Californians sign petition to inject children with mercury, implement Orwellian police state modeled after Nazi Germany

(NaturalNews) Activist Mark Dice is at it again, this time asking citizens on the street of California to sign a petition mandating maximum mercury injections for children along with door-to-door gun confiscations using police and military forces.

Click to read more ...

Nonprofit Medicine: Is Government About to Throw It under the Bus?

Unfortunately, that appears to be the case—unless we do something about it.

Who controls healthcare? We wish we could say it was consumers, but they have less and less of a voice. Actually, healthcare today is controlled by three entities: government, for-profit businesses, and nonprofits—and before long, the first two may muscle out the third.

Should those of us following a natural health approach worry about this? Yes, definitely—for two reasons. First, conventional medicine has wandered far from the old ideal of being a caring profession, but that perspective is more likely to be rediscovered in a nonprofit setting than in one controlled by government or by for-profits. Second, having different kinds of healthcare providers increases our options and reduces the chance of having one-size-fits-all medicine forced on us.

How much nonprofit medicine is there now? A lot. Fully 62% of hospitals are nonprofit (20% are government-run and the rest are for-profits), as are 30% of nursing homes, 17% of home healthcare agencies, and so on. The medical practices that President Obama has praised as role models that others should emulate are nonprofit.

Yet President Obama is trying to undercut nonprofit medicine. And so are the Republicans. They are both doing it at a time when the donations to nonprofit medicine, decimated by the Crash of ’08, have still not recovered—and at a time when states and localities are upping taxes on nonprofits to try to reduce their deficits.

Presidents Bush and Obama decided to bail out auto companies and Wall Street. So why try to tear down the whole nonprofit sector at the same time? That sector represents about 11% of the economy; it employs 13.5 million people, about 10% of the workforce. Is their work—devoted to the general welfare, typically done with lower pay and benefits than in either government or business—less important than the auto workers or Wall Streeters? The president famously said, “These aren’t games we are playing here. Folks are out of work.” Exactly—and they’re out of work in the charitable sector too, where we really need them working.

First let’s look at Obama on nonprofits in general, then the Republicans. Then we’ll come back to nonprofit medicine.

President Obama seemed to be praising charities in his Democratic Convention acceptance speech ^[2]. He said, “We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone.” But look at that more closely, especially the words “often” and “more.” The president was really saying that charities do not always make a difference and if they do it is by adding to what government is already doing.

That was actually pretty dismissive. Most studies show that nonprofit social agencies are much more effective than government agencies, whether it is rehabbing drug addicts or delivering medicine to the poor. Furthermore, charities offer diversity. They are a laboratory of ideas and approaches, something that the government can never be. They also represent people-to-people solutions, the democratic ideal in action.

Earlier, the president had proposed a sharp curtailment in the ability of single people with incomes over $200,000 or families with incomes over $250,000 to take a tax deduction on charitable gifts. He proposed this several times, but most recently as a way to pay for his proposed 2011 jobs stimulus bill. And this reduction in the charitable deduction would be on top of another reduction (the “Pease limitation ^[3]”) that was already scheduled to come back with the end of the Bush tax cuts.

In 2009, Obama said ^[4], “I think it [reducing the charitable deduction] is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who have benefited enormously over the last several years.” But that doesn’t make any sense. Taking away the charitable deduction doesn’t penalize the rich; it penalizes the charities and the people being served by the charities. If the rich don’t give, they will end up with more money, not less. They do not suffer at all.

Obama’s budget director at the time, Peter Orszag, seemed to acknowledge this—that it was the charities, not the big donors, who would suffer under this proposal—when he said that charities should be willing to make this sacrifice in return for more people getting health insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”). But this didn’t make any sense either. First, yanking the charitable tax deduction was not part of the president’s plan to finance broader healthcare. Second, reducing the deduction actually makes it harder to cover more people.

