 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005drug marketing upstaging science
Drug marketing is upstaging science Advertising is an effective business tool. It sells products. That's why companies spend billions of dollars each year on drug marketing budgets - a lot more than is spent on drug research and development. by Ellen Reynolds June 27, 2005 It seems that even when we do know history, we're destined to repeat it. In 1948, diethylstilbestrol (DES) was advertised as the "wonder drug" recommended for all pregnancies. The smiling face of a cherubic infant peered out from the pages of medical journals next to the caption "Really? Yes, desPLEX to prevent abortion, miscarriage and premature labour...bigger and stronger babies too." Advertising works. It worked for DES, which was prescribed to an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 pregnant women in Canada between 1941 and 1971. Despite scientific evidence from 1952 that proved DES did not prevent miscarriage, this harmful drug was advertised and prescribed for 18 more years. Only after it was linked to cancer in the daughters of women prescribed DES was it finally restricted for use in pregnancy. Those exposed to DES continue to face the effects of infertility, reproductive abnormalities and cancer decades after initial exposure. But that was over 30 years ago. Surely we've learned that prescription drug advertising needs careful regulation. Apparently not. We only have to look at the recent news surrounding the arthritis drug Vioxx that is credited with causing thousands of extra heart attack deaths. During its five years on the market, its manufacturer, Merck, spent around US $500 million advertising the drug to the U.S. public. Vioxx was no more effective than other similar drugs to treat arthritis symptoms, it was a lot more expensive, and turned out to be much less safe. We've just observed DES Awareness Week - June 20 to 26. It's time to remember the DES legacy, including the lesson that prescription drug marketing cannot continue to upstage science. Back in the '50s and '60s, doctors were the target for most drug advertising. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs wasn't permitted in any form in Canada. We can only imagine how many more people would have been exposed to DES if it had been promoted on television, billboards, bus shelters, newspapers and magazines as prescription drugs are today. What many people don't realize is that direct-to-consumer advertising is still illegal in Canada, as it is in almost all industrialized countries of the world, with the exception of the United States and New Zealand. The reason we are bombarded with drug advertising in this country is that Health Canada isn't adequately enforcing the law and companies have rushed to take advantage of this situation. Most of us have seen the ads that slip past the border in American magazines and on cable television. But prescription drug ads created for a Canadian audience are slightly different. A 1978 amendment to the Food and Drugs Act was introduced to allow consumers to compare drug prices. Advertisers were permitted to post the drug's name, price and quantity as long as they made "no other representations." However, in November 2000, citing the 1978 price advertising clause, Health Canada published a policy paper saying that companies could advertise prescription drugs as long as they didn't include the drug's name and information on its intended use in the same ad. The law hadn't changed - just its interpretation. Needless to say, drug companies are taking advantage of this legal loophole to introduce more and more direct-to-consumer advertising. And Health Canada is letting it happen. So we see "help-seeking ads" that encourage the public to call a 1-800 number if they're suffering from obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, erectile dysfunction, etc. Or branded ads that name a drug but don't refer directly to the condition it treats - such as the not-so-subtle Viagra ads which feature its recognizable brand coupled with a heavy dose of sexual innuendo. Neither type of ad fits with the intent of the Food and Drugs Act. In April 2004 in the report Opening the Medicine Cabinet, the Standing Committee on Health admonished Health Canada for a lack of enforcement and vigilance. Among other recommendations to increase transparency and improve post-market surveillance of prescription drugs, the Committee stated that Health Canada should enforce The Food and Drugs Act by enforcing the ban on direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Yet, as part of the current legislative renewal process at Health Canada, the department is proposing the exact opposite - legalization of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs as a form of public "information." Advertising is an effective business tool. It sells products. That's why companies spend billions of dollars each year on drug marketing budgets - a lot more than is spent on drug research and development. But advertising does not provide reliable public information. Prescription drug ads are often misleading. They downplay the risks, exaggerate benefits and imply that drugs may be used to treat a wider range of conditions than they are approved to treat. The ads also focus mainly on the newest drugs available - drugs that are usually more expensive and not necessarily the most effective or safest choice. The Vioxx example proves the point once again. With celebrity endorsements, free trial offers, and emotive imagery suggesting complete relief, was the public really being "informed" or "educated"? Let's call a spade a shovel and quit heaping illegal advertising down the throats of Canadians who are simply looking for reliable drug information. Let's learn from the mistakes of the past and take our cue from most other industrialized nations of the world where direct-to-consumer advertising continues to be illegal. Look to the European Parliament where an attempt to introduce direct-to-consumer advertising in 2002 was soundly rejected in the name of public health. Parliamentarians voted overwhelmingly against legalizing direct-to-consumer advertising and stated that the pharmaceutical industry was "incapable of providing impartial information on its medicines." When will Health Canada come to the same logical conclusion? It's time to stop this drive to legalize direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in Canada - before it's a done deal. Ellen Reynolds is project coordinator at DES Action Canada and lives in Victoria, B.C. With background from Dr. Barbara Mintzes, drug researcher and vice-president of DES Action Canada Fair Use Here again is some information about "fair dealing" in Canada from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Canada. I'll go over each item this time. My comments are after each ###. Six principal criteria for evaluating fair use: 1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights." ### That covers a lot. Like just about everything that's published. This criteria makes it sound like these are just small sections of the law and not as complete as the American list that was posted. But based on this wording, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 2. The Character of the Dealing How are the works were dealt with? Was there a single or multiple copies. Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry? ### Number two is against you. 3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. ### Leans against you, but I'll ignore this one. 4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied? ### Against you 5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair." ### It's been published, you this one won't help you. 6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required. ### As I've said, the webpage you took it from contains Google ads, and you didn't even provide a link or url of that page. Number six is against you. "These factors may be more or less relevant to assessing the fairness of a dealing depending on the factual context of the allegedly infringing dealing. In some contexts, there may be factors other than those listed here that may help a court decide whether the dealing was fair." > Here again is some information about "fair dealing" in Canada from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Canada. I'll [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > those listed here that may help a court decide whether the dealing was > fair." Do you think the DES example was a valid one in the context of today's drug marketing practises? Zee Without reading or researching the article, I'll just say that all industries are corrupt and I'm generally in favor of more government oversight. Ok, I did read the top part that says "Advertising is an effective business tool. It sells products. That's why companies spend billions of dollars each year on drug marketing budgets - a lot more than is spent on drug research and development." Even if the drug industry is an exception to my corrupt industry rule, you have to expect them to run it like a business, with profit being their primary concern, as long as they obey the rules and aren't deceiving or sleazy in some way or other. Spending more on marketing than R&D doesn't make them bad in my opinion. People can actually benefit from marketing. A doctor might get free medication and pass the savings on to his patients. Someone might be too ashamed to ask his doctor about a sex problem until he hears Bob Dole being brave and saying Viagra works. Whether drug companies should be allowed to spend money on marketing to the extent and in all the ways they are, I don't know, but money motivates people to be productive and maybe the real problem is that people aren't donating enough money to medical charities. > Here again is some information about "fair dealing" in Canada from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Canada. I'll [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > ### Number two is against you. No it isn't. The original was free to the public. And it had an infinite number of copies which were also free. > 3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was > the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ### Leans against you, but I'll ignore this one. This one supports. > 4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the > > work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly > criticized without being copied? > > ### Against you No. Full discussion requires that everyone engaging in the discussion have the full text of the work in question. For many reasons, posting the full text might frequently be the only way to accomplish that goal. > 5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been > published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ### It's been published, you this one won't help you. In a format that makes it freely available to anyone with a computer and the right software. > 6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market > of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you didn't even provide a link or url of that page. Number six is > against you. If you don't click on and read every google ad that appeared you stole your reading too. > "These factors may be more or less relevant to assessing the fairness > of a dealing depending on the factual context of the allegedly > infringing dealing. In some contexts, there may be factors other than > those listed here that may help a court decide whether the dealing was > fair." You've merely highlighted the absurdity of trying to use copyright laws intended for older technology (paper and ink) and applying them to electronic publications. (Sorry if this is a duplicate. My first reply didn't show up in Google.) > > 2. The Character of the Dealing How are the works were dealt with? Was > > there a single or multiple copies. Were these copies distributed widely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No it isn't. The original was free to the public. And it had an infinite > number of copies which were also free. I'm pretty sure that criteria 2 is about the reuse of the original. The reused version was made public to a large audience and gets archived by Google. It's not destroyed. It's against her. > > 3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was > > the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This one supports. Everything was used: against her. Importance of work: Not sure how they mean that. Quoting everything is made to sound unlikely to be acceptible. I'm being kind to not hold this against her, but I'm not counting this in her favor. > > 4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the > > work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have the full text of the work in question. For many reasons, posting > the full text might frequently be the only way to accomplish that goal. Most criticism isn't done by the general public, and criticism by the reuser is probably what number 4 refers to, but either way, a link alone could have been provided. > > 5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been > > published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In a format that makes it freely available to anyone with a computer and > the right software. Yes, so--as stated in number 5--reproduction, especially without full acknowledgement (no link to the source), won't lead to as much of an increase in "public dissemination" as it would if the original work wasn't as freely available. The last part about the work being confidential isn't against her, but the rest is more against her than for her. Again, I was kind not to hold it against her. I interpreted number 5 as only having the ability to help her, but it doesn't in her case. > > 