Lest we give in to a bit of sentimentality as the holidays approach, more dirt surfaced this week regarding the unethical practices of an industry that is increasingly tainted by illegal and deceptive maneuvers that have put the lives of millions at risk worldwide. In this latest episode, as the article below details, a respected figure on Public Radio has been caught taking undisclosed "consultation fees" from pharmaceutical firms in return for promoting their drugs on and off his long-running radio program. GlaxoSmithKline was quick to put the responsibility for these legal bribes on Dr. Goodwin. As they say, there is no honor amongst thieves.
This scandal comes on the tail of a government investigation culminated this fall that found drug maker Cephalon guilty of serious false marketing practices and other charges such as urging physicians to prescribe certain drugs for unsafe and unauthorized applications, including their use on children and mentally ill patients. The bulk of evidence against Cephalon came from a sales rep that agreed to wear a wire tap during a company conference. It appears Big Pharma has more in common with the Mafia than the free enterprise system.
Let's hope that revelations such as these will infuriate and motivate the American people to demand changes in a system that allows for such corruption. In the meantime, if your doctor prescribes any medication for any reason, do not take it for granted that its use is safe or appropriate.
NPR doc didn't disclose pharma payments
By tracy
Created Nov 21 2008 - 12:25pm
We've heard about drugmaker's payments and grants to prescribing doctors, researchers, medical societies, teaching hospitals, CME companies... and now, a radio host. The psychiatrist and former NIMH director Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, whose radio program "The Infinite Mind" airs on NPR, collected some $1.3 million from drugmakers between 2000 and 2007. Goodwin never mentioned those payments to listeners, despite the fact that some of his programs dealt with subjects "important to the commercial interests of the companies for which he consults," the New York Times reports.
The payments have come to light as part of a Congressional investigation into drugmakers' potential influence on prescribing habits. For instance, Goodwin told listeners that children with untreated bipolar disorder could suffer brain damage (a view not universally shared in psychiatry). During the same program, Goodwin touted the safety and efficacy of treatments for the disease, particularly mood stabilizing drugs. And the same day, GlaxoSmithKline paid the psychiatrist $2,500 to give a promotional lecture for its mood stabilizer Lamictal, just part of the $329,000 he collected for promoting Lamictal that year, Congressional records show.
Goodwin told the NYT that the radio show's producer knew about his consulting with drugmakers, but that neither he nor the producer realized at the time that they should have disclosed the relationships. "In retrospect, that should have been disclosed," Goodwin told the paper. But the NPR producer told the paper that Goodwin had denied getting money from drugmakers. "The fact that he was out on the stump for pharmaceutical companies was not something we were aware of. It would have violated our agreements," producer Bill Lichtenstein said in an interview.
NPR now says it's pulling the program as soon as possible and that, had it been aware of Goodwin's financial relationships, it would not have aired "The Infinite Mind." A Glaxo spokesperson said that the responsibility for disclosing its payments to Goodwin lay with the doctor. "We continue to believe that healthcare professionals are responsible for making disclosures to their employers and other entities, in this case National Public Radio and its listeners."
http://www.fiercepharma.com/node/10068/print
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Physicians Sick of Health Care System
Here on this blog, we have often discussed dissatisfaction with allopathic medicine from a patient's point of view. Well, it appears that they are not the only group who are singing the blues about health care in this country. Today's post references a recent survey of family practice physicians that indicate a whopping 50% are considering (or would like to if they could) changing careers.
Some of the reasons cited for this high level of dismay in the field are excessive amounts of paperwork and bookkeeping, poor care for patients with chronic conditions, and lack of time to spend treating patients. It's no wonder doctors whip out their prescription pads as their customers file through on the assembly line. Many are not able to take the time and effort necessary to individually care for their patients' needs.
Some would have us believe that socialized medicine is the answer to all of our healthcare woes. This is just not so. Many hospitals are now implementing some of these standards, one of which is "Short Term Stay" wards. These are set up like an ICU with a nurse's station in the middle of stall-like rooms. There are usually no doors to the very small stalls, just a curtain across the front of the box-like room. You do get a TV and a sink. But the worst part is that there is usually only one "community" bathroom (down the hall) ,including a shower, for all patients to share. So if you didn't have something communicable before, you may get something while doing your "short term stay." You will also find that your care will most likely be sub-par, and that you will have to remind the nurses/workers about what your doctor has ordered. Hospitals say it is all about saving money, but I beg to differ. It is all about herding people in and out and even leaving you out in the hall if you don't qualify for a "short term room." Now you must meet certain qualifications in order to be put in a regular hospital room. This is exactly what socialized medicine is about and it's no wonder some docs are quickly seeing the writing-on-the-wall.
Perhaps some good can come from this crisis. As more people become disillusioned with the Big Pharma type of "medicine," there will be a need for more natural medicine practitioners to meet the increased demand for such care. Maybe some of these unhappy doctors can find their true calling and follow their dream of being a healer by helping people discover preventative medicine based on nutrition and other wellness lifestyle choices.
Half of primary-care doctors in survey would leave medicine
By Val WillinghamCNN Medical Producer
(CNN) -- Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
The survey, released this week by the Physicians' Foundation, which promotes better doctor-patient relationships, sought to find the reasons for an identified exodus among family doctors and internists, widely known as the backbone of the health industry.
A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 was predicted at last week's American Medical Association annual meeting.
In the survey, the foundation sent questionnaires to more than 270,000 primary care doctors and more than 50,000 specialists nationwide.
Of the 12,000 respondents, 49 percent said they'd consider leaving medicine. Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there's too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.
And if that many physicians stopped practicing, that could be devastating to the health care industry.
"We couldn't survive that," says Dr. Walker Ray, vice president of the Physicians Foundation. "We are only producing in this country a thousand to two thousand primary doctors to replace them. Medical students are not choosing primary care."
Dr. Alan Pocinki has been practicing medicine for 17 years. He began his career around the same time insurance companies were turning to the PPO and HMO models. So he was a little shocked when he began spending more time on paperwork than patients and found he was running a small business, instead of a practice. He says it's frustrating.