This last point only requires a moment’s thought. If you want to cover more people, you need more doctors and nurses and clinics. In economic terms, if you increase demand, you should increase supply. Otherwise, people with the new health coverage still won’t be able to see a doctor, or they will have to wait for weeks and weeks, and prices will likely soar.

This is not an abstract idea. It is already happening just this way in Massachusetts under RomneyCare. Newly covered people can’t find a doctor, and prices are rising so rapidly that the legislature has just passed a price control system (even though price controls almost always fail). So if you need more healthcare supply nationally, how does it help to take a hatchet to nonprofit healthcare providers?

Obama also said ^[5] that “there is very little evidence that this [cutting the charitable deduction] has a significant impact on charitable giving.” In fact, the evidence says the opposite, that for every 1% reduction in the deduction, gifts from wealthy people fall 1%. That kind of drop in charitable giving would be devastating for nonprofits. As David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, wrote to the president ^[6], “Most nonprofits derive 70 to 80 percent of their donations from a small proportion of their donors who are major givers. This proposal will deal a major blow.”

Moreover, “taxing” major donors’ gifts would not even produce that much revenue for the government, only an estimated $54 billion a year. Compare that to the $300 billion in tax subsidies for health insurance or the overall budget deficit of $1.2 trillion. And let’s remember that charities would be expected to lose at least $54 billion and possibly much more.

President Obama added that he doesn’t think it is fair that someone in the 35% tax bracket gets a 35% deduction while someone in the 28% tax bracket gets a 28% deduction. Before we get too worried about this, let’s remember that the employer tax deduction for health insurance works the same way—the higher your income, the bigger deduction you get—and involves much more money. But the president did nothing to change that in his healthcare legislation because unions did not want it changed.

Also, speaking of fairness, why was the Affordable Care Act set up so that two families at the very same income level may receive government insurance subsidies that vary ^[7] by $10,000 or even as much as $20,000? That doesn’t seem very fair.

Furthermore, there is an easy fix to put everyone’s tax treatment for charitable giving on the exact same footing. Independent Sector, representing nonprofits as a whole, has proposed ^[8] that “charitable contributions should not be included in an individual’s adjusted gross income [subject to tax].” This change from a tax deduction to a tax credit would treat everyone alike and produce a torrent of income for charities. If government doesn’t want to go that far, how about a tax credit for charities that directly help the needy?

The president’s proposal to “tax” charities harder was first made when he had Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. Despite the majorities, it did not go anywhere. No one seemed to back it until Mitt Romney suddenly embraced it toward the end of the presidential campaign. But did he in fact embrace it?

What Romney actually said was that tax rates for everyone, including the highest earners, should be reduced in order to help the economy. In return, he would propose to cap itemized deductions to a maximum of $17,000, $25,000, or $50,000 (all three figures were “examples” rather than proposals). Romney also wasn’t clear about whether the cap would apply to all itemized tax deductions (e.g., state income taxes, mortgage interest, and charitable gift deductions, but not health insurance deductions) or just some of them.

Here ^[9] is how an online reader reacted to the Romney proposal, which he assumed meant that charitable deductions would be cut. “[Let’s say you give 5% of your income to charity and I give none. The Romney plan] stops rewarding you for being a better human being than me and [instead] rewards me for being a jerk.”

Regardless of what Romney actually intended, his remarks suddenly put the charitable deduction, part of the tax code since 1917, in grave peril. Only a few days after the 2008 presidential election, Democrats started pointing out that eliminating deductions was a Republican proposal, although they conveniently left out the part about cutting tax rates first.

Republican House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) said ^[10] he would be open to increasing government revenues, but not increasing tax rates. This was code for saying that tax deductions in general would be on the chopping block. Congressman and vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said the same ^[11]. And now Mitt Romney’s chief economic advisor, Glenn Hubbard, has also come out in favor of cutting deductions.

