Health worker contracts avian flu virus -- Wales, UK

by Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail


MORE than 70 patients and hospital staff have been given anti-flu drugs after a healthcare worker contracted the avian flu virus.

Staff and patients at two hospitals – Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and Ysbyty Gwynedd – have been identified as potentially at risk of contracting H7N2.

They are among a list of 221 people who have been identified as contacts, although the number of people confirmed as showing signs of contamination remains unchanged at 12 – none are seriously ill.

It emerged last night that 79 patients and staff from ward six at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd have been offered Tamiflu as a precaution after coming into contact with a healthcare worker who is being treated for the virus.

And a further 69 patients and staff who were treated at Ysbyty Gwynedd’s accident and emergency department, Trysfan and Gogarth wards, have also been contacted by health officials.'

read the rest of the story:
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=health-worker
-contracts-avian-flu-virus
%26method=full%26objectid=19216784%26siteid=50082-name_page.html

The Young Turks discuss the contributions of Cindy Sheehan

Dear Cindy,

Those who speak truth in troubling times seldom have easy lives.

They sometimes mis-speak or mis-step and have those moments held before the world for ridicule. In fact their actions sometimes cost them everything that most people hold dear -- friends, family, finances and health.

But in the end, those who spoke truth in troubling times, who often felt attacked and abandoned, who walked with strangers when friends disappeared, who gave all they had for what they believed. These men and women later become our heros. The role models held up to future generations.

This is the irony of our society.

plk

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies,
but the silence of our friends. "


"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. "
Martin Luther King Jr

The Public Airways Should Be Public Domain

Hi,

I just learned about a really important issue, and signed a petition about it. The federal government is on the verge of turning over a huge portion of our public airwaves to companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast--who will use them for private enrichment instead of the public good.

These newly available airwaves are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revolutionize Internet access -- beaming high-speed signals to every park bench, coffee shop, workplace, and home in America. Phone and cable companies don't want this competition to their Internet service--they'd rather purchase the airwaves at auction and sit on them.

You can sign the petition I signed here - urging the government to make sure the public airwaves are used for the public good:

http://civic.moveon.org/airwaves/?r_by=10433-4845596-uMXHjO&rc=paste

Thanks!

20% of Chinese toys, baby clothes fail safety inspections

Last Updated: Monday, May 28, 2007 | 11:10 AM ET

CBC News

Read the entire article at:
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/05/28/china-product.html?ref=rss


Inspectors found garbage stuffed in plush toys, harmful chemicals in baby milk powder Last Updated: Monday, May 28, 2007 | 11:10 AM ET CBC News About 20 per cent of toys and baby clothes manufactured in China failed safety tests and could hurt children, the Beijing News reported Monday.

The newspaper, which attributed the figure to Chinese officials, said an investigation by the General Administration of Quality Supervision said that when it tested children's toys and clothing, one in five of the items failed safety inspections.

...The Xinhua news agency reported last week that as of June 1, toys will have to pass a safety test before they can be introduced into the marketplace.

China's food and drug safety record has come under scrutiny in recent months, with U.S. investigators suggesting that Chinese companies are using potentially harmful ingredients in their products.

Last week, U.S. health officials began checking shipments of toothpaste from China after thousands of tubes of imported toothpaste were withdrawn from the marketplace in other countries.

...An investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that imported wheat flour from China was tainted with melamine, a chemical used to make plastics and fertilizers.

...On Friday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said it had intercepted one shipment of corn gluten imported from China that tested positive for melamine and cyanuric acid.

Rwandan rebels suspected in Congo massacre

By Matt Levitch | csmonitor.com

read the entire article at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0529/p99s01-duts.html?s=mesdu

The Associated Press reports that 29 people are confirmed dead in a weekend massacre in the volatile South-Kivu region of eastern Congo. Assailants armed with machetes, hammers, and sticks targeted three villages near the towns of Walungu, but their motive for the attacks was unclear, the AP reports.

"The paranoia that this killing spree has instilled in the local population is causing many to flee the area," said [UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs spokesman Samuel] Zungrana.

...They found letters left by the attackers identifying them as Rwandan militia, who have been operating on Congolese soil since being pushed out of their country following the genocide in 1994, said Maj. Gabriel de Brosses, the spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo.

Preserve the Serenity of Yellowstone National Park

Dear Friends,

Imagine the silent, snowy landscape of Yellowstone National Park in the winter. Now imagine this scene shattered by earsplitting engines and clouds of exhaust.

Four years ago, the number of snowmobiles in Yellowstone each day declined from 750 to 250. The result? Cleaner air, safer habitat for wildlife, and a more peaceful experience for visitors.

Now, the Bush Administration wants to reverse this progress. A proposed Winter Use Plan would allow up to 720 snowmobiles per day in Yellowstone, returning us to pollution problems in the park. Fortunately, the National Park Service must accept public comments on the plan before it makes a final decision.


Click below to send a message telling the NPS not to let snowmobiles destroy Yellowstone
http://ga3.org/campaign/yellowstone_snowmobiles

Hurry, we only have until Tuesday, June 5th to weigh in before the public comment period closes!

Increasing snowmobiles in the park flies in the face of the National Park Service's (NPS) own science: four separate NPS studies have proved conclusively that Yellowstone's air quality, wildlife, and visitor experience are best protected by reducing snowmobile use. Failing to protect these resources and values flies in the face of the National Park Service mission!

If the Park Service gives in to pressure from the snowmobile industry and decides to allow 720 snowmobiles in Yellowstone, it will mean:

* Dirtier air. Emissions in the park will increase.
* Less peace and quiet. Noise from snowmobile engines - already a problem with just 250 snowmobiles a day - will grow significantly worse.
* A precarious balance threatened. Wildlife will be more disrupted with more vehicles.

Besides, there's an easy alternative to snowmobiles. Snowcoaches, which have been used for decades and have become more popular in the last four years, offer an environmentally-friendly way for visitors to access the park for snowshoeing, skiing, and other winter adventures.

Click below to join me in sending your message opposing the plan before June 5th:
http://ga3.org/campaign/yellowstone_snowmobiles

With enough pressure from the American people, the Bush Administration could be forced to reconsider its plans. The Park simply does not need any more dirty, destructive snowmobiles - let's keep Yellowstone winters serene and beautiful, the way they should be.

Thank you for sending your comment in before the June 5th deadline!

Support A Green Collar Job Training Program

Send an email to Congresswoman Hilda Solis and let her know you support the green jobs training program legislation that she is drafting.
http://solis.house.gov/contact/email.shtml

an excerpt from:
Green Jobs, Good Jobs On The Way?
by Van Jones

Read the entire article at:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/25/green_jobs_good_jobs_on_the_way.php

Van Jones is the founding director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and a board member of the Apollo Alliance. This article originally appeared in the Grist magazine blog Gristmill.