"I had no business training, as far as how to run a business, or how to evaluate different plans," Pocinki says. "It was a whole brave new world and I had to sort of learn on the fly."
To manage their daily work schedules, many survey respondents reported making changes. With lower reimbursement from insurance companies and the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing, these health professionals say it's not worth running a practice and are changing careers. Others say they're going into so-called boutique medicine, in which they charge patients a yearly fee up front and don't take insurance.
And some like Pocinki are limiting the type of insurance they'll take and the number of patients on Medicare and Medicaid. According to the foundation's report, over a third of those surveyed have closed their practices to Medicaid patients and 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare patients That can leave a lot of patients looking for a doctor.
And as Ray mentioned, med school students are shying away from family medicine. In a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September, only 2 percent of current medical students plan to take up primary care. That's because these students are wary of the same complaints that are causing existing doctors to flee primary care: hectic clinics, burdensome paperwork and systems that do a poor job of managing patients with chronic illness.
So what to do? Physicians don't have a lot of answers. But doctors say it's time to make some changes, not only in the health care field but also with the insurance industry. And they're looking to the new administration for guidance.
One of President-elect Barack Obama's health care promises is to provide a primary care physician for every American. But some health experts, including Pocinki, are skeptical.
"People who have insurance can't find a doctor, so suddenly we are going to give insurance to a whole bunch of people who haven't had it, without increasing the number of physicians?" he says. "It's going to be a problem."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/
Some of the reasons cited for this high level of dismay in the field are excessive amounts of paperwork and bookkeeping, poor care for patients with chronic conditions, and lack of time to spend treating patients. It's no wonder doctors whip out their prescription pads as their customers file through on the assembly line. Many are not able to take the time and effort necessary to individually care for their patients' needs.
Some would have us believe that socialized medicine is the answer to all of our healthcare woes. This is just not so. Many hospitals are now implementing some of these standards, one of which is "Short Term Stay" wards. These are set up like an ICU with a nurse's station in the middle of stall-like rooms. There are usually no doors to the very small stalls, just a curtain across the front of the box-like room. You do get a TV and a sink. But the worst part is that there is usually only one "community" bathroom (down the hall) ,including a shower, for all patients to share. So if you didn't have something communicable before, you may get something while doing your "short term stay." You will also find that your care will most likely be sub-par, and that you will have to remind the nurses/workers about what your doctor has ordered. Hospitals say it is all about saving money, but I beg to differ. It is all about herding people in and out and even leaving you out in the hall if you don't qualify for a "short term room." Now you must meet certain qualifications in order to be put in a regular hospital room. This is exactly what socialized medicine is about and it's no wonder some docs are quickly seeing the writing-on-the-wall.
Perhaps some good can come from this crisis. As more people become disillusioned with the Big Pharma type of "medicine," there will be a need for more natural medicine practitioners to meet the increased demand for such care. Maybe some of these unhappy doctors can find their true calling and follow their dream of being a healer by helping people discover preventative medicine based on nutrition and other wellness lifestyle choices.
Half of primary-care doctors in survey would leave medicine
By Val WillinghamCNN Medical Producer
(CNN) -- Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
The survey, released this week by the Physicians' Foundation, which promotes better doctor-patient relationships, sought to find the reasons for an identified exodus among family doctors and internists, widely known as the backbone of the health industry.
A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 was predicted at last week's American Medical Association annual meeting.
In the survey, the foundation sent questionnaires to more than 270,000 primary care doctors and more than 50,000 specialists nationwide.
Of the 12,000 respondents, 49 percent said they'd consider leaving medicine. Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there's too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.
And if that many physicians stopped practicing, that could be devastating to the health care industry.
"We couldn't survive that," says Dr. Walker Ray, vice president of the Physicians Foundation. "We are only producing in this country a thousand to two thousand primary doctors to replace them. Medical students are not choosing primary care."
Dr. Alan Pocinki has been practicing medicine for 17 years. He began his career around the same time insurance companies were turning to the PPO and HMO models. So he was a little shocked when he began spending more time on paperwork than patients and found he was running a small business, instead of a practice. He says it's frustrating.
"I had no business training, as far as how to run a business, or how to evaluate different plans," Pocinki says. "It was a whole brave new world and I had to sort of learn on the fly."
To manage their daily work schedules, many survey respondents reported making changes. With lower reimbursement from insurance companies and the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing, these health professionals say it's not worth running a practice and are changing careers. Others say they're going into so-called boutique medicine, in which they charge patients a yearly fee up front and don't take insurance.
And some like Pocinki are limiting the type of insurance they'll take and the number of patients on Medicare and Medicaid. According to the foundation's report, over a third of those surveyed have closed their practices to Medicaid patients and 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare patients That can leave a lot of patients looking for a doctor.
And as Ray mentioned, med school students are shying away from family medicine. In a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September, only 2 percent of current medical students plan to take up primary care. That's because these students are wary of the same complaints that are causing existing doctors to flee primary care: hectic clinics, burdensome paperwork and systems that do a poor job of managing patients with chronic illness.
So what to do? Physicians don't have a lot of answers. But doctors say it's time to make some changes, not only in the health care field but also with the insurance industry. And they're looking to the new administration for guidance.
One of President-elect Barack Obama's health care promises is to provide a primary care physician for every American. But some health experts, including Pocinki, are skeptical.
"People who have insurance can't find a doctor, so suddenly we are going to give insurance to a whole bunch of people who haven't had it, without increasing the number of physicians?" he says. "It's going to be a problem."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Media Admits to Obvious Disease Prevention Measures
I got a kick out of the article below because of the way the mainstream media has approached the "breaking news" that diet and exercise "may" prevent cancer. It's a bit like a weather forecaster peeking out the window during a torrential downpour and reporting a slight chance of rain for the day. At least more stories are starting to appear regarding nutritional and lifestyle changes that can keep us well, but conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical companies are still a long way from giving up on the use of toxic chemicals to "treat" diseases, often conditions that they have invented themselves.