How much nonprofit medicine will be wiped out if the charitable deduction falls? Potentially, quite a lot. It is hard to get firm figures on gifts for medicine, but as much as $32 billion may be going there, with about a third of that going to nonprofit hospitals. These hospitals are already endangered by threatened reimbursement cuts under the Affordable Care Act and many of them could be forced to close. How will low-wage earners benefit if they have “coverage” but don’t even have a hospital emergency room to go to?

Will the charitable deduction survive? It depends on how the American public reacts. Do we want more charity, or less? Do we want social services, including medicine, to be provided only by government or for-profit businesses, or do we want a thriving nonprofit sector?

Most countries do not have a thriving nonprofit sector. Europe does not have it, nor Japan. This has been a uniquely American phenomenon, recognized and encouraged by our tax laws. Now it is under attack. Whether that attack succeeds will make a big difference in the kind of country we are. If we care, and we should, we have to make our views known on Capitol Hill.

http://www.anh-usa.org/nonprofit-medicine-is-government-about-to-throw-it-under-the-bus/

Big Pharma Testing Oxycontin on Children as Young as 6 to Keep Patent

You’ve likely heard of OxyContin; it’s that heavy duty narcotic painkiller, the one that has spurred the prescription drug addiction problem to new heights over the past several years. It’s highly addictive. So addictive, in fact, that it is said to lead people to using heroin in order to get a cheaper high when their budget can’t keep up with their Oxycontin habit. (This move only became more pronounced after the maker of Oxy changed their formula to reportedly discourage addiction).

Well, the maker of this wonder-drug, responsible for countless overdose deaths, is so concerned with their patent running out, that they’ve decided to test the drug on children as young as six years old.

The company is Purdue Pharma LP. And their concern isn’t in helping children overcome some deadly illness or debilitating pain, but instead lies (not surprisingly) with their bottom line. The patent of OxyContin is set to expire in August of 2013; when that occurs, other Big Pharma companies will be able to make generic versions of the pricey narcotic and sell them for much cheaper, taking some away from Purdue’s pockets.

By starting new trials on children, Purdue Pharma is able to extend their patent by six months. They are able to do this with a program from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that actually encourages drug companies to test their poisons on the youngest members of our communities.

According to Natural News, the FDA states “ testing drugs on children helps to bridge the “pediatric knowledge gap” of how drugs that are approved for adults perform in children. Since doctors often prescribe drugs “off label” to children, the FDA considers aftermarket testing on children to be beneficial for society.”

OxyContin is a highly addictive drug. It’s a narcotic, an opiate. This means it’s made from the same stuff as heroin (another reason users switch over to the much cheaper street-drug), and now children will be fed the drug just to see “how it works” on them. But is isn’t terribly surprising, as major drug and vaccine corporations are continuously found to experiment on children, even illegally.

In one case, vaccine and drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been fined 400,000 pesos (around the equivalent of $93,000) by an Argentinian judge for killing 14 babies during illegal lab vaccine trials that were conducted between 2007 and 2008. The judge also asserted that the corporation actually falsified parental authorizations so that babies could participate without legitimate parental permission.

The six month extension for Oxy seems like a little bit of gain for a major sacrifice, right? The company is willing to put kids in the lab in exchange for only six months? But, for Purdue, and likely any other drug company in their shoes, it’s a no brainer. Purdue made $2.8 billion in sales on OxyContin last year alone. Six months has the potential to earn them another nearly billion-and-a-half.

It seems that pharmaceutical painkillers will continue to ravage the population.

http://naturalsociety.com/big-pharma-testing-oxycontin-children-age-6/#ixzz2C7J9SuXi

How Kids Are Getting Hooked on Pills for Life

Where do parents and teachers get the idea there's something wrong with kids that only an expensive drug can fix? From Big Pharma's seamless web of ads, subsidized doctors, journals, medical courses and conferences, paid "patient" groups, phony public services messages and reporters willing to serve as stenographers.