Finally, some House Democrats connected the dots on ways to solve two of the nation's biggest problems: failing American job security and global climate security. By addressing both issues simultaneously, these congressional leaders may re-energize the anti-poverty movement---and transform the debate on global warming.

U.S. Representatives Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., and Hilda Solis, D-Calif., both sit on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. On May 22, the Select Committee held a special hearing, entitled: "Economic Impacts of Global Warming: Green Collar Jobs." At the special hearing, Solis addressed the importance of using green collar jobs both as a way to curb global warming and as a pathway out of poverty. Markey made an equally strong statement in favor of pursuing this strategy.

A green collar job is a vocational job in an ecologically responsible trade, such as installing solar panels, weatherizing buildings, constructing and maintaining wind farms, materials re-use and recycling and doing organic agriculture.

During a speech on the House floor before the hearing, Solis spoke of the need to respond to the global warming crisis by investing not only in new infrastructure, but also in people.

The shift from dirty energy sources (like oil and coal) to cleaner energy sources (like solar, wind, and plant-based fuel) will produce hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The work of retrofitting millions of buildings so that they conserve energy will produce still more jobs. And all of these jobs will be, by definition, impossible to outsource to other countries.

Solis mentioned legislation she is drafting along with several other members. It will invest in green jobs as means to help workers and low-income people get in on the ground floor of this booming sector of the U.S. economy. Her exciting new proposal would give federal support to "green collar job training" programs, which would help give U.S. workers (and would-be workers) access to the skills they will need to compete in the new green job market.

In the words of Solis's legislative director, Megan J. Uzzell: "Chairman Markey and Congresswoman Solis both understand the importance of saying to America's workers, particularly those in urban and rural underserved communities, that there is a place for them in the green economy."

I am eagerly awaiting the pending introduction of this legislation.

It should pass both houses of Congress unanimously, right?

I mean, who could oppose such a measure? Funny you should ask ...

The committee's ranking Republican, James Sensenbrenner of California, didn't get it at all. He questioned whether there was any such thing as a "green-collar job"—as distinct from any other kind of job.

Apparently, Sensenbrenner's staff had not yet briefed him on the highly specialized nature of work in the emerging green industries. He even wondered aloud whether solar panel installation was any harder than plugging in a satellite dish. (No comment.)

Sensenbrenner also questioned whether the new eco-entrepreneurs shouldn't pay for their own job training programs—and leave government funding out of it.

Of course, most countries work hard to nurture their growing industries. Their elected leaders see government-funded education and job training as one of the most basic ways to support them. Dumping 100 percent of the worker-training costs onto a nascent industry is one sure way to kill it in the cradle.

If U.S. green industries are going to compete and cooperate on the world stage, they will need the support of a well-trained, world-class green workforce. Unfortunately, unless Solis and Markey prevail, they may not have the workforce they need. In fact, many eco-entrepreneurs fear that their growth will be constrained by a "green collar" labor shortage—unless there is a major increase in the quantity and quality of vocational job training.

Therefore, Solis's proposals are not only good for low-income workers. Worker training will also greatly aid green industries and businesses. Once Sensenbrenner figures that one out, maybe he will get his GOP colleagues to embrace this novel approach to uplifting the nation's poor.

# # # #

Send an email to Congresswoman Hilda Solis and let her know you support her proposed legislation:
http://solis.house.gov/contact/email.shtml

We give them hell when they get it wrong, let's encourage them when they try to get it right? plk

Awaken Sleeping Giant

Now that the Democrat's faustian deal to regain Congress is seen for what it is there is only one question left?

What are the American people going to do about it?

Nancy Pelosi stated that "impeachment is off the table" and we're just supposed to sit by and accept that? I don't think so. The American people have had it.

Do those spin doctors in Washington think that adding a minimum wage increase to the Iraq war funding bill will appease the masses?

It's time that Congress starts thinking about supporting not just the troops but all the American people (which includes the troops) and the American constitution. Before another dollar is allocated for this war, there needs to be a full investigation into 9 billion plus dollars of missing Iraq reconstruction funds, the 20 billion plus dollars of missing Iraq oil revenue and the clear instances of war profiteering by Haliburton et al.

It took long enough but the sleeping giant known as the citizens of the United States of America are finally awake and mad as hell.

plk


Keith Olbermann on the Democrat Sellout








The Simpsons on Fox News

In the video clip below of the Simpsons, Lisa states the there doesn't seem to be a place for truth and bravery in today's media? While there are still a few examples of courage in media like Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers and Anderson Cooper there are far, far fewer in politics. plk




Finally a message to Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Ron Paul ...

We're Listening!

Crisis appeal for Darfur region

Please help!  plk

 

 

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6685073.stm

Summary:

Crisis appeal for Darfur region UK charities have launched an emergency appeal to save lives in Darfur, Chad and the Central African Republic.

The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) says 4.5m people are affected by the conflict in the region while looming rain threatens to bring further misery. DEC head Brendan Gormley said: "We are seeing one of the greatest concentrations of human suffering right now in Darfur and Chad".

The DEC, which represents 13 aid agencies, says the rains bring the risk of conditions such as diarrhoea and malaria which threaten children, pregnant women and the elderly in particular. The DEC said aid agencies also needed to bolster life-saving food and medicines before the rains hit anytime in the next four weeks.

The money raised by the appeal will help provide shelter, clean water, sanitation and emergency food.  It will also help medical teams to provide emergency care and buy items such as water buckets and blankets.  "We have been keeping people alive but access is already severely hampered by conflict and the rains will make it much harder for us to respond if we don't act now.

The DEC said violence in the region was escalating and many villages were "burnt out shells".  The conflict had left two thirds of the population in Darfur dependent on aid, it said.

To donate to the Darfur and Chad Crisis Appeal call 0870 60 60 900 or visit www.dec.org.uk.

 

InfoUSA Making Profits By Setting Up The Elderly For Criminals

It seems that executives of  InfoUSA  may have been hatched in test tubes because their actions clearly indicate that they have no parents.   Or if they do have parents they have as much filial affection as the Menendez brothers.    The mere fact that they could sell lists entitled "Suffering Seniors"  and "Oldies But Goodies" is a testament to capitalism without conscience.  

 

But even sadder is the statement this article makes of how lonely the lives of many elderly people are that they welcome the calls from telemarketers.   This is something that we will all have to reflect upon.