I also found it sadly ironic that the lead author of the study labeled only obesity as a preventable risk factor for breast cancer (highlighted in red below). That is totally ludicrous! Breast cancer would not even be an issue if many risk factors were eliminated such as artificial hormones; toxic chemical and hormonal exposure in the food, water, and air; nutritionally-poor foods; medications such as birth control and others, only to name a few. The media, many allopathic physicians, and Big Pharma have all jumped on the "obesity" bandwagon in a big way without addressing the fundamental issues behind it: a lack of healthy, toxin-free, nutrient-dense food that the body needs to prevent disease and repair itself. This obsession with obesity has spawned a slew of new and faddish weight-loss drugs and regimens that again only make the drug companies wealthy without improving the wellness of the masses.
Those in the cancer industry like to make this disease sound like an inevitable part of life that some people may be lucky enough to avoid if they get enough "preventative diagnostics" like mammograms, for example. The idea of prevention by living a natural lifestyle and eating "as close to nature as possible", a philosophy that has ruled throughout most of human history, is looked upon as a radical, ridiculous, and outdated approach to medical care. But perhaps enough people are becoming fed up with this madness that we call "medicine", and we as a society are poised to return to the traditional ways of health based on nutrition instead of a cocktail of pharmaceuticals that only make us sicker.
Diet, Exercise May Modify Breast Cancer Risks
Combined, they produce more potent anti-disease effect in postmenopausal women, study says
Posted November 18, 2008
TUESDAY, Nov. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Scientists believe they have found out why diet and exercise affect a women's chance of breast cancer after she's past menopause, a new study says.
Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found that cutting calories and exercise affect pathways to mTOR, a molecule that integrates energy balance with cell growth and can contribute to various human diseases when it is not functioning properly.
The research team, expected to present its findings Nov. 18 at the American Association for Cancer Research's annual conference on cancer prevention research, in National Harbor, Md., said these pathways are different, though. Calorie restriction affects more upstream pathways, which may explain why cutting calories delays tumor growth better than exercise when tested on animals.
"One of the few breast cancer modifiable risk factors is obesity," study lead author Leticia M. Nogueira, a research graduate assistant at the University of Texas, said in a news release issued by the conference organizers. "Our study may provide a good scientific basis for medical recommendations. If you're obese, and at high risk for breast cancer, diet and exercise could help prevent tumor growth."
Past research has suggested that consuming fewer calories or increasing exercise levels creates a "negative energy balance" where less energy is taken in than expended, and this lowers the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer associated with obesity. While scientists have thought hormones may play a part in this, it has never been proven.
For the new study, researchers studied 45 obese mice that had their ovaries surgically removed to model the post-menopausal state. After eight weeks, mice fed a calorie-restricted diet had significantly lower blood levels of leptin, a hormone that plays a role in fat metabolism, than those mice only put on an exercise program or those allowed to eat at will with no forced exercise. The calorie-restricted mice also had increased levels of adiponectin, a hormone produced in fat tissue that regulates some metabolic processes, the researchers said.
Some of the cell signaling pathways these hormones manage converge at mTOR, and the researchers found that the key proteins found downstream of mTOR were less active in both the calorie-restricted and exercised mice compared to the controls.
"These data suggest that although exercise can act on similar pathways as caloric restriction, caloric restriction possesses a more global effect on cell signaling and, therefore, may produce a more potent anti-cancer effect," Nogueira said.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/18/diet-exercise-may-modify-breast-cancer-risks_print.htm
I also found it sadly ironic that the lead author of the study labeled only obesity as a preventable risk factor for breast cancer (highlighted in red below). That is totally ludicrous! Breast cancer would not even be an issue if many risk factors were eliminated such as artificial hormones; toxic chemical and hormonal exposure in the food, water, and air; nutritionally-poor foods; medications such as birth control and others, only to name a few. The media, many allopathic physicians, and Big Pharma have all jumped on the "obesity" bandwagon in a big way without addressing the fundamental issues behind it: a lack of healthy, toxin-free, nutrient-dense food that the body needs to prevent disease and repair itself. This obsession with obesity has spawned a slew of new and faddish weight-loss drugs and regimens that again only make the drug companies wealthy without improving the wellness of the masses.
Those in the cancer industry like to make this disease sound like an inevitable part of life that some people may be lucky enough to avoid if they get enough "preventative diagnostics" like mammograms, for example. The idea of prevention by living a natural lifestyle and eating "as close to nature as possible", a philosophy that has ruled throughout most of human history, is looked upon as a radical, ridiculous, and outdated approach to medical care. But perhaps enough people are becoming fed up with this madness that we call "medicine", and we as a society are poised to return to the traditional ways of health based on nutrition instead of a cocktail of pharmaceuticals that only make us sicker.
Diet, Exercise May Modify Breast Cancer Risks
Combined, they produce more potent anti-disease effect in postmenopausal women, study says
Posted November 18, 2008
TUESDAY, Nov. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Scientists believe they have found out why diet and exercise affect a women's chance of breast cancer after she's past menopause, a new study says.
Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found that cutting calories and exercise affect pathways to mTOR, a molecule that integrates energy balance with cell growth and can contribute to various human diseases when it is not functioning properly.
The research team, expected to present its findings Nov. 18 at the American Association for Cancer Research's annual conference on cancer prevention research, in National Harbor, Md., said these pathways are different, though. Calorie restriction affects more upstream pathways, which may explain why cutting calories delays tumor growth better than exercise when tested on animals.
"One of the few breast cancer modifiable risk factors is obesity," study lead author Leticia M. Nogueira, a research graduate assistant at the University of Texas, said in a news release issued by the conference organizers. "Our study may provide a good scientific basis for medical recommendations. If you're obese, and at high risk for breast cancer, diet and exercise could help prevent tumor growth."
Past research has suggested that consuming fewer calories or increasing exercise levels creates a "negative energy balance" where less energy is taken in than expended, and this lowers the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer associated with obesity. While scientists have thought hormones may play a part in this, it has never been proven.
For the new study, researchers studied 45 obese mice that had their ovaries surgically removed to model the post-menopausal state. After eight weeks, mice fed a calorie-restricted diet had significantly lower blood levels of leptin, a hormone that plays a role in fat metabolism, than those mice only put on an exercise program or those allowed to eat at will with no forced exercise. The calorie-restricted mice also had increased levels of adiponectin, a hormone produced in fat tissue that regulates some metabolic processes, the researchers said.