Free stenography for Pharma from sympathetic media includes articles like "One in 40 Infants Experience Baby Blues, Doctors Say," on ABC News [4] and "Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children," on Science Daily [5].

For many, the face of the drugs-not-hugs message is Harold Koplewicz, author of the pop bestseller It's Nobody's Fault, and former head of NYU's prestigious Child Study Center. In a 1999 Salon [6] article, Koplewicz reiterated his "no-fault" statement, assuring parents that psychiatric illness is not caused by bad parenting. "It is not that your mother got divorced, or that your father didn't wipe you the right way," he said. "It really is DNA roulette: You got blue eyes, blond hair, sometimes a musical ear, but sometimes you get the predisposition for depression."

Many regard the NYU Child Study Center, which Koplewicz founded and led before leaving in 2009 to start his own facility, as helping to usher in the world of brave new pediatric medicine in which children, toddlers and infants, once expected to outgrow their problems, are now diagnosed with lifelong psychiatric problems. The Child Study Center is “a threat to the health and welfare of children,” and its doctors are “hustlers working to increase their 'client' population and their commercial value to psychotropic drug manufacturers,” charged Vera Sharav [7], president of the watchdog group, Alliance for Human Research Protection.

A look at the center's stated mission [8] provides no reassurance. Its goal of "eliminating the stigma of being or having a child with a psychiatric disorder," and "influencing child-related public policy," sounds a lot like a Pharma sales plan. And its boast about having "a structure that allows recruitment of patients for research studies and then provides 'real-world' testing for successful controlled-environment findings," could send chills down the backs of parents afraid their kids will be guinea pigs or money-making subjects.

In 2007, the fears of the Child Study Center's skeptics were confirmed when it launched an aggressive, scare tactic marketing campaign called Ransom Notes in 2007. "We have your son," said one ad, [9] created with bits of disparate type like a ransom note from a kidnapper. "We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning…Autism."

"We have your daughter. We are forcing her to throw up after every meal she eats. It’s only going to get worse," said another ad signed "Bulimia."

"We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay," said another add from "ADHD." Other ransom ads came from kidnappers named Depression, Asperger’s Syndrome and OCD.

Created pro bono by advertising giant BBDO, the ads were planned to run in New York magazine, Newsweek, Parents, Education Update, Mental Health News and other publications and on 11 billboards and 200 kiosks, according to the press release. [9]

Immediate Outrage

The hostage campaign drew immediate public outrage and more than a dozen advocacy groups joined together in an online petition calling for an end to it. “This is a demonstration of the assaultive tactics used by psychiatry today--in particular, academic psychiatrists and university-based medical centers that are under the influence of their pharmaceutical partners,” Vera Sharav wrote in alerts to AHRP’s mailing list. “If Dr. Koplewicz et al. are not stopped, the campaign will be hitting the rest of the country,” she warned, and informed readers that the campaign was formulated by BBDO, “a major direct to consumer prescription drug advertising firm,” asking the New York State Attorney General’s office to investigate.

Days after the backlash, the center revoked the advertising campaign “after the effort drew a strongly negative reaction,” reported [10] the New York Times. Koplewicz told the Times the decision was made by the center with no pressure from New York University and they planned to introduce a new campaign in the next three months. However, he left the Child Study Center at NYU in 2009 to start his own facility, initially called the Child Study Center Foundation, but changed to the Child Mind Institute, in 2010.

There was more controversy when Koplewicz left the center. When he announced his resignation, New York University "forbade him from entering his office and it pushed out professors who had said they wanted to join him at Child Mind Institute,” reported the New York Times. [11] Twelve NYU professors nevertheless followed Koplewicz to the Child Mind Institute as well as most of the Child Study Center’s influential board of directors, which included Garber Neidich, a chairwoman at the Whitney Museum, the founders of the Tribeca Film Festival founders and some well known financiers. The toxic send-off was followed by the New York State Office of Mental Health firing Koplewicz [12] from his job of nearly four years as director of the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, an affiliate of NYU School of Medicine.