 

Where are all the good class actions lawyers that would be willing to take on companies like InfoUSA?   If the criminal courts can't stop these predators maybe they can be sued out of existence.

 

plk

 

 

Bilking the Elderly, With a Corporate Assist
By CHARLES DUHIGG

Read the entire article at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/business/20tele.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fA%2fAged&oref=slogin

 

Summary:

The thieves operated from small offices in Toronto and hangar-size rooms in India.  Every night, working from lists of names and phone numbers, they called World War II veterans, retired schoolteachers and thousands of other elderly Americans and posed as government and insurance workers updating their files.  Then, the criminals emptied their victims' bank accounts.

Richard Guthrie, a 92-year-old Army veteran, was one of those victims.  He ended up on scam artists' lists because his name, like millions of others, was sold by large companies to telemarketing criminals, who then turned to major banks to steal his life's savings.

Mr. Guthrie, who lives in Iowa, had entered a few sweepstakes that caused his name to appear in a database advertised by infoUSA, one of the largest compilers of consumer information.

 

InfoUSA sold his name, and data on scores of other elderly Americans, to known lawbreakers, regulators say.  InfoUSA advertised lists of "Elderly Opportunity Seekers," 3.3 million older people "looking for ways to make money," and "Suffering Seniors," 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimer's disease.  "Oldies but Goodies" contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece.  One list said: "These people are gullible.  They want to believe that their luck can change."

After criminals tricked him into revealing his banking information, they went to Wachovia, the nation's fourth-largest bank, and raided his account, according to banking records.

Telemarketing fraud, once limited to small-time thieves, has become a global criminal enterprise preying upon millions of elderly and other Americans every year, authorities say. Vast databases of names and personal information, sold to thieves by large publicly traded companies, have put almost anyone within reach of fraudulent telemarketers. And major banks have made it possible for criminals to dip into victims' accounts without their authorization, according to court records.

The banks and companies that sell such services often confront evidence that they are used for fraud, according to thousands of banking documents, court filings and e-mail messages reviewed by The New York Times. Although some companies, including Wachovia, have made refunds to victims who have complained, neither that bank nor infoUSA stopped working with criminals even after executives were warned that they were aiding continuing crimes, according to government investigators.

In recent years, despite the creation of a national "do not call" registry, the legitimate telemarketing industry has grown, according to the Direct Marketing Association.

Databases of such responses can be profitably sold, often via electronic download, through list brokers like Walter Karl Inc., a division of infoUSA.

InfoUSA sold the Astroluck list dozens of times, to companies including HMS Direct, which Canadian authorities had sued the previous year for deceptive mailings; Westport Enterprises, the subject of consumer complaints in Kansas, Connecticut and Missouri; and Arlimbow, a European company that Swiss authorities were prosecuting at the time for a lottery scam.

Between 2003 and 2005, scam artists submitted at least seven unsigned checks to Wachovia that withdrew funds from Mr. Guthrie's account, according to banking records.  In all, Wachovia accepted $142 million of unsigned checks from companies that made unauthorized withdrawals from thousands of accounts, federal prosecutors say.

In a lawsuit filed last year, the United States attorney in Philadelphia said Wachovia received thousands of warnings that it was processing fraudulent checks, but ignored them.

"Criminals focus on the elderly because they know authorities will blame the victims or seniors will worry about their kids throwing them into nursing homes," said C. Steven Baker, a lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission.  "Frequently, the victims are too distracted from dementia or Alzheimer's to figure out something's wrong."

State regulators have tried to protect victims like Mr. Guthrie.  In 2005, attorneys general of 35 states urged the Federal Reserve to end the unsigned check system.  "Such drafts should be eliminated in favor of electronic funds transfers that can serve the same payment function" but are less susceptible to manipulation, they wrote.

Within a few months, Mr. Guthrie's children noticed that he was skipping meals and was behind on bills. By then, all of his savings --- including the proceeds of selling his farm and money set aside to send great-grandchildren to college --- was gone. His children now own his home, and his grandson controls his bank account.   He must ask permission for large or unusual purchases.  And because he can't buy anything, many telemarketers have stopped calling.

"It's lonelier now," he said at his kitchen table, which is crowded with mail.  "I really enjoy when those salespeople call.  But when I tell them I can't buy anything now, they hang up. 
I miss the good chats we used to have."

 

Read the entire article at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/business/20tele.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fA%2fAged&oref=slogin

 

Then read InfoUSA's response:

http://ir.infousa.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=96263&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1004921&highlight=

 

 

# # # # #

 

Other posts on protecting the elderly:

 

http://getinvolved.pointofview316.com/2006/06/protecting-elderly-loved-one-from.html

 

http://getinvolved.pointofview316.com/2006/07/medicare-part-d-prescription-plan.html

 

 

Official Identity Theft

an excerpt from the article by

Frances Madeson

Read the entire article at: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/22/official_identity_theft.php

Frances Madeson is the author of a new comic novel, Cooperative Village, which chronicles the travails of a woman who becomes subject to the USA PATRIOT Act when her library card goes astray. More information is at the publisher’s website, www.carolmrp.com.


Thanks to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine’s March 9 audit report detailing the FBI’s handling of expanded surveillance powers granted under the USA PATRIOT Act, subsequent media reports, and congressional hearings called to probe the findings, we now know that the FBI’s been doing the same “heckuva job” with respect to information gathering and storage characteristic of other sectors of the Bush administration.

Though the toothpaste is out of the tube, I wonder if people generally grasp the enormity of the damage done. There is in existence an electronic database with over a half-billion records, containing information collected via extrajudicial requests made in National Security Letters, the majority of which pertain to U.S. citizens. Your banking and credit activities, telephone and internet usage records, insurance policies, post office box rental, car, boat and home ownership records could already be in the FBI’s Investigative Data Warehouse. If so, no one need inform you. If the information is incorrect, there’s no way to fix it. It is shared among 10,000 government employees at multiple agencies, and is stored for 20 years even if you have no connection whatsoever to a crime. In fact, only 65 convictions correlated to information obtained by the FBI from over 143,000 NSL demands made during 2003-2005.

We look to Congress for remedies, and soon. While days, weeks, and now months have passed since the issuance of the Inspector General’s audit report, how many thousands more NSLs have been delivered accompanied by their repugnant gag orders? How many additional unjustifiable intrusions into our privacy will be tolerated by our representatives in Washington? Combined with NSA illegal wiretapping, ever-expanding definitions of “domestic terrorism,” and initiatives to promote national identity cards, a truly horrifying and wholly un-American landscape is on the immediate horizon.