Some of the cell signaling pathways these hormones manage converge at mTOR, and the researchers found that the key proteins found downstream of mTOR were less active in both the calorie-restricted and exercised mice compared to the controls.
"These data suggest that although exercise can act on similar pathways as caloric restriction, caloric restriction possesses a more global effect on cell signaling and, therefore, may produce a more potent anti-cancer effect," Nogueira said.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/18/diet-exercise-may-modify-breast-cancer-risks_print.htm
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Brave New World for Health Care in U.S.?
Yesterday I talked about some natural alternatives that are starting to become more popular. The article in today's post does an excellent job of summarizing why we may be on the edge of a societal shift away from the abusive overuse of dangerous prescriptions by the American people. It appears that due to several key factors -- including prohibitively expensive drugs during these tough economic times and a huge increase in reports of serious side effects and fatalities from prescription drugs -- that the sales and profits of Big Pharma are declining for the first time in over a decade.
People are doing more research than ever and are challenging doctors to provide side-effects (short and long-term) of any meds that are prescribed. Many are saying NO to the myriad of childhood vaccinations imposed upon our children, along with refusing the all "too available" flu vaccine. In other words, people are beginning to step out of the traditional medicine box, thus taking responsibility for their own health and well-being. Nope, most doctors don't appreciate this, but it's not THEIR money that is being spent. It is OUR money, and more and more of us are deciding to spend OUR money in a way that promotes health and healing. Many healthcare professionals conveniently forget this.
This article also addresses what real change in our healthcare system should involve -- a popular topic lately during this election year -- and why this change must be about a switch to preventative medicine that focuses on lifestyle changes (instead of toxic chemicals) to heal us, and more importantly to keep us well. If there is any silver lining in this economic recession we are currently in, perhaps it is the opportunity for people to rediscover nutritional healthcare, natural healing, and preventative remedies that could revolutionize the welfare of the American people and radically change our healthcare system that is so desperately in need of an overhaul.
Will the Down Economy Herald the Use of Natural Medicine?
For the first time in a decade or more, U.S. consumers are trying to get by on fewer prescription drugs. As people around the country respond to financial hard times, drugs are sometimes having to wait.
The drug giant Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, the world's top-selling prescription medicine, said U.S. sales of that drug were down 13 percent in the third quarter of this year. And although the overall decline in total prescriptions was less than 1 percent, it represents the first downturn after more than a decade of steady increases in prescriptions. From 1997 to 2007, the number of prescriptions filled increased 72 percent.
In some cases, the cutbacks might not hurt. According to Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "A lot of people think there's probably over-prescribing in the United States."
The American health care system is more than twice as expensive as the health care system of any other industrial country, yet premature deaths caused by its inappropriate, and overpriced, interventions are increasing at an exponential rate.
Despite the fact that Americans pay $7,600 a year per person for healthcare -- 16 percent of the GDP -- it produces remarkably poor results. We actually rank LAST out of 19 countries for unnecessary deaths, despite the vastly increased use of a wide variety of "wonder drugs" and vaccines.
How can this be?
Because Americans have been successfully brainwashed into believing the fairytale that prescription drugs can prevent and cure disease.
But as I reported earlier this week, fatalities now account for 23 percent of all reported adverse effects of prescription drugs! And overall reports of side effects increased a whopping 38 percent in the first quarter of this year, compared to the previous four quarters.
There is no doubt in my mind that a vast majority of the population is severely overmedicated with expensive and nearly always unnecessary drugs, considering the multitude of natural therapeutic options.
The only way to turn this devastating situation around is to remind the public of the basic truths that nearly all their ancestors knew:
Health has nothing to do with pills, and everything to do with sensible lifestyles that include a healthy diet, stress relief, and exercise.
What's Missing in Talks About Health Care Reform?
What's missing in all of the debates about health care reform for the United States is a holistic approach.
The reason the U.S. ranks so poorly is because our system focuses on disease mongering and sickness care, whereas the health care systems in most other countries rely heavier on prevention. As a result, the people in those countries live longer, healthier lives.
Whether or not to provide universal health care or health insurance to every American is not the question that needs to be answered. What we need to ask is how to give Americans more time to relax, exercise, cook healthy meals, and get enough sleep and healthy doses of sunshine.
Rather than subsidizing agribusiness that produces mostly junk food and permitting direct-to-consumer drug advertising, it would be far wiser to focus on providing Americans access to healthy foods, and opportunity to exercise and rest.
Escalating Drug Sales Have Plunged Americans' Health Into State of Sickness and Premature Death
Just 50 years ago, according to IMS Health (a company that tracks the pharmaceutical industry), the two biggest sellers were over-the-counter drugs Bufferin and Geritol. At that time the prescription drug business was microscopic.
In 1954, Johnson & Johnson had $204 million in revenue. By 2004 it had grown to about $36 billion. Merck's drug sales in 1954 were a minuscule $1.5 million; by 2002, that figure was $52 billion.
The New York Times states,
"If enough people try to save money by forgoing drugs, controllable conditions could escalate into major medical problems. That could eventually raise the nation's total health care bill and lower the nation's standard of living."
I disagree, and if you don't, I suspect you haven't viewed the Town of Allopath Video.
If enough people realize that they don't need many of the drugs they're on, that would eventually lower the nation's health care bill and increase the nation's standard of living.
Last year, 3.8 billion prescriptions were filled. That's a 72 percent increase in prescriptions in just ten years, from 1997 to 2007.
In that same period, the average number of prescriptions filled by each person in the U.S. increased from about 9 a year in 1997, to almost 11 in 2006, and 13 in 2007!
The average annual prescription rate for seniors is 28 prescriptions per person.
Please understand that there is no possible way to preserve or improve your health by taking a dozen or more prescription drugs. That is a misconception; a fairytale complete with a story-book happy ending, concocted by shrewd marketing professionals acting in the best interest of the industry that signs their paychecks.
It's a myth that simply must be dispelled.
Curing Disease Means Finding Health
If you make drugs a last option, not a first choice, you will have taken a major step in the right direction.
