Free Error in Diagnosis by Mason Lucas M. D.

problems, but not one to be sidetracked by minutiae. Bringing his own special brand of meticulous management to every project, he had long been recognized as a national authority on all types of epidemics, but especially viral ones.
    â€œThank you, Dr. Brickell,” Maddox said, straightening his paisley bow tie. “As part of an initial evaluation, we have cultured and evaluated hundreds of fluid and tissue samples. We realize that we are only a few days into this investigation, but as of this morning, all of those tests have failed to reveal a specific virus, bacteria or fungal agent as the cause of GNS.” He removed his bifocals and tucked them into the breast pocket of his sport coat. “It also bears mentioning that the symptoms we are seeing with GNS are only suggestive of a viral illness, certainly not diagnostic.”
    For the next fifteen minutes Maddox elaborated on the CDC’s findings. He concluded his remarks by repeating that they didn’t have a single iota of evidence that GNS was a contagious disease. Maddox then opened the floor to questions, none of which were eye-opening.
    The problem was the same—a lack of any definitive medical information about GNS, a reality Jack suspected would surface over and over again as the meeting progressed. Maddox’s disheartened manner and dampenedvoice betrayed the same frustration Jack suspected everybody in the room, including himself, was feeling. After answering the last question, Maddox turned the meeting back to the surgeon general.
    â€œAs I’m sure we’re all aware, the outbreak of GNS in so many women over a wide geographic area raises the question of a possible toxic exposure. As I mentioned, there are two specific areas that should be discussed. I’d like to begin by asking Dr. Grandeson to give us an update on her work.”
    Plain-faced with a sparse patch of freckles over the bridge of her nose, Mary Grandeson had devoted her entire professional life to the study of environmental toxins. In spite of a career filled with major scientific accomplishments and professional accolades, she religiously avoided the academic limelight. “Since the first cases of GNS were identified, we’ve been looking at all environmental toxins as a possible cause, but with a particular focus on microscopic toxins produced by nanotechnology.”
    Jack’s knowledge of nanotechnology was elementary at best. Essentially, the science was about twenty years old and dealt with consumer products, mostly cosmetic and electronic, that contained microscopic materials. Over the past several years, a rising concern had been raised by the scientific community that these microscopic components could possibly be toxic.
    Dr. Grandeson’s presentation was concise but comprehensive, giving an extensive review of nanotoxins with special emphasis on those that theoretically could be linked to GNS. She concluded by saying that it was possible ananotoxin could be responsible for GNS, but beyond that she had no evidence that pointed to a specific one.
    â€œWhich brings us to the second environmental toxin of concern,” Brickell said. “Is there any possibility that we might be dealing with an e-waste toxin?”
    Grandeson answered, “Disposal of massive amounts of electronic equipment such as computers has become a major problem not only in this country but worldwide. This is especially true when these items are disposed of illegally. There are millions of them being dumped without regard for public safety on a daily basis. Their breakdown by-products can be extremely toxic to people, animals and the environment.”
    â€œAny ideas regarding a specific source?” the physician sitting directly across from Jack asked Grandeson.
    â€œUnfortunately, e-waste research is still in an embryonic stage. Much of what we think we know is guesswork at best. If GNS is being caused by an e-waste toxin, it would take us months, maybe