the Astros get creamed by Cincy. Of course, since our local minor-league affiliate was at the time connected to Houston, I was rooting for the beleaguered 'Stros. It was less than two weeks prior to this game that current 2B Jose Altuve had made his debut in The Show, and for me he and OF J.D. Martinez were the only reason I needed to show up.

Trey and Jerry

Altuve had made a meteoric (and somewhat unexpected rise) through the Astros system, having played for the Class A Lexington Legends in the South Atlantic League as recently as 2010 and producing a .308 BA with 11 homers and 45 RBIs in 94 games to go with his 39 SB and 75 runs. These were gaudy numbers for the short time he played in Class A ball, to be sure. Yet the odds, as well as the baseball pundits, were somewhat against him ever making even a minor impact in MLB. Being all of 5'5" probably didn't endear him to the scouting crowd. J.D. had owned SAL pitchers in '10, winning the batting title and pacing the league with a .362 average. He hasn't had the same luck as Altuve, yet.

In front of the "Original Nine" Mosaic

Returning to GABP for the first time since that 2011 game, I wasn't aware until shortly before game time that the Reds would be taking on St Louis, their despised division rivals. As I suspected would be the case, the game was sold out. We were fortunate to pass by a large family group who had 5 missing from their party, and as such were willing to hook us up with tickets. The alternative to this stroke of luck was standing-room only tickets at $12 a pop; hardly an acceptable option.

Anyway, as we made our way to our seats, it was nothing but a sea of red in the stands throughout the park. The vast majority of these red shirts were representing the home team, though there were some Cards jerseys to be found. The atmosphere was more akin to that of a playoff game, and the crowd of 41,000+ was hanging on every pitch and every play throughout the night. I even saw The Wave make a complete circuit around the stadium several times, uninterrupted. I figure that's the first time I've ever seen nearly everyone in a sellout game participate.

Tonight for the Reds, outstanding young lefty Tony Cingrani took to the mound to face off against veteran righy Jake Westbrook. The box score and recap can be found here; you really don't need me to go into all that. C Devin Mesoraco had two bombs in this game, while CF Shin-Soo Choo added one of his own, and the crowd went customarily nuts. Cingrani struggled a bit in the first inning, but ended up mitigating the damage somewhat, allowing 3 runs on 4 hits in 5 innings while striking out 7. The Ks are never surprising, when this kid's on the bump. Big-time talent, and one to watch for certain.

Anyway, it's hard to describe the feel of a game like this. This kind of thing has to be experienced, first-hand. I've been to so many games in the past, both at the major and minor-league level, where the fans all seemed like they had lapsed into a coma. This was far from the case, tonight. The way I've felt about baseball in recent months has been less than positive. There have been a number of reasons for that; part of it is due to general stress and anxiety over matters other than those related to the game. But this game tonight was, in a word, electrifying. Reds and Cards fans always crank it up a notch when their teams face off, and tonight was no exception. It was refreshing to see real, vibrant life in the stands, from first row field level to the highest rows of the upper deck.

I suppose it made such an impression on me because it's been so long since I've seen fans so into the game. I guess that's all I'm saying here. Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to others, but games such as the one tonight (even if it had little true bearing on the postseason) are not all that common. For me, they're even less so.

It was just nice to see. And it was the sort of jolt I so badly needed. Never hurts to be reminded why you love something so much. We all need that, from time to time.

St Louis Icon Stan Musial Passes Away at 92

Cardinal Legend's Unassuming Persona Belied Historic Career 


JAN 20th, 2013-In all honesty, I never met The Man.

Oh, I'll try my very best to describe him. I'll try to explain him as an individual, beyond the box scores and the cheering crowds and the 24 (!) All-Star selections and so on. But I will fail, miserably.

Nevertheless, I must try. I suppose this would be my "Ode to A Total Stranger", if I truly felt that he was a stranger. Somehow, he never struck me as such.

Still, how much can you say about a player you've never even seen in person? I suppose that depends on the player. In the case of Stan Musial, I think the answer would be "quite a lot that's already been said".

There's a reason for that. Musial, who has passed away at the age of 92, was known far and wide among baseball aficionados and casual followers of the game alike as a modest man who had an easy and almost retiring sense of the appreciation he was shown.

He was a great man, to be sure, but not so much for the outrageous numbers he put together while a member of the St Louis Cardinals as for the manner in which he lived his life off the field. There is, as it turns out, much more to be said about Stan the man than there is to say about "Stan The Man". For those of you familiar with Musial's HOF career, you may find this doubtful. For those who knew him, there is surely no doubt, whatsoever.

The story starts out as do so many others: from humble beginnings...

Stanisław Franciszek Musiał was born November 21st, 1920, in Donora, Pennsylvania. Donora was a bustling town of just over 14,000 at the time, when the local industrial and mining activity was the very essence of the town's identity. So it was with many other towns in this region, where a man and his son would often work the same coal mine for the better part of their lives. Lukasz Musial wanted better for his son.

Lukasz left his native Poland in 1910 for the mill town in the Mon Valley Region, 20 miles south of Pittsburgh. He married Mary Lancos, daughter to Czechoslovakian immigrants and a native-born Pennsylvanian, in Donora on April 14, 1913. At the time, he was nearly 23, while she was only 16. Mary, in contrast to her husband, was nearly 6 feet tall and strongly built. "Stasiu", a Polish nickname by which his father called him, was one of six children of Lukasz and Mary. He was also Lukasz's first son.