For example, if you suffer from any of the conditions listed below, please understand that you can treat or prevent all of them with relatively simple, inexpensive LIFESTYLE CHANGES.
Most people who are prescribed drugs for these conditions are spending their dwindling cash reserves on drugs they don't really need to be well:
Type 2 diabetes
Heart disease
High blood pressure
High cholesterol
Insomnia
Arthritis
Cognitive decline
Depression
Osteoporosis
I realize that it takes a massive shift in thinking to realize that your body can heal itself, and that often drugs only hinder the process. But I can't stress enough the importance of the most basic principle of HOW to resolve an illness: finding the underlying cause of the problem. Masking it with a drug that lessens your symptoms does not fix anything.
Taking Control of Your Health
More government involvement doesn't hold the answer to the health care crisis. What is needed is more personal involvement -- your personal involvement -- in the form of a commitment to your own health.If you carefully follow some basic health principles -- simple things like exercising, eating whole foods, sleeping enough, getting sun exposure, reducing stress in your life, and nurturing personal relationships -- you will drastically reduce your need for conventional medical care.
You could also carefully analyze newer health insurance options such as HRAs and HSAs if you live in the United States. The basic concept here is to provide protection against medical catastrophes, but to have a high deductible to lower your costs. If you stay healthy, the premium savings would more than pay for the higher deductible -- IF you ever need it.And that is really the bottom line.As drug sales are now dwindling due to a depressed economy, you and your children are likely to be bombarded with increasingly aggressive pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising, and lobbying for more forced drugging and mandatory vaccinations.
Don't fall for the scare tactics and disease mongering! And don't believe the fairy tale that taking a pill with a laundry list of side effects will somehow make you feel as glowing and wonderful as the well-paid actors in the commercial.
The more you take responsibility for your own health -- in the form of nurturing your body to prevent disease -- the less you need to rely on the "disease care" that passes for health care in the United States in the first place.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/15/will-the-down-economy-herald-the-use-of-natural-medicine.aspx
People are doing more research than ever and are challenging doctors to provide side-effects (short and long-term) of any meds that are prescribed. Many are saying NO to the myriad of childhood vaccinations imposed upon our children, along with refusing the all "too available" flu vaccine. In other words, people are beginning to step out of the traditional medicine box, thus taking responsibility for their own health and well-being. Nope, most doctors don't appreciate this, but it's not THEIR money that is being spent. It is OUR money, and more and more of us are deciding to spend OUR money in a way that promotes health and healing. Many healthcare professionals conveniently forget this.
This article also addresses what real change in our healthcare system should involve -- a popular topic lately during this election year -- and why this change must be about a switch to preventative medicine that focuses on lifestyle changes (instead of toxic chemicals) to heal us, and more importantly to keep us well. If there is any silver lining in this economic recession we are currently in, perhaps it is the opportunity for people to rediscover nutritional healthcare, natural healing, and preventative remedies that could revolutionize the welfare of the American people and radically change our healthcare system that is so desperately in need of an overhaul.
Will the Down Economy Herald the Use of Natural Medicine?
For the first time in a decade or more, U.S. consumers are trying to get by on fewer prescription drugs. As people around the country respond to financial hard times, drugs are sometimes having to wait.
The drug giant Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, the world's top-selling prescription medicine, said U.S. sales of that drug were down 13 percent in the third quarter of this year. And although the overall decline in total prescriptions was less than 1 percent, it represents the first downturn after more than a decade of steady increases in prescriptions. From 1997 to 2007, the number of prescriptions filled increased 72 percent.
In some cases, the cutbacks might not hurt. According to Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "A lot of people think there's probably over-prescribing in the United States."
The American health care system is more than twice as expensive as the health care system of any other industrial country, yet premature deaths caused by its inappropriate, and overpriced, interventions are increasing at an exponential rate.
Despite the fact that Americans pay $7,600 a year per person for healthcare -- 16 percent of the GDP -- it produces remarkably poor results. We actually rank LAST out of 19 countries for unnecessary deaths, despite the vastly increased use of a wide variety of "wonder drugs" and vaccines.
How can this be?
Because Americans have been successfully brainwashed into believing the fairytale that prescription drugs can prevent and cure disease.
But as I reported earlier this week, fatalities now account for 23 percent of all reported adverse effects of prescription drugs! And overall reports of side effects increased a whopping 38 percent in the first quarter of this year, compared to the previous four quarters.
There is no doubt in my mind that a vast majority of the population is severely overmedicated with expensive and nearly always unnecessary drugs, considering the multitude of natural therapeutic options.
The only way to turn this devastating situation around is to remind the public of the basic truths that nearly all their ancestors knew:
Health has nothing to do with pills, and everything to do with sensible lifestyles that include a healthy diet, stress relief, and exercise.
What's Missing in Talks About Health Care Reform?
What's missing in all of the debates about health care reform for the United States is a holistic approach.
The reason the U.S. ranks so poorly is because our system focuses on disease mongering and sickness care, whereas the health care systems in most other countries rely heavier on prevention. As a result, the people in those countries live longer, healthier lives.
Whether or not to provide universal health care or health insurance to every American is not the question that needs to be answered. What we need to ask is how to give Americans more time to relax, exercise, cook healthy meals, and get enough sleep and healthy doses of sunshine.
Rather than subsidizing agribusiness that produces mostly junk food and permitting direct-to-consumer drug advertising, it would be far wiser to focus on providing Americans access to healthy foods, and opportunity to exercise and rest.
Escalating Drug Sales Have Plunged Americans' Health Into State of Sickness and Premature Death
Just 50 years ago, according to IMS Health (a company that tracks the pharmaceutical industry), the two biggest sellers were over-the-counter drugs Bufferin and Geritol. At that time the prescription drug business was microscopic.
In 1954, Johnson & Johnson had $204 million in revenue. By 2004 it had grown to about $36 billion. Merck's drug sales in 1954 were a minuscule $1.5 million; by 2002, that figure was $52 billion.
The New York Times states,
"If enough people try to save money by forgoing drugs, controllable conditions could escalate into major medical problems. That could eventually raise the nation's total health care bill and lower the nation's standard of living."
I disagree, and if you don't, I suspect you haven't viewed the Town of Allopath Video.