None of this is inevitable; it happens only if we let it happen. The more this administration and their would-be successors celebrate the savagery of Guantanamo and call for its expansion (Romney), sanction waterboarding (Guiliani), and lay Baghdadian waste to our desire for an enduring American democracy, the more we must and will morph from our mundane selves into mini-Jeffersons and Betsy Rosses, stitching our homespun flags and stoking the fires of liberty.

Personally, I’m resolute. I’m not a child, slave, or extra in their video game fantasies. I’m a grown American woman—hale, hearty, and up for this fight for my nation’s soul—and try as they will to debase that, it still means something beautiful to me.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/22/official_identity_theft.php

Reason and Purpose

-- messages from two people I admire.


an excerpt from

The Assault on Reason
by Al Gore

Published on Thursday, May 17, 2007 by Time Magazine


Not long before our nation launched the invasion of Iraq, our longest-serving Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and said: “This chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate.”

Why was the Senate silent?

In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: “Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?” The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.

A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: “What has happened to our country?” People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.

To take another example, for the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America’s public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.

American democracy is now in danger—not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hoped it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half of the American public still believes Saddam was connected to the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just an unfortunate excess—an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time: the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy, Britney and KFed, Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.

While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness. For example, hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake. Yet, incredibly, all of the evidence and arguments necessary to have made the right decision were available at the time and in hindsight are glaringly obvious.

Those of us who have served in the U.S. Senate and watched it change over time could volunteer a response to Senator Byrd’s incisive description of the Senate prior to the invasion: The chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else. Many of them were at fund-raising events they now feel compelled to attend almost constantly in order to collect money—much of it from special interests—to buy 30-second TV commercials for their next re-election campaign. The Senate was silent because Senators don’t feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much anymore—not to the other Senators, who are almost never present when their colleagues speak, and certainly not to the voters, because the news media seldom report on Senate speeches anymore.

Our Founders’ faith in the viability of representative democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry, their ingenious design for checks and balances, and their belief that the rule of reason is the natural sovereign of a free people. The Founders took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas so that knowledge could flow freely. Thus they not only protected freedom of assembly, they made a special point—in the First Amendment—of protecting the freedom of the printing press. And yet today, almost 45 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers. Reading itself is in decline. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by the empire of television.

Radio, the Internet, movies, cell phones, iPods, computers, instant messaging, video games and personal digital assistants all now vie for our attention—but it is television that still dominates the flow of information. According to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of 4 hours and 35 minutes every day—90 minutes more than the world average. When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time the average American has.

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The “well-informed citizenry” is in danger of becoming the “well-amused audience.” Moreover, the high capital investment required for the ownership and operation of a television station and the centralized nature of broadcast, cable and satellite networks have led to the increasing concentration of ownership by an ever smaller number of larger corporations that now effectively control the majority of television programming in America.

In practice, what television’s dominance has come to mean is that the inherent value of political propositions put forward by candidates is now largely irrelevant compared with the image-based ad campaigns they use to shape the perceptions of voters. The high cost of these commercials has radically increased the role of money in politics—and the influence of those who contribute it. That is why campaign finance reform, however well drafted, often misses the main point: so long as the dominant means of engaging in political dialogue is through purchasing expensive television advertising, money will continue in one way or another to dominate American politics. And as a result, ideas will continue to play a diminished role. That is also why the House and Senate campaign committees in both parties now search for candidates who are multimillionaires and can buy the ads with their own personal resources.

When I first ran for Congress in 1976, I never took a poll during the entire campaign. Eight years later, however, when I ran statewide for the U.S. Senate, I did take polls and like most statewide candidates relied more heavily on electronic advertising to deliver my message. I vividly remember a turning point in that Senate campaign when my opponent, a fine public servant named Victor Ashe who has since become a close friend, was narrowing the lead I had in the polls. After a detailed review of all the polling information and careful testing of potential TV commercials, the anticipated response from my opponent’s campaign and the planned response to the response, my advisers made a recommendation and prediction that surprised me with its specificity: “If you run this ad at this many ‘points’ [a measure of the size of the advertising buy], and if Ashe responds as we anticipate, and then we purchase this many points to air our response to his response, the net result after three weeks will be an increase of 8.5% in your lead in the polls.”

I authorized the plan and was astonished when three weeks later my lead had increased by exactly 8.5%. Though pleased, of course, for my own campaign, I had a sense of foreboding for what this revealed about our democracy. Clearly, at least to some degree, the “consent of the governed” was becoming a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder. To the extent that money and the clever use of electronic mass media could be used to manipulate the outcome of elections, the role of reason began to diminish.

As a college student, I wrote my senior thesis on the impact of television on the balance of power among the three branches of government. In the study, I pointed out the growing importance of visual rhetoric and body language over logic and reason. There are countless examples of this, but perhaps understandably, the first one that comes to mind is from the 2000 campaign, long before the Supreme Court decision and the hanging chads, when the controversy over my sighs in the first debate with George W. Bush created an impression on television that for many viewers outweighed whatever positive benefits I might have otherwise gained in the verbal combat of ideas and substance. A lot of good that senior thesis did me.

The potential for manipulating mass opinions and feelings initially discovered by commercial advertisers is now being even more aggressively exploited by a new generation of media Machiavellis. The combination of ever more sophisticated public opinion sampling techniques and the increasing use of powerful computers to parse and subdivide the American people according to “psychographic” categories that identify their susceptibility to individually tailored appeals has further magnified the power of propagandistic electronic messaging that has created a harsh new reality for the functioning of our democracy.

As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

# # # # #

A Deeper Purpose
by John Edwards

Published on Thursday, May 17, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/17/1265/


Memorial Day is a time of remembrance for those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. My wife Elizabeth grew up on military bases around the world, as the daughter of an Air Force pilot, and this holiday has always had special meaning for our family. This year, I am calling on all Americans to use their Memorial Day Weekend not only for celebration and time with family and friends, but also for a deeper purpose: to honor the memory of the fallen by acting, as patriots, to honor troops today-to end the war and bring them home.

This is a serious holiday and a serious time. The American people voted last fall to stand by our troops, end the war, and bring our soldiers home. The Congress has sent the President a bill that would fund the troops and bring them home. But President Bush has embarked on a stubborn path-rejecting the will of the people and of Congress. He is not only continuing the disastrous war in Iraq, but is escalating our presence there and vetoing Congress’s bill that would support the troops. It has become clear that the only way to support our troops and end the war is by direct action-by democracy.

Some will say that this weekend is not the right time to ask Americans to stand together and tell the President and the Congress to end this war. They may say it is not patriotic, or that it does not honor the fallen.