It wasn't long before the Donora locals had their own nickname for young Stanislaw: "The Donora Greyhound". Stanley (his name was Anglicized by the time he reached high school) soon demonstrated the athleticism by which he would come to be known, starring in basketball and as both a pitcher and outfielder in baseball. Stanley grew into a standout pitcher under the tutelage of Joe Barbao, himself a former minor league pitcher and manager of the Donora Zincs, a semi-pro team on which Musial played at the early age of 15.

Actually, Stan started with the team at age 14. As a batboy, no less. As the story goes, Barbao ran out of pitchers in a game in Stan's first year with the team and hit upon the idea of putting the adolescent Musial on the mound.

He did well enough, it seems. He pitched 6 innings, striking out 13. Thirteen. All of them adults. Signs of that which was to come, perhaps? Not exactly.

As a side note: baseball, for reasons I cannot fully explain or comprehend, is a game of interconnected relationships; player begets player, what's-his-name is cousin of so-and-so who played for the same team, etc. Musial's life is no less connected, being born in the same town and on the same day (though obviously not the same year) as another well-known star left fielder of our generation: Ken Griffey, Jr.

But the connection doesn't end there. Griffey Jr's grandfather, Buddy Griffey, played with Musial on Donora High's resurrected baseball team. Stan was present when Junior hit his 500th home run in June 2004. With that moment, a legend of the past became further intertwined with a star of the present generation. It can be easily argued that no other sport has such reverence for its history, as well as for the men who built it.

It wasn't long before the pro scouts were lurking about, and soon the Cardinals offered the teenager Musial a contract after a workout with their affiliate in the Class D Penn State (referred to in some sourcebooks as Mountain State) League: The Williamson Colts.

The Colts, who changed their name to the Red Birds in 1938 (Musial's second year with the team), worked him as a pitcher, in which position he produced mediocre results. Williamson's manager in 1939, Harrison Wickel, stated thusly: "The only place he can win is in Class D". Well, as a pitcher, Wickel may have been right on target. After Musial hurt his arm while playing the outfield in 1940 and attempting a rather acrobatic catch of a sinking liner, his pitching career came to a sudden halt.

No matter; his hitting prowess was becoming quickly apparent. In an outfield collision with Terry Moore, fellow future HOFer Enos Slaughter broke his shoulder and was lost to the team at a time when his bat and defense would be most sorely missed. Cards GM Branch Rickey made the decision to replace him, at least part-time, with the newly-promoted Musial.

What he accomplished in the majors, I cannot hope to illuminate in any way comparable to such outstanding writers as Peter Golenbock, Roger Angell and John Thorn. I will leave such matters to the true professionals.

Throughout his MLB career (indeed, throughout his life), Musial was never the sort of person who would ever give you the idea that he was even faintly aware of the mythic figure his play on the diamond had firmly ensconced in the minds and hearts of the American baseball fan. Always willing to sign an autograph, make an appearance for both MLB functions and charitable affairs, or simply chat about the game he loved, the true legacy he leaves behind cannot be measured in percentages and league standings.

A quote generally credited to magazine magnate Malcolm S. Forbes, "You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him", is in my estimation an exceptional way of assessing a man's legacy. In this regard alone, I believe it can be said that Stan Musial showed no variance in the way he treated the thousands who flocked to his side for a moment with a baseball god; indeed, he seemed to fully appreciate what he had accomplished as well as how it caused others to view him, without showing any outward signs of egoism or arrogance, neither did he ever seem to feel entitled to such treatment.

In short, he was the sort of person who, had you no prior knowledge of his chosen profession, would never lead you to believe he was anything more than an average man. He could have been the neighborhood milkman or the baker down the street; I imagine he would carry himself with the same humility for which he was known by family, friend, and stranger alike.

But it was even more than that. When LIFE Magazine covered Stan Musial Day in Oct 1963, Stan took the podium and gave careful thought to his words while fighting back tears, overwhelmed by the thought of a giant bronze statue dedicated to him by the team:

"I don't know how I'll feel when I first see the statue", he had said. "Down in Florida, at St. Petersburg Beach, there's this museum--a wax museum--and that was the first time I saw a statue of myself. It was kind of funny, looking at myself. I took a picture--you know, being there and taking a picture of yourself--it gives you a strange feeling".

I can easily imagine that had he been asked the same question while standing in front of his own likeness, immortalized in bronze for countless future fans, he would have been at an utter loss for words.

That, in my mind, is the measure of this man; THE Man. This was a man who, while seemingly comfortable with his fame, would have been just as well-respected even without all the hits and homers, without all the kids who grew up copying that "looking around the corner of a building", almost pigeon-toed stance which produced such prodigious power and EXACTLY the same number of hits at home as on the road (a fascinating stat, to be sure).

His legacy is that, while he knew him, he was what a man should be. And even if he hadn't been "The Man" to the people and fans of St Louis, he most certainly would have been to his children, grandchildren, friends and even minor acquaintances.

He was so much more than just a baseball star. Because if you take away all the accolades, awards and records, he was still The Man to the people who mattered most. As hokey as it sounds, it is nevertheless just as true.

Maybe this incident sums up that sentiment as well as any (from LIFE Magazine; Oct 11, 1963)

"Only once did they ever boo him in St Louis. On August 22nd 1956, against Brooklyn, he made two errors and wound up hitless for the second straight night. They booed him when he stepped to the plate in the eighth inning, but the boos were gradually drowned out by the cheers.

"'It was the worst game I ever played,'" he said later.

The next day, 10 fans bought space in the St Louis press and apologized."