If enough people realize that they don't need many of the drugs they're on, that would eventually lower the nation's health care bill and increase the nation's standard of living.
Last year, 3.8 billion prescriptions were filled. That's a 72 percent increase in prescriptions in just ten years, from 1997 to 2007.
In that same period, the average number of prescriptions filled by each person in the U.S. increased from about 9 a year in 1997, to almost 11 in 2006, and 13 in 2007!
The average annual prescription rate for seniors is 28 prescriptions per person.
Please understand that there is no possible way to preserve or improve your health by taking a dozen or more prescription drugs. That is a misconception; a fairytale complete with a story-book happy ending, concocted by shrewd marketing professionals acting in the best interest of the industry that signs their paychecks.
It's a myth that simply must be dispelled.
Curing Disease Means Finding Health
If you make drugs a last option, not a first choice, you will have taken a major step in the right direction.
For example, if you suffer from any of the conditions listed below, please understand that you can treat or prevent all of them with relatively simple, inexpensive LIFESTYLE CHANGES.
Most people who are prescribed drugs for these conditions are spending their dwindling cash reserves on drugs they don't really need to be well:
Type 2 diabetes
Heart disease
High blood pressure
High cholesterol
Insomnia
Arthritis
Cognitive decline
Depression
Osteoporosis
I realize that it takes a massive shift in thinking to realize that your body can heal itself, and that often drugs only hinder the process. But I can't stress enough the importance of the most basic principle of HOW to resolve an illness: finding the underlying cause of the problem. Masking it with a drug that lessens your symptoms does not fix anything.
Taking Control of Your Health
More government involvement doesn't hold the answer to the health care crisis. What is needed is more personal involvement -- your personal involvement -- in the form of a commitment to your own health.If you carefully follow some basic health principles -- simple things like exercising, eating whole foods, sleeping enough, getting sun exposure, reducing stress in your life, and nurturing personal relationships -- you will drastically reduce your need for conventional medical care.
You could also carefully analyze newer health insurance options such as HRAs and HSAs if you live in the United States. The basic concept here is to provide protection against medical catastrophes, but to have a high deductible to lower your costs. If you stay healthy, the premium savings would more than pay for the higher deductible -- IF you ever need it.And that is really the bottom line.As drug sales are now dwindling due to a depressed economy, you and your children are likely to be bombarded with increasingly aggressive pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising, and lobbying for more forced drugging and mandatory vaccinations.
Don't fall for the scare tactics and disease mongering! And don't believe the fairy tale that taking a pill with a laundry list of side effects will somehow make you feel as glowing and wonderful as the well-paid actors in the commercial.
The more you take responsibility for your own health -- in the form of nurturing your body to prevent disease -- the less you need to rely on the "disease care" that passes for health care in the United States in the first place.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/15/will-the-down-economy-herald-the-use-of-natural-medicine.aspx
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Natural Remedies -- Tried and True -- for IBS
It was encouraging to find the article below covered in the media. It suggests peppermint oil and fiber (best from organic food) -- natural remedies without the excessive cost and hazardous side effects of many modern medications -- that can very effectively help to heal and relieve digestive conditions such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome. But it also points out that people -- both physicians and patients -- are beginning to take another glance at alternative forms of health care that have slidden into obscurity over the last 50 years or so, since Big Pharma has convinced the public that drugs are the answer for every and all ailments.
IBS symptoms can seemingly be brought about by high stress levels although nothing has been proven in this area. It was once considered ridiculous that daily stress or severe panic could actually be the cause of sudden diarrhea or constipation. However, there are many physiological factors that can actually aggravate the colon, even if the exact cause cannot be pinned down.
Probiotics are highly recommended to help manage the symptoms of IBS. I would suggest Latero-Flora and/or Primal Defense.
Nutritional medicine and nutritional supplements are far safer and more cost-effective than the toxic drugs typically prescribed by conventional medical practitioners. With the outrageous cost of medications and the large amount of recent publicity about the hazards of these drugs, could it be that a quiet revolution may be taking place that involves a switch from the blind trust of modern medicine that has existed for so long? More on that in tomorrow's post.
Peppermint Oil, Fiber Can Fight Irritable Bowel
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Friday, November 14, 2008; 12:00 AM
THURSDAY, Nov. 13 (HealthDay News) -- For some patients, the best therapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be older, cheaper drugs such as fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil, a new study finds.
According to researchers, these simple treatments have fallen out of favor because of the availability of newer (and more expensive) drugs, some of which have been taken off the market due to safety concerns.
But more traditional therapies should become first-line treatments in guidelines for the treatment of IBS, the experts say.
"IBS can be difficult for physicians to treat," noted lead researcher Dr. Alex Ford, from McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada.
"New drugs are always being developed, but recent ones such as alosetron and tegaserod have been withdrawn, and are now only available on a restricted basis, and renzapride has not been shown to be effective," he said. On the other hand "older drugs, which are cheap, safe, and in some cases available over the counter, appear to be effective in IBS."
The report is published in the Nov. 14 online edition of the BMJ.
As many as 45 million Americans may have IBS, the International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders reports. Between 60 percent and 65 percent of IBS sufferers are women.
In addition to pain and discomfort, people with IBS experience chronic or recurrent constipation or diarrhea -- or bouts of both. While the exact cause of the condition isn't known, symptoms seem to result from a disturbance in the interaction of the gut, brain and nervous system, according to the foundation.
For the study, Ford's team reviewed trials that compared IBS treatment with fiber antispasmodics and peppermint oil to a placebo or no treatment. The trials included more than 2,500 IBS patients.
The researchers found that fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil were effective treatments for IBS. Specifically, that meant that to prevent IBS symptoms in one patient, 11 needed to be treated with fiber, five with antispasmodics, and 2.5 with peppermint oil.
There were no serious side effects associated with any of these treatments, the researchers note.
Peppermint oil appeared to be the most effective therapy of those reviewed, the researchers found.
In trials comparing fiber with placebo, insoluble fiber such as bran was not effective. Instead, only soluble fiber, such as ispaghula husk, reduced symptoms. For antispasmodics, the most effective was hyoscine. This should be used first among antispasmodics, Ford's group advised.