I strongly disagree. I believe that Memorial Day Weekend is exactly the right time to honor the memory of those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and to honor the troops serving us today.

It has been said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Mark Twain once wrote that the government must not “decide who is a patriot and who isn’t.” President Theodore Roosevelt went even farther. He said that to say there should be no criticism of a president is not only “unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

As these wise words make so clear, democracy is a wonderful gift. But it is not free. On the contrary, democracy is also a responsibility. Brave Americans have fought for it again and again, and this holiday honors their sacrifice. There comes a time when citizens, acting together in a democracy, can truly force change. That time is today. And I do not want Americans to stand up and be heard because of any political campaign or ideology, or because they were told to. You should instead reclaim your patriotism for one important reason: it was yours to begin with.

This Memorial Day weekend, this means more than just getting in your car, driving to the beach, a parade, or a picnic and saying the words, “We support our troops.” This weekend should honor the memory of the fallen through democracy itself. That’s why I am asking the American people this weekend to give something in return for the sacrifice of the fallen-to honor and remember all those who have gone before in service to our country, and to let our government know we want to honor our troops by ending the war and bringing them home.

I have offered Americans 10 suggested actions that will support our troops and end the war. These actions include sending our troops a care package, gathering in public to make your voice heard (taking a moment of silence beforehand to honor the fallen), organizing a prayer vigil, sending a letter to President Bush, and sending a thank-you note to our troops. In the days leading up to Memorial Day, we should take action to support our troops, end the war, and bring them home to the heroes’ welcome they deserve. And on Memorial Day, we should honor and remember all those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

It was only four decades ago that we found ourselves in a similar place to today. We were embroiled in an unpopular war, plagued by disparities and inequalities here at home, and looking for leadership in Washington, D.C. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called us to action with three simple worlds. As he put it then, there comes a time when “silence is a betrayal” — not only a betrayal of one’s personal convictions, or even of one’s country alone, but also a betrayal of our deeper obligations to one another and to the brotherhood of man.

Martin Luther King’s demands were not to the government of the United States. He issued a direct appeal to the people of the United States, calling on us to break our own silence and to not sit idly by and wait for others to right the wrongs of the world. Today, I’m again calling on our nation to break its silence — speak out to end this war and bring our troops home.

At Riverside Church in Harlem in 1967, Dr. King made another attempt to reclaim patriotism. He told his audience they had to move beyond “the prophesying of smooth patriotism” toward “a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history.”

This Memorial Day Weekend, we should all take up Dr. King’s call to action. It is time to take back patriotism from a President who has misused it to justify policies that have exacted such terrible costs-from Guantanamo Bay to domestic spying to the War in Iraq itself. Let us reclaim patriotism for all of us who love our country, support our troops, and are ready to end the war-and to bring these brave servicemen and women home to the heroes’ welcome they deserve.

For more information about this Memorial Day Weekend effort please visit: http://www.supportourtroopsendthewar.com

A Prayer For The Nations

Originally posted as "A Prayer For Our Nation" on Pause For Thought on 5/23/2004


Dear Heavenly Father,

In these troubled times it is easy to focus on our nation’s shortcomings and forget its strengths.

It is easy to focus on outsourcing, gasoline prices, and unemployment then forget that our overall standard of living is better than the vast majority of the world.

In times like these we often take for granted everyday miracles like the birth of a child or the beauty in nature.

So, for every moment that I forgot to be grateful I ask your forgiveness and say thank you for all your blessings.

In troubled times it is human nature to focus on our personal problems and overlook the greater needs of those around us. For this I ask your forgiveness.

It is easy to focus on our bills, pains and struggles and forget those who face danger, death and disease without hope in you.
When troubles arise it is easy to ask why you didn’t act but not ask ourselves why we failed to heed your warnings.

It is easy to forget that the gift of free will and liberty comes along with the responsibility for our decisions and actions (or the lack thereof).

So for every time that I witnessed injustice and was not morally outraged I ask your forgiveness.

For every time that I was given a chance to speak out against evil but remained silent I ask your forgiveness.

And, for every time you called me to act on another’s behalf and I did not I ask your forgiveness.

It is easy to demand a level of excellence from others that we do not live up to ourselves.
It is easy to stand in judgment when others fail.

Let me never be one who always “points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better”1 without asking what I could have done to help.

May I remember that whatever measure I use in judging others will be used to measure how I am judged.

May I remember to pray for leadership when I recognize their shortcomings.

May I see a problem and seek your wisdom for a solution.
May I always seek your wisdom and guidance.

May I never forget from where I’ve come so I can encourage others walking the same path.

May I lead no man astray.

May I never again underestimate Your love, grace and forgiveness.

May I never cease to share your love with others.

May I remember that I must first become all that it is your will that I become before this nation can become all that it is your will for it to be.

Open the hearts and minds of our leadership to your wisdom and guidance.

Grant all those that will hear a revelation of your will for this nation.

Grant us an understanding of our role in global affairs.

In Jesus’ name I pray.
Amen

1 from a quote by Theodore Roosevelt

--

Who Is Deciding What Your Doctor Prescribes?

Originally posted  to Get the Facts & Get Involved at 5/22/2007 05:41:00 PM

 

" The American Medical Association, a larger and far more established group, makes millions of dollars each year by helping data-mining companies

link prescribing data to individual physicians.  It does so by licensing access to the AMA Physician Masterfile, a database containing names, birth dates,

educational background, specialties and addresses for more than 800,000 doctors. "

 

Doctors may be bound by oath to protect your privacy but drug company salespeople are not.  Ask your doctor if he has chosen to opt-out of the AMA patient prescription data sharing.   Don't let the pharmaceutical and insurance companies decide the quality of your healthcare.    plk

 

 

 

Doctors, Legislators Resist Drugmakers' Prying Eyes 
 

By Christopher Lee

Washington Post Staff Writer

Read the entire article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101701.html

Summary:

Seattle pediatrician Rupin Thakkar's first inkling that the pharmaceutical industry was peering over his shoulder and into his prescription pad came in a letter from a drug representative about the generic drops Thakkar prescribes to treat infectious pinkeye.

In the letter, the salesperson wrote that Thakkar was causing his patients to miss more days of school than they would if he put them on Vigamox, a more expensive brand-name medicine made by Alcon Laboratories.

"My initial thought was 'How does she know what I'm prescribing?'  I just feel strongly that medical encounters need to be private."

Many doctors object to drugmakers' common practice of contracting with data-mining companies to track exactly which medicines physicians prescribe and in what quantities -- information marketers and salespeople use to fine-tune their efforts.

The industry defends the practice as a way of better educating physicians about new drugs.