Though Koplewicz' Child Mind Institute is supposedly a non-profit, it is ensconced on Park Avenue in Manhattan and Koplewicz' hourly rate “can be as high as $1,000 (three to four times that of the average Manhattan therapist),” says the Times. In a chilling interview on Education Update Online [13], Koplewicz says the reason his institute works closely with schools "is simply that’s where the kids are" (bringing to mind Willy Sutton, who robbed banks because "that’s where the money is").

Last month in the Wall Street Journal [14], Koplewicz wrote that "no studies have examined the effect of long-term use" of ADHD meds, but they "have been in use for 70 years, and there is no evidence that suggests any adverse effects." But there has been a large federal study of the long-term effects of the drugs and it shows they are "ineffective over longer periods," and "that long-term use of the drugs can stunt children's growth," reported the Washington Post. [15] Oops.

Other Pediatric Drug Proponents

Only one child in 10,000 has pediatric schizophrenia--some say one in 30,000--but for Pharma it is an untapped market. Symptoms of childhood schizophrenia include "social deficits" and "delusions...related to childhood themes," writes Gabriele Masi, in an article titled "Children with Schizophrenia: Clinical Picture and Pharmacological Treatment," in the journal CNS Drugs. [16] What child doesn't have "social deficits" and "delusions" like imaginary playmates?

Masi has received research funding from Eli Lilly, served as an adviser to the drug company Shire, and been on speakers bureaus for Sanofi Aventis, AstraZeneca, GSK and Janssen, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry [17].

Joining Masi in pursuing pediatric pathology is Joan L. Luby,  director of the Early Emotional Development Program at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. In an article in the Archives of General Psychiatry, she alerts the world to the problem of "preschool depression [18]." Researchers used to believe that "young children were too cognitively and emotionally immature to experience depressive effects," says the paper, which was widely picked up the mainstream press, but they now believe preschoolers can and do suffer from major depressive disorder (MDD). "The potential public health importance of identification of preschool MDD is underscored by the established unique efficacy of early intervention during the preschool period," says the article. [19] Translation: Big Pharma can clean up if kids are diagnosed young.

Luby "has received grant/research support from Janssen, has given occasional talks sponsored by AstraZeneca, and has served as a consultant for Shire Pharmaceutical," according to a journal article she co-wrote. [20]

Then there is Mani Pavuluri, a doctor who finds deficiencies of mania and bipolar drugs in tots. "Pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) is complex illness with a chronic course, requiring multiple medications over the longitudinal course of illness, with limited recovery and high relapse rate," she wrote in the journal Minerva Pediatrica last year. [21]Pavuluri receives research dollars from GlaxoSmithKline [22] as well as from the National Institutes of Health, aka our tax dollars, according to the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

Two features that characterize the pediatric medicine practiced by the NYU Child Study Center, Koplewicz, Mani, Luby and Pavuluri are they term the "diseases" they identify undertreated and underdiagnosed and they urge early treatment when symptoms first appear. (Before the symptoms go away on their own?)

Yet the very fact that such diseases are lifelong conditions is reason to wait to medicate, said Mark Zimmerman, director of outpatient psychiatry at Rhode Island Hospital at the 2010 American Psychiatric Association annual meeting in New Orleans. [23] Nor can parents with medicated children know if their kids even needed the drugs, since symptoms from the drugs are often called the "disease," says Peter Breggin in a recent interview. [24]

One thing doctors on both sides of the pediatric drug controversy agree on is that the decision to put a child on drugs will likely sentence him or her to a lifetime of medications. What they disagree about is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. 