"Physicians, particularly those in primary care, who are being asked to take increasing responsibility for the management of IBS, should consider the use of these agents as first-line therapies for IBS," Ford said.
Dr. Roger Jones, from Kings College London and author of an accompanying journal editorial, welcomed the study. "These treatments might be slightly more effective than recently thought and they are worth trying," Jones said.
For some patients with pain and diarrhea the antispasmodics may be useful. Patients with constipation should try fiber and for other patients, peppermint oil may be helpful, Jones said.
"If you have IBS which is not under reasonably good control or you are not happy with your symptom profile, you should see your primary-care doc or gastroenterologist for review and perhaps remind them that there is new evidence about the effectiveness of these traditional medicines and you would like to give it a go," Jones said.
"Alternatively, if you feel sufficiently well-informed and confident, you can go do it yourself and get these treatments at the pharmacy," Jones added.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303704_pf.html
IBS symptoms can seemingly be brought about by high stress levels although nothing has been proven in this area. It was once considered ridiculous that daily stress or severe panic could actually be the cause of sudden diarrhea or constipation. However, there are many physiological factors that can actually aggravate the colon, even if the exact cause cannot be pinned down.
Probiotics are highly recommended to help manage the symptoms of IBS. I would suggest Latero-Flora and/or Primal Defense.
Nutritional medicine and nutritional supplements are far safer and more cost-effective than the toxic drugs typically prescribed by conventional medical practitioners. With the outrageous cost of medications and the large amount of recent publicity about the hazards of these drugs, could it be that a quiet revolution may be taking place that involves a switch from the blind trust of modern medicine that has existed for so long? More on that in tomorrow's post.
Peppermint Oil, Fiber Can Fight Irritable Bowel
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Friday, November 14, 2008; 12:00 AM
THURSDAY, Nov. 13 (HealthDay News) -- For some patients, the best therapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be older, cheaper drugs such as fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil, a new study finds.
According to researchers, these simple treatments have fallen out of favor because of the availability of newer (and more expensive) drugs, some of which have been taken off the market due to safety concerns.
But more traditional therapies should become first-line treatments in guidelines for the treatment of IBS, the experts say.
"IBS can be difficult for physicians to treat," noted lead researcher Dr. Alex Ford, from McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada.
"New drugs are always being developed, but recent ones such as alosetron and tegaserod have been withdrawn, and are now only available on a restricted basis, and renzapride has not been shown to be effective," he said. On the other hand "older drugs, which are cheap, safe, and in some cases available over the counter, appear to be effective in IBS."
The report is published in the Nov. 14 online edition of the BMJ.
As many as 45 million Americans may have IBS, the International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders reports. Between 60 percent and 65 percent of IBS sufferers are women.
In addition to pain and discomfort, people with IBS experience chronic or recurrent constipation or diarrhea -- or bouts of both. While the exact cause of the condition isn't known, symptoms seem to result from a disturbance in the interaction of the gut, brain and nervous system, according to the foundation.
For the study, Ford's team reviewed trials that compared IBS treatment with fiber antispasmodics and peppermint oil to a placebo or no treatment. The trials included more than 2,500 IBS patients.
The researchers found that fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil were effective treatments for IBS. Specifically, that meant that to prevent IBS symptoms in one patient, 11 needed to be treated with fiber, five with antispasmodics, and 2.5 with peppermint oil.
There were no serious side effects associated with any of these treatments, the researchers note.
Peppermint oil appeared to be the most effective therapy of those reviewed, the researchers found.
In trials comparing fiber with placebo, insoluble fiber such as bran was not effective. Instead, only soluble fiber, such as ispaghula husk, reduced symptoms. For antispasmodics, the most effective was hyoscine. This should be used first among antispasmodics, Ford's group advised.
"Physicians, particularly those in primary care, who are being asked to take increasing responsibility for the management of IBS, should consider the use of these agents as first-line therapies for IBS," Ford said.
Dr. Roger Jones, from Kings College London and author of an accompanying journal editorial, welcomed the study. "These treatments might be slightly more effective than recently thought and they are worth trying," Jones said.
For some patients with pain and diarrhea the antispasmodics may be useful. Patients with constipation should try fiber and for other patients, peppermint oil may be helpful, Jones said.
"If you have IBS which is not under reasonably good control or you are not happy with your symptom profile, you should see your primary-care doc or gastroenterologist for review and perhaps remind them that there is new evidence about the effectiveness of these traditional medicines and you would like to give it a go," Jones said.
"Alternatively, if you feel sufficiently well-informed and confident, you can go do it yourself and get these treatments at the pharmacy," Jones added.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303704_pf.html
Monday, November 17, 2008
Knee Surgery? Get a Second Opinion First
It is always prudent to educate yourself about the benefits and risks of any medical procedure -- surgery, medication, or others -- before you submit to it, and today's article discusses an excellent example of why this is so. According to a newly released study, one of the most popular types of knee surgery -- performed on countless patients over the years -- provides no improvement for individuals with osteoarthritis. How many operations have been done unnecessarily and how many dollars of profit have resulted from these surgeries on patients who blindly trusted their doctor's advice? We may never know.
An excellent nutritional therapy for osteoarthritis -- that avoids both surgery and dangerous medications -- is supplementation with a high-quality omega-3 product. Omega-3's have many beneficial qualities, one of which is reduction of inflammation, a major factor in arthritis and numerous other illnesses.
Landmark Study Finds Popular Surgery Provides No Relief For Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
A landmark study conducted in London, Canada at The University of Western Ontario and Lawson Health Research Institute shows that a routinely practiced knee surgery is ineffective at reducing joint pain or improving joint function for sufferers of osteoarthritis. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"This study provides definitive evidence that arthroscopic surgery provides no additional therapeutic value when added to physical therapy and medication for patients with moderate osteoarthritis of the knee," says study co-author Dr. Brian Feagan, Clinical Trials Director at the Robarts Research Institute at Western. Feagan is also a professor of Medicine, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.