Now the issue is bubbling up in the political arena.

Last year, New Hampshire became the first state to try to curtail the practice, but a federal district judge three weeks ago ruled the law unconstitutional.

This year, more than a dozen states have considered similar legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.  They include Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington, although the results so far have been limited.  Bills are stalled in some states, and in others, such as Maryland and West Virginia, they did not pass at the committee level.

The concerns are not merely about privacy.  Proponents say using such detailed data for drug marketing serves mainly to influence physicians to prescribe more expensive medicines, not necessarily to provide the best treatment.

"We don't like the practice, and we want it to stop," said Jean Silver-Isenstadt, executive director of the National Physicians Alliance, a two-year-old group with 10,000 members, most of them young doctors in training.  "We think it's a contaminant to the doctor-patient relationship, and it's driving up costs."

The American Medical Association, a larger and far more established group, makes millions of dollars each year by helping data-mining companies link prescribing data to individual physicians.
It does so by licensing access to the AMA Physician Masterfile, a database containing names, birth dates, educational background, specialties and addresses for more than 800,000 doctors.

After complaints from some members, the AMA last year began allowing doctors to "opt out" and shield their individual prescribing information from salespeople, although drug companies can still get it. So far, 7,476 doctors have opted out, AMA officials said.  Some critics, however, contend that the AMA's opt-out is not well publicized or tough enough, noting that doctors must renew it every three years.

The New Hampshire court's ruling has raised new doubts about how effective legislative efforts to curb the use of prescribing data will be, but the state attorney general has promised to appeal.
And state Rep. Cindy Rosenwald (D), the law's chief sponsor, vowed not to give up the fight.

"In this case, commercial interests took precedence over the interests of the private citizens of New Hampshire," Rosenwald said.  "This is like letting a drug rep into an exam room and having them eavesdrop on a private conversation between a physician and a patient."

The April 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro, nominated to the federal bench in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush, called the state's pioneering law an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech.

 

# # # # #

 

From the Archives

 

Do You Really Need All Of Those Drugs?

Originally posted by Pamela to Pam's Coffee Conversation at 8/22/2006

 

Before you read the following article I want to caution anyone currently taking prescribed medication not to stop taking their medicine without consulting their physician or seeking an alternative opinion.

 

Now with that said,  have you noticed that virtually everyone you know is taking some form of prescription medication.?     Do we really need all of these drugs?  You might be taking one drug that has side effects so you take another drug to treat the side effects of the first drug,  then a third drug to treat the side effects of the second and so on, and so on and so on ......   plk

 

 

Drug Ads Sell a Problem, Not a Solution 

by Jonathan Rowe

 

 

POINT REYES STATION, CALIF. -- It is an old saying in the advertising trade that you sell the problem, not the solution. That helps explain why the media today are awash with images of disease. Erectile dysfunction, depression, stress, attention deficit disorder, on and on - you can't escape them and the sense of looming peril that they conjure up.

 

Politicians sell terror and fear; pharmaceutical companies sell disease. Every state and stage of existence has become a pathology in need of pharmaceutical "intervention," and life itself is a petri dish of biochemical deficiency and need. Shyness is now "social anxiety disorder." A twitchy tendency has become "restless leg syndrome." Three decades ago the head of Merck dreamed aloud of the day when the definition of disease would be so broad that his company could "sell to everyone," like chewing gum.

 

That day is rapidly approaching, if it's not already here. "We're increasingly turning normal people into patients," said Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz of the Dartmouth Medical School. "The ordinary experiences of life become a diagnosis, which makes healthy people feel like they're sick."

 

In one sense, the ads have been successful. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that every dollar drug companies spend on ads brings more than four dollars in additional sales. But for most others, the result has been soaring medical insurance costs, toxic side effects, and new tensions between doctors and patients, who increasingly badger doctors for the drugs they've seen on TV.

 

One study found that 30 percent of Americans have made these demands. A Minnesota doctor complained recently that patients now push him for sleep medications "when maybe they just need to go to bed on a more regular basis."

 

But perhaps the worst part is that prescription drug ads have immersed us all in a pervasive drug culture that seems to have no boundaries. We are being reduced to helpless "consumers" who have no capacity to deal with challenges other than by taking a pill. Last month Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota, called for a moratorium on prescription drug ads. It's about time.

 

For most of the past half century, there were tight restrictions on the general advertising of prescription drugs. These require doctors' guidance for a reason; so why should Madison Avenue get involved? But under heavy pressure from the drug and advertising industries, the government backed down in the late 1990s, and that started the tsunami.

 

Spending on drug ads for the general public more than tripled between 1996 and 2001. It is now some $4 billion a year, which is more than twice what McDonald's spends on ads. In 1994, the typical American had seven prescriptions a year, which is no small number. By 2004, that was up to 12 a year. Homebuilders are touting medicine cabinets that are "triple-wide."

 

The industry says this is all about "educating" the consumer. But an ad executive was more candid when he said - boasted, really - that the goal is to "drive patients to their doctors." Reuters Business Insight, a publication for investors, explained that the future of the industry depends on its ability to "create new disease markets." "The coming years," it said, "will bear greater witness to the corporate-sponsored creation of disease."

 

The Kaiser study found that drug ads increase sales for entire categories of drugs, not just the one in question. The ads really are selling the disease more than a cure.

 

Advertising is just one way the industry has sought to accomplish this goal. It also funds patient advocacy groups such as Children With Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD), and doctors who push for expanded definitions of disease, among a host of other things. (When the definition of ADD expanded in the 1980s, the number of kids tagged with this problem increased by 50 percent.)

 

But advertising is the most pervasive and aggressive way of selling sickness. It also is the hardest to justify. Medicine is supposed to be about science, not huckstering; about healing people, not persuading more of them that they are sick. There are far better ways to inform the public about health issues than to spend billions of dollars a year pushing pills.

 

This is why more than 200 medical school professors recently called for an end to prescription drug ads, and why close to 40 health and seniors groups have joined them. Even the American Medical Association, many members of which have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, has urged restrictions. Washington should listen to these doctors. As Governor Pawlenty put it, we need to put "the decisionmaking back where it should be - on an informed basis between the patient and the doctor."

 

Jonathan Rowe is issues director at Commercial Alert and a fellow at the Tomales Bay Institute. He is a former Monitor staff writer.