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/how-kids-are-getting-hooked-pills-life

Ethical Dilemmas Contribute to 'Critical Weaknesses' in FDA Postmarket Oversight, Experts Say

 Ethical challenges are central to persistent "critical weaknesses" in the national system for ensuring drug safety, according to a commentary by former Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee members published August 22 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

With a caution against "reactive policymaking," committee co-chairs Ruth Faden, Ph.D., M.P.H., and Steven Goodman, M.D., M.H.S., Ph.D., with fellow committee member Michelle Mello, J.D., Ph.D., revisit the controversy over the antidiabetic drug Avandia that led to the formation of their IOM committee on monitoring drug safety after approval.

The Avandia postmarket trial, halted in September 2010, was "a lesson in how our current approach to the oversight of drug-safety and postmarketing research can fail both the public and the research participants," the authors write. With those lessons in mind, their independent commentary follows the May 2012 IOM report with a focus on the ethical challenges ahead.

The authors detail the IOM report's recommendations for maintaining the delicate balance of drug innovation and drug safety. Increased "fast-tracking" of drug approval for medical conditions with no effective treatment necessitates a counterbalance of increased postmarket oversight, the authors argue. They echo the IOM report's call for an independent ethics advisory board to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), focused on postmarket research and safety surveillance.

"As the pace of the translation of discoveries from bench to bedside continues to intensify, so too does the imperative for thoughtful ethical governance throughout the lifecycle of a drug," the authors write.

The authors also amplify one of the IOM report's key ethics points -- the responsibility of the FDA to participants in postmarket research, particularly in randomized trials that determine which treatment they receive. The FDA has a unique ethical obligation to the welfare of research participants when requiring a postmarket study, the authors assert, which "cannot be handed off to contractors or the industry sponsor."

Read more.. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822181226.htm

Kristen Gwynne -- Why Drug Dealers Are Now Competing with Doctors to Help Addicts

Twenty-three-year-old Joe*, a publicist living in New York City, doesn’t want to be buying his prescription drugs on the black market. It’s just that he doesn’t really have another choice.

As a recovering drug addict, Joe has spent almost three years successfully managing his former oxycontin addiction with suboxone, a prescription medication that reduces cravings and withdrawal symptoms for drugs like heroin and prescription painkillers. He first began suboxone when he was in college and was able to receive free treatment and prescriptions. But since graduation, the cost of obtaining his treatment legally has become unaffordable—largely because of the American health care system.

“Recently, I paid $100 for 20 [dissolveable suboxone] strips. That will last me over a year,” said Joe, “Now, if I were to go to a doctor, it  would cost $300 cash just to walk in and see the doctor for the first time. If you can use your insurance, you can get it a little cheaper, but a lot of insurances don’t cover it,” he said. Legally, each strip can cost a whopping $15 dollars without coverage.

Forced to choose between obtaining his treatment illegally and seeing an expensive doctor, Joe is buying on the black market. And he isn’t alone. Addiction  is so taboo in this society that even the medical establishment shies away from it. Few physicians are willing to prescribe suboxone and regulations have significantly limited the patients that those few physicians are allowed to prescribe.  The social stigma of addiction has helped create a thriving black market for the drug—one that poses real dangers for addicts trying to stay clean.

Suboxone is a life-saver for opioid addicts risking the overdose associated with shifting heroin purity, or, typically, mixing prescription drugs with alcohol.  Buprenorphine (a generic name for suboxone) binds to opioid receptors and only partially activates them, while naloxone blocks some opioid receptors from activation and reduces the chances of overdose.  Suboxone patients can without heroin or oxys, and at the same time minimize or avoid withdrawal symptoms that include physical pain, severe nausea and vomiting.

Read more.. http://www.alternet.org/health-care-disaster-why-drug-dealers-are-now-competing-doctors-help-addicts

PF Louis - Financial strain may help curb prescription drug use

The economy's decline into an ever widening abyss may have one silver lining: less can be spent on pharmaceutical drugs. With unemployment increasing while menial jobs that are available don't offer insurance, more people will be depending on government insurance programs.