Arthroscopic surgery is widely accepted as an effective treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee. It's a minimally invasive surgical procedure involving insertion of an arthroscope and other instruments into the joint through small incisions in order to remove cartilage fragments and smooth the joint surfaces. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis affecting one in ten Canadians and 27 million Americans.
The study was designed by the late Sandy Kirkley, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in arthroscopic surgery. It was coordinated by the Clinical Trials Group at Robarts Research Institute and conducted by orthopedic surgeons at the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC). The research team also included rheumatologists and physiotherapists.
Running from 1999 to 2007, the study treated 178 London-area men and women with an average age of 60. All study participants received physical therapy as well as medications such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen, but 86 of the patients also received surgery consisting of lavage and arthroscopic debridement at LHSC. At several time intervals post-treatment, the researchers found both patient groups experienced comparable improvements in joint pain, stiffness, and function, but surgery provided no additional benefit.
Orthopedic surgeon and study co-author Dr. Bob Litchfield emphasizes this study addresses only arthritis-related knee problems. "Although this study did not show a significant therapeutic benefit of arthroscopic debridement in this patient population, knee arthroscopy is still beneficial in many other conditions affecting the knee, such as meniscal repair and resection, and ligament reconstruction." Litchfield is the Medical Director of the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic. He's also a professor In the Department of Surgery at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry and a scientist with the Lawson Health Research Institute. "As surgeons, we need to know when things are working and when they're not. If this particular technique is not working for this subgroup of patients, we better come up with something else that does."
A 2002 study demonstrating similar results to this study was broadly dismissed by the medical community, and arthroscopic surgery of the knee remains a common treatment for joint pain and stiffness. But in this latest study the researchers conclude "based on the available evidence, we believe that the resources currently allocated towards arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis would be better directed elsewhere."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=121146
An excellent nutritional therapy for osteoarthritis -- that avoids both surgery and dangerous medications -- is supplementation with a high-quality omega-3 product. Omega-3's have many beneficial qualities, one of which is reduction of inflammation, a major factor in arthritis and numerous other illnesses.
Landmark Study Finds Popular Surgery Provides No Relief For Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
A landmark study conducted in London, Canada at The University of Western Ontario and Lawson Health Research Institute shows that a routinely practiced knee surgery is ineffective at reducing joint pain or improving joint function for sufferers of osteoarthritis. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"This study provides definitive evidence that arthroscopic surgery provides no additional therapeutic value when added to physical therapy and medication for patients with moderate osteoarthritis of the knee," says study co-author Dr. Brian Feagan, Clinical Trials Director at the Robarts Research Institute at Western. Feagan is also a professor of Medicine, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.
Arthroscopic surgery is widely accepted as an effective treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee. It's a minimally invasive surgical procedure involving insertion of an arthroscope and other instruments into the joint through small incisions in order to remove cartilage fragments and smooth the joint surfaces. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis affecting one in ten Canadians and 27 million Americans.
The study was designed by the late Sandy Kirkley, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in arthroscopic surgery. It was coordinated by the Clinical Trials Group at Robarts Research Institute and conducted by orthopedic surgeons at the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC). The research team also included rheumatologists and physiotherapists.
Running from 1999 to 2007, the study treated 178 London-area men and women with an average age of 60. All study participants received physical therapy as well as medications such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen, but 86 of the patients also received surgery consisting of lavage and arthroscopic debridement at LHSC. At several time intervals post-treatment, the researchers found both patient groups experienced comparable improvements in joint pain, stiffness, and function, but surgery provided no additional benefit.
Orthopedic surgeon and study co-author Dr. Bob Litchfield emphasizes this study addresses only arthritis-related knee problems. "Although this study did not show a significant therapeutic benefit of arthroscopic debridement in this patient population, knee arthroscopy is still beneficial in many other conditions affecting the knee, such as meniscal repair and resection, and ligament reconstruction." Litchfield is the Medical Director of the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic. He's also a professor In the Department of Surgery at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry and a scientist with the Lawson Health Research Institute. "As surgeons, we need to know when things are working and when they're not. If this particular technique is not working for this subgroup of patients, we better come up with something else that does."
A 2002 study demonstrating similar results to this study was broadly dismissed by the medical community, and arthroscopic surgery of the knee remains a common treatment for joint pain and stiffness. But in this latest study the researchers conclude "based on the available evidence, we believe that the resources currently allocated towards arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis would be better directed elsewhere."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=121146
Friday, November 14, 2008
Obama's "Change" Looks Like More of the Same
Rumors in our nation's capital have president-elect Obama leaning towards Tom Vilsack as the head honcho of the USDA in his upcoming administration. As the post below points out, this man is no friend of American farmers (except perhaps the huge corporate ones), and has very questionable connections to biotech groups and corporations such as Monsanto that are aggressively supporting and marketing genetically modified foods and agricultural practices that are nutritionally and ecologically disastrous.
Apparently the big-bucks behind those that support control of the food supply have bought and paid for access and influence within the Obama camp. Despite campaigning against the status quo and "Old Boy Network" in Washington, it appears for now that Obama is practicing business as usual. When one analyzes the massive financial advantage that Obama had over his Republican opponent, along with some of the questionable moves that were made by the McCain camp during the election, it is no small stretch of the imagination to suspect that perhaps Obama was picked for the job far before the voting took place. Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to keep an eye on how much real change will occur over the next four years.
Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea
From: National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture & the OCA
Nov. 12, 2008
* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.
* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.
* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocates across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid, and there was controversy because Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.
*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.
http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/articles/article_15573.cfm
Apparently the big-bucks behind those that support control of the food supply have bought and paid for access and influence within the Obama camp. Despite campaigning against the status quo and "Old Boy Network" in Washington, it appears for now that Obama is practicing business as usual. When one analyzes the massive financial advantage that Obama had over his Republican opponent, along with some of the questionable moves that were made by the McCain camp during the election, it is no small stretch of the imagination to suspect that perhaps Obama was picked for the job far before the voting took place. Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to keep an eye on how much real change will occur over the next four years.
Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea
From: National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture & the OCA
Nov. 12, 2008
* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.
* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.
* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocates across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid, and there was controversy because Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.
*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.
http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/articles/article_15573.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