 

 

© Copyright 2006 Christian Science Monitor

 

###

 

Thinking about getting off the prescription drug merry-go round?  Check out these resources:

 

Dr.Colbert.com   

 http://www.drcolbert.com/

 

 

Holistic Ireland  

http://www.holistic.ie/site.php?content_id=61

 

 

Dr. Weil.com     

http://www.drweil.com/u/Home/index.html

# # # # #

 

Originally posted to Pam's Coffee Conversation at 5/3/2005 

Steve posts a very important question in his Modulator post. The pharmaceutical industry is steadily growing with the introduction of drugs to treat our ever expanding list of ailments while it seems that very little is being invested in preventing the ailments in the first place.

In fact, based on television marketing it seems like a good portion of our society is depressed or has high cholesteral, asthma, allergies or ADD. And at least half the male population must suffer from ED as a side effect of the other drugs that they're taking. There's a drug to treat the illness and a drug to treat the side effect of that drug and so forth and so on. It seems like a new disease is identified every year and a new drug released within the next six months. Very few of the new drugs are curative. Most are maintenance meds that the individual will take for the rest of their life.

Conversely, while the pharmaceutical industry is booming rain forests are disappearing along with the ozone layer and the polar icecaps. And, islands of garbage are developing in our oceans. Compared to the pharmaceutical industry very little is invested in cleaning our polluted environment and reducing the stress factors that contribute to many illnesses. Sadly, it seems that there is no economic incentive to change this equation. There is only the moral imperative to do what is right and try to save the human race. plk


Pharmaceutical Industry Question
http://www.themodulator.org/scgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1744

Even though its growth rate has declined from the hot 18% of 2001 to 10% the pharaceutical industry still had a pretty darn good year in 2004:

In 2004 the U.S. pharmaceutical industry reached the quarter trillion dollar mark for the first time, with $251 billion in product salesI suspect the industry would prefer the 18% growth rate but there are some pressures holding them back:

According to NDCHealth, four factors have contributed to the overall pharmaceutical market growth decline: generic erosion; safety issues and product withdrawals; increased consumer switching to over-the- counter (OTC) medications and a lack of new blockbuster drugs.On the other hand market penetration for some drugs appears significant:

-Among all patients receiving a drug in 2004, 10% were on Pfizer's Zithromax® and 5% were on Pfizer's Lipitor®.Here is the question: Is it in the interest of the $251 billion pharmaceutical industry to have a healthier or a sicker customer base?

Based on your answer and given this data:

Overall, drug companies spent $78.1 million on lobbying in 2001, bringing the total lobbying bill for 1997-2001 to $403,071,467. (See Table 2) The companies employed 623 different individual lobbyists in 2001 – or more than one lobbyist for every member of Congress.what was the industry trying to accomplish and what types of programs would they support? Do you think Pfizer would rather have more or fewer people taking statins and Lipitor® in particular?

--

Who Is Deciding What Your Doctor Prescribes?

" The American Medical Association, a larger and far more established group, makes millions of dollars each year by helping data-mining companies

link prescribing data to individual physicians.  It does so by licensing access to the AMA Physician Masterfile, a database containing names, birth dates,

educational background, specialties and addresses for more than 800,000 doctors. "

 

Doctors may be bound by oath to protect your privacy but drug company salespeople are not.  Ask your doctor if he has chosen to opt-out of the AMA patient prescription data sharing.   Don't let the pharmaceutical and insurance companies decide the quality of your healthcare.    plk

 

 

 

Doctors, Legislators Resist Drugmakers' Prying Eyes 
 

By Christopher Lee

Washington Post Staff Writer

Read the entire article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101701.html

Summary:

Seattle pediatrician Rupin Thakkar's first inkling that the pharmaceutical industry was peering over his shoulder and into his prescription pad came in a letter from a drug representative about the generic drops Thakkar prescribes to treat infectious pinkeye.

In the letter, the salesperson wrote that Thakkar was causing his patients to miss more days of school than they would if he put them on Vigamox, a more expensive brand-name medicine made by Alcon Laboratories.

"My initial thought was 'How does she know what I'm prescribing?'  I just feel strongly that medical encounters need to be private."

Many doctors object to drugmakers' common practice of contracting with data-mining companies to track exactly which medicines physicians prescribe and in what quantities -- information marketers and salespeople use to fine-tune their efforts.

The industry defends the practice as a way of better educating physicians about new drugs.

Now the issue is bubbling up in the political arena.

Last year, New Hampshire became the first state to try to curtail the practice, but a federal district judge three weeks ago ruled the law unconstitutional.

This year, more than a dozen states have considered similar legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.  They include Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington, although the results so far have been limited.  Bills are stalled in some states, and in others, such as Maryland and West Virginia, they did not pass at the committee level.

The concerns are not merely about privacy.  Proponents say using such detailed data for drug marketing serves mainly to influence physicians to prescribe more expensive medicines, not necessarily to provide the best treatment.

"We don't like the practice, and we want it to stop," said Jean Silver-Isenstadt, executive director of the National Physicians Alliance, a two-year-old group with 10,000 members, most of them young doctors in training.  "We think it's a contaminant to the doctor-patient relationship, and it's driving up costs."

The American Medical Association, a larger and far more established group, makes millions of dollars each year by helping data-mining companies link prescribing data to individual physicians.
It does so by licensing access to the AMA Physician Masterfile, a database containing names, birth dates, educational background, specialties and addresses for more than 800,000 doctors.

After complaints from some members, the AMA last year began allowing doctors to "opt out" and shield their individual prescribing information from salespeople, although drug companies can still get it. So far, 7,476 doctors have opted out, AMA officials said.  Some critics, however, contend that the AMA's opt-out is not well publicized or tough enough, noting that doctors must renew it every three years.

The New Hampshire court's ruling has raised new doubts about how effective legislative efforts to curb the use of prescribing data will be, but the state attorney general has promised to appeal.
And state Rep. Cindy Rosenwald (D), the law's chief sponsor, vowed not to give up the fight.

"In this case, commercial interests took precedence over the interests of the private citizens of New Hampshire," Rosenwald said.  "This is like letting a drug rep into an exam room and having them eavesdrop on a private conversation between a physician and a patient."

The April 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro, nominated to the federal bench in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush, called the state's pioneering law an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech.

 

# # # # #

 

From the Archives

 

Do You Really Need All Of Those Drugs?

Originally posted by Pamela to Pam's Coffee Conversation at 8/22/2006

 

Before you read the following article I want to caution anyone currently taking prescribed medication not to stop taking their medicine without consulting their physician or seeking an alternative opinion.