Now some of those programs are looking into increasing or tightening restrictions on what they'll pay out for medical expenses and pharmaceutical drug costs. One proposal not yet put into effect is the undergoing study at Penn State College of Medicine along with Dr. Robert Rosenheck of the Yale School of Medicine.

The ongoing study has thus far made one report regarding off label use of anti-psychotic drugs for patients of less serious psychological or behavioral symptoms. Off label simply means using an FDA approved drug for a purpose other than for what it was approved.

Read More:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036036_prescription_drugs_purchases_money.html

Douglas LaBier - America's Continuing Empathy Deficit Disorder

It's possible for an entire culture to develop shared forms of mental disturbance. As socially shared pathologies increase, they can be difficult to recognize; they become the norm. Such is the case today, and a prime example is what I call our national Empathy Deficit Disorder, or EDD.

I made the name up, so don't go looking for it in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Actually, I'm hesitant to suggest a new disorder, given that our mental health professions increasingly define normal variations of mood and temperament as new "disorders" (for which Big Pharma is ready to supply "treatments"). But this one's real. It's become pervasive throughout our increasingly polarized social and political culture of the past several years.

EDD has profound consequences for the mental health of individuals and society. Yet it's ignored as a psychological disturbance by most of my colleagues in the mental health professions, largely because it's become the norm throughout our emotional attitudes, public policies and behavior.

Read More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-labier/americas-continuing-empat_b_637718.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Drew Armstrong - Drugmakers Vowed To Campaign For Health Law, Memos Show

Drugmakers led by Pfizer (PFE) Inc. agreed to run a “very significant public campaign” bankrolling political support for the 2010 health-care law, including TV ads, while the Obama administration promised to block provisions opposed by drugmakers, documents released by Republicans show.

The internal memos and e-mails for the first time unveil the industry's plan to finance positive TV ads and supportive groups, along with providing $80 billion in discounts and taxes that were included in the law. The administration has previously denied the existence of a deal involving political support.

The documents were released today by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They identify price controls under Medicare and drug importation as the key industry concerns, and show that former Pfizer Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Kindler and his top aides were involved in drawing it up and getting support from other company executives.

“As part of our agreement, PhRMA needs to undertake a very significant public campaign in order to support policies of mutual interest to the industry and the Administration,” according to a July 14, 2009, memo from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “We have included a significant amount for advertising to express appreciation for lawmakers’ positions on health care reform issues.”

Read More:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-31/drugmakers-vowed-to-campaign-for-health-law-memos-show.html

Martha Rosenberg - The Mind Druggers: Psychiatrists Re-Affirm Fealty to Big Pharma

The first week in May brought a new leader in France and new prospects for same sex couples seeking marriage. But at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in Philadelphia, attended by 11,000 psychiatrists, it was the same old same old. Instead of listening to the public outcry about overmedicated children, soldiers, elderly and everyday people watching too many drug ads, the psychiatry group re-affirmed its resolve to pathologize healthy people on behalf of its big brother, Big Pharma.

This is the year the APA puts the finishing touches on DSM-5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a compendium that determines what treatments insurers will cover, what disorders merit funding as “public health” threats and of course, Pharma marketing and profits. Some question the objectivity of a disorder manual written by those who stand to benefit from an enlarged patient pool and new diseases. Furthering the appearance of self-dealing is the revelation that 57 percent of the DSM-5′s authors have Pharma links.

No kidding. Scheduled presenters at this year’s meeting included former APA president Alan F. Schatzberg, MD and Charles Nemeroff, MD, both investigated by Congress for murky Pharma income. Nemeroff’s  $9.3 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to study depression was suspended, which happens rarely, when the government found out he had simultaneously taken $1.2 million from the antidepressant Paxil manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline, Nemeroff. Oops. But now he is again basking in taxpayer money, recently awarded a $2 million five-year grant from the NIMH to study the “prospective determination of psychobiological risk factors of post-traumatic stress disorder.”  Would should the government hold a grudge?

Read More:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/25/the-mind-druggers/