Right after the Times expose on Attention Deficit Disorder drugs, Glaxo, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, announces it will stop paying doctors for giving lectures and going to conferences. The end of payments is not total, it is selective and still allows for some research work, but it represents an apparent major concession to ethics complaints. However, one reason for stopping payments to doctors is that the drugs the companies make the most money on don’t give the doctors any choice: there’s no need to talk the doctor into using it because it’s the only drug available for the problem.
The article URL is: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/business/glaxo-says-it-will-stop-paying-doctors-to-promote-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
One reason for Glaxo’s concessions may be that the company had to pay a fine in 2012 of $3 billion to resolve charges that it had marketed drugs for unapproved uses. The company has also entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the Justice Department that makes ongoing changes to the way sales representatives are paid and drugs are marketed.
It should be clear to the political observer that huge companies can be encouraged to act in highly ethical ways if effective and stringent regulations are in place.
Ghost Cat
Ghost Cat
Here’s another one of those stories that are to weird for me to ignore: A blind man falls onto the subway tracks and pulls his guide dog with him; possibly he was faint before the fall. A subway train passed over him but he was not hurt. He and his dog laid in the gap between the rails as two subway cars passed over him and he was untouched. Nonetheless, he was taken to the hospital with minor cuts on his head. His dog remained with him in the hospital, as a photograph in the article attests.
The article mentions an employee of the subway being at the scene but unable to get the train to stop in time. Keep in mind if you should be in the unpleasant position of being caught between the tracks and a train is coming: just lie down flat between the tracks. Trust me.
Pheasant Running through Bare Orchard
Pheasants will usually run when flushed, and only fly when they are forced to, at the end of a row of trees for example.
Badlands Clouds with Shafts of Sun
Sometimes these pictures are very small, other times big. Why?
The New York Times online has a long, vividly damning article about how the drug companies have sold Attention Deficit Disorder to doctors and patients with advertising that has drawn the censure of the Food and Drug Administration multiple times. See the article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-attention-deficit-disorder.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131215&_r=0
The story is an old one. Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a fairly common, difficult-to-diagnose mental disorder that affects many children and can persist through-out adulthood as well. All the drugs currently available to treat ADD, except one, are also stimulants. The most widely used is amphetamine, which is closely related to an illegal drug, methamphetamine; the only difference between the two, clinically, is that methamphetamine has a much longer duration of action. Thus, ironically, the illegal drug is far more effective than the legal drug for the purpose. Ritalin (methylphenidate) is also widely used and has similar side effects and risks, but it has a very short half life. The only non-stimulant approved for use in ADD is a drug that is closely related to Prozac, that has similar effects and is not as popular.
The drug companies have exploited the fact that stimulants have a nonspecific activating effect in normal people that can improve concentration and mood; thus, people without ADD who are given the drugs notice a general improvement in their attitude even though they thought they were normal before. Children (and adults) who are in competitive academic programs feel the need for stimulants to improve their ability to study, and doctors have been taught to fill that need with diagnoses. The result of advertising and susceptibility is that the incidence of ADD has increased from about 3% to 15% and drug company profits on these drugs have increased from $1 billion a year to $9 billion a year. There is a shortage of these drugs and the drug companies have been able to charge whatever the market will bear.
The answer to scandals of this nature is to increase the power of the Food and Drug Administration to control the drug companies, including their pricing strategies. Advertising to consumers of prescription drugs must be stopped. Payments by drug companies to practicing doctors must be stopped, particularly for giving lectures to fellow physicians. Those who are appointed to the FDA must be committed civil servants. Reforms that include control of drug company exploitation must be part of overall health care reform, which ultimately will include “health insurance for everyone” paid by progressive income taxes. Only a truly dedicated, radical liberal politician can conceive, much less carry out, these reforms.
Mule Deer in High Brush
This deer is nearly invisible in the brush, dry and brown in the fall.
Barack Obama’s Record of Bills Passed
The following is excerpted from a recent New Yorker article, “Our Broken Constitution”, in the December 9 issue:
“On July 7, 2009, Al Franken was seated, after a recount, as the sixtieth Democratic senator. (Sixty votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.)”
Bills passed while there were sixty Democratic senators:
1. Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)
2. financial reform: the Dodd-Frank legislation
3. bailout of the automobile industry
4. repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military
5. arms-control treaty with Russia
6. confirmation of two Supreme Court justices
“In the midterm elections of 2010, Obama’s party lost control of the House and fell below the filibuster threshold in the Senate.”
“Since then, Obama has failed to accomplish almost anything in Congress.”
In other words, the Republicans have managed to stop Obama from passing any legislation for all but a year and a half in his presidency. This is despite their extreme unpopularity on a national level. It is possible because Republicans have a big advantage among rural voters, and under the Constitution, rural states have a disproportionate share of power in the Senate. Under most state laws, the party in power is given the privilege of drawing electoral districts; the Republicans have gerrymandered enough districts so that, despite a lead of over a million voters, the Democrats still don’t control the House. So the Democrats lose on a technicality in both houses of Congress.
A lot of people would say, “That’s not democracy” and it isn’t. Even if voting is strictly proportional to population, voters can still be swayed by television advertising or simply be too bored to vote.
First, it is important to equalize the amount of publicity that candidates get, specifically television time. This is the issue that most depends on wealth.
Second, I recommend mandatory voting, with the right to cast a vote for “None of the Above.”
The final problem, which I suggest we consider carefully, is the question of whether a democratic vote is always good. The will of the People could be mistaken.
The choices of the majority must be limited by the tenets of the Bill of Rights and possibly other Constitutional or notional rights (for example, the “right to privacy” developed by the Supreme Court to imply certain other rights.) It is essential to prevent a tyranny of the majority in which the civil rights of minorities are impaired.
This is a test.
This is a test.