 

Now with that said,  have you noticed that virtually everyone you know is taking some form of prescription medication.?     Do we really need all of these drugs?  You might be taking one drug that has side effects so you take another drug to treat the side effects of the first drug,  then a third drug to treat the side effects of the second and so on, and so on and so on ......   plk

 

 

Drug Ads Sell a Problem, Not a Solution 

by Jonathan Rowe

 

 

POINT REYES STATION, CALIF. -- It is an old saying in the advertising trade that you sell the problem, not the solution. That helps explain why the media today are awash with images of disease. Erectile dysfunction, depression, stress, attention deficit disorder, on and on - you can't escape them and the sense of looming peril that they conjure up.

 

Politicians sell terror and fear; pharmaceutical companies sell disease. Every state and stage of existence has become a pathology in need of pharmaceutical "intervention," and life itself is a petri dish of biochemical deficiency and need. Shyness is now "social anxiety disorder." A twitchy tendency has become "restless leg syndrome." Three decades ago the head of Merck dreamed aloud of the day when the definition of disease would be so broad that his company could "sell to everyone," like chewing gum.

 

That day is rapidly approaching, if it's not already here. "We're increasingly turning normal people into patients," said Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz of the Dartmouth Medical School. "The ordinary experiences of life become a diagnosis, which makes healthy people feel like they're sick."

 

In one sense, the ads have been successful. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that every dollar drug companies spend on ads brings more than four dollars in additional sales. But for most others, the result has been soaring medical insurance costs, toxic side effects, and new tensions between doctors and patients, who increasingly badger doctors for the drugs they've seen on TV.

 

One study found that 30 percent of Americans have made these demands. A Minnesota doctor complained recently that patients now push him for sleep medications "when maybe they just need to go to bed on a more regular basis."

 

But perhaps the worst part is that prescription drug ads have immersed us all in a pervasive drug culture that seems to have no boundaries. We are being reduced to helpless "consumers" who have no capacity to deal with challenges other than by taking a pill. Last month Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota, called for a moratorium on prescription drug ads. It's about time.

 

For most of the past half century, there were tight restrictions on the general advertising of prescription drugs. These require doctors' guidance for a reason; so why should Madison Avenue get involved? But under heavy pressure from the drug and advertising industries, the government backed down in the late 1990s, and that started the tsunami.

 

Spending on drug ads for the general public more than tripled between 1996 and 2001. It is now some $4 billion a year, which is more than twice what McDonald's spends on ads. In 1994, the typical American had seven prescriptions a year, which is no small number. By 2004, that was up to 12 a year. Homebuilders are touting medicine cabinets that are "triple-wide."

 

The industry says this is all about "educating" the consumer. But an ad executive was more candid when he said - boasted, really - that the goal is to "drive patients to their doctors." Reuters Business Insight, a publication for investors, explained that the future of the industry depends on its ability to "create new disease markets." "The coming years," it said, "will bear greater witness to the corporate-sponsored creation of disease."

 

The Kaiser study found that drug ads increase sales for entire categories of drugs, not just the one in question. The ads really are selling the disease more than a cure.

 

Advertising is just one way the industry has sought to accomplish this goal. It also funds patient advocacy groups such as Children With Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD), and doctors who push for expanded definitions of disease, among a host of other things. (When the definition of ADD expanded in the 1980s, the number of kids tagged with this problem increased by 50 percent.)

 

But advertising is the most pervasive and aggressive way of selling sickness. It also is the hardest to justify. Medicine is supposed to be about science, not huckstering; about healing people, not persuading more of them that they are sick. There are far better ways to inform the public about health issues than to spend billions of dollars a year pushing pills.

 

This is why more than 200 medical school professors recently called for an end to prescription drug ads, and why close to 40 health and seniors groups have joined them. Even the American Medical Association, many members of which have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, has urged restrictions. Washington should listen to these doctors. As Governor Pawlenty put it, we need to put "the decisionmaking back where it should be - on an informed basis between the patient and the doctor."

 

Jonathan Rowe is issues director at Commercial Alert and a fellow at the Tomales Bay Institute. He is a former Monitor staff writer.

 

 

© Copyright 2006 Christian Science Monitor

 

###

 

Thinking about getting off the prescription drug merry-go round?  Check out these resources:

 

Dr.Colbert.com   

 http://www.drcolbert.com/

 

 

Holistic Ireland  

http://www.holistic.ie/site.php?content_id=61

 

 

Dr. Weil.com     

http://www.drweil.com/u/Home/index.html

# # # # #

 

Originally posted to Pam's Coffee Conversation at 5/3/2005 

Steve posts a very important question in his Modulator post. The pharmaceutical industry is steadily growing with the introduction of drugs to treat our ever expanding list of ailments while it seems that very little is being invested in preventing the ailments in the first place.

In fact, based on television marketing it seems like a good portion of our society is depressed or has high cholesteral, asthma, allergies or ADD. And at least half the male population must suffer from ED as a side effect of the other drugs that they're taking. There's a drug to treat the illness and a drug to treat the side effect of that drug and so forth and so on. It seems like a new disease is identified every year and a new drug released within the next six months. Very few of the new drugs are curative. Most are maintenance meds that the individual will take for the rest of their life.

Conversely, while the pharmaceutical industry is booming rain forests are disappearing along with the ozone layer and the polar icecaps. And, islands of garbage are developing in our oceans. Compared to the pharmaceutical industry very little is invested in cleaning our polluted environment and reducing the stress factors that contribute to many illnesses. Sadly, it seems that there is no economic incentive to change this equation. There is only the moral imperative to do what is right and try to save the human race. plk


Pharmaceutical Industry Question
http://www.themodulator.org/scgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1744

Even though its growth rate has declined from the hot 18% of 2001 to 10% the pharaceutical industry still had a pretty darn good year in 2004:

In 2004 the U.S. pharmaceutical industry reached the quarter trillion dollar mark for the first time, with $251 billion in product salesI suspect the industry would prefer the 18% growth rate but there are some pressures holding them back:

According to NDCHealth, four factors have contributed to the overall pharmaceutical market growth decline: generic erosion; safety issues and product withdrawals; increased consumer switching to over-the- counter (OTC) medications and a lack of new blockbuster drugs.On the other hand market penetration for some drugs appears significant:

-Among all patients receiving a drug in 2004, 10% were on Pfizer's Zithromax® and 5% were on Pfizer's Lipitor®.Here is the question: Is it in the interest of the $251 billion pharmaceutical industry to have a healthier or a sicker customer base?

Based on your answer and given this data:

Overall, drug companies spent $78.1 million on lobbying in 2001, bringing the total lobbying bill for 1997-2001 to $403,071,467. (See Table 2) The companies employed 623 different individual lobbyists in 2001 – or more than one lobbyist for every member of Congress.what was the industry trying to accomplish and what types of programs would they support? Do you think Pfizer would rather have more or fewer people taking statins and Lipitor® in particular?

--