6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market > > of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you don't click on and read every google ad that appeared you stole > your reading too. Yeah, right. What if....the writer gave the article to the poster, and it wasn't taken off a website at all? Zee > What if....the writer gave the article to the poster, and it wasn't > taken off a website at all? Depends who owned the rights and what rights they were. If you were "given" the article by some with the right to grant republication rights to you, then it depends on the terms of the agreement. By claiming "fair use" you're essentially admitting that you don't have the right to republish the article outside of the fair use rules, though it might be Canada's fair dealing rules that apply. I doubt you'd claim "fair use" if you had full republication rights from the owner. Some information on different rights someone might have to copyrighted material is at http://www.writing-world.com/rights/rights.shtml : "When a publication asks for exclusive rights, they are asking that the piece not appear anywhere else while they are exercising their right to it. There is often a limit on the length of time a publisher will request exclusive rights -- one month, three months, one year -- and then that piece may appear elsewhere. "Nonexclusive is just the opposite; Publisher A may feature your piece on their website for a year, but because their right to do so is nonexclusive, you can sell the piece to Publisher B and have it appear elsewhere at the same time. Just make sure Publisher B doesn't want exclusivity!" > > What if....the writer gave the article to the poster, and it wasn't > > taken off a website at all? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > elsewhere at the same time. Just make sure Publisher B doesn't want > exclusivity!" What a lot of information. Thank you so much. Zee >What if....the writer gave the article to the poster, and it wasn't >taken off a website at all? Then it's customary to add the words, "Reprinted with permission of the author." >>What if....the writer gave the article to the poster, and it wasn't >>taken off a website at all? > >Then it's customary to add the words, "Reprinted with permission of the >author." Customary but not required. Also be reminded that giving the article would not necessarily mean it can posted at will. For instance, he or she may have given permission to use it on a website, absent specific information to the contrary, the assumption is that permission WASN"T granted to use it in a magazine or put it on a CD as a compilation or use it as the basis for a screenplay, etc. -- "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." ---PJ O'Rourke >Customary but not required. Also be reminded that giving the >article would not necessarily mean it can posted at will. Well, I do believe I said customary but did not say required. And you're completely right, of course, that simply giving someone an article isn't permission to reprint. Be that as it may, if the claim all of a sudden now is that the article was posted with permission, then I call complete bullshit. That would have been stated long, long ago were it true. >Be that as it may, if the claim all of a sudden now is that the article was >posted with permission, then I call complete bullshit. That would have been >stated long, long ago were it true. And the defense of it being "Fair Use" would have been much less spirited (g). -- "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." ---PJ O'Rourke > >Be that as it may, if the claim all of a sudden now is that the article was > >posted with permission, then I call complete bullshit. That would have been [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." > ---PJ O'Rourke Here ya go boyo: oycotting is my new drug of choice by Heather Mallick July 3, 2005 http://www.rabble.ca/columnist s_full.shtml?x=40213 Like most of us, I spent my youth in thrall to "the toxic drive" - the human need to alter reality artificially. For others who stick with the thrall as they age, it's cigarettes, or beer. Wealthier people choose The Macallan. But in those days, when I was offered a pill I would just say yes. The childhood roots of this were my doctor-father's entrancing, corruptive medical magazines with their ads for pharmaceuticals to cure ills I couldn't pronounce. Drugs could never harm, only heal, I thought, and though I wasn't as blasé as those people who take their pet's medications when they can't be bothered to see a doctor ("Hey, an antibiotic is an antibiotic, right?"), in adulthood it was pleasing to feel a drug smash the bacteria, sometimes within minutes. In Grade 2, I remember illustrating a class project with a cover from Life magazine showing a stylized human body packed with hallucinogenically beautiful capsules, like little sorbets. I got an A. It is chilling to think I nursed this taste in the sixties when drugs like thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol were being casually prescribed to obedient women. How times have changed, along with my enthusiasms. Having given up illegal drugs, I have begun trying to clear legal but possibly untrustworthy medications from my innards. The great pharmaceutical firms began merging in the 1980s to keep their share prices high, which made them treat their researchers like slaves manning a Roman galley. Like the big record labels, Big Pharma is only as good as its hottest product, expensive to devise and promote. This explains why Britney Spears defines today's music industry and anti-depressants and bio-sex drugs define Big Pharma. (Levitra, the latest, has a penis-on-fire logo that looks like an illustration in a teen sex pamphlet.) Now Viagra has been linked to blindness and an anti-depressant called Seroxtat has been said to make people kill themselves rather than cheering them up. Drugs are sent to market without long-term testing, with permission from a government that hungers for their campaign contributions. Yes, it has come to this sorry pass: Me, clean and sober. (I used to drink only French wine. I have now decided I should only drink wine in France.) What shocked me into it was the latest news about autism. British parents had begun to suspect that the MMR shot, three vaccines in one, was responsible for the increase in autism. Corporations and governments said pish posh, what nonsense, and the issue faded. Now Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the villain was the 1991 introduction of thimerosal, a mercury-based additive that preserved vaccines and made them more profitable for Big Pharma to inject en masse. It now seems that the mercury (especially in a triple dose) did terrible things to developing infant brains. Why would anyone have thought it would not, one wonders. He says this is why the odious U.S. Senator Bill Frist this year added to an anti-terrorism bill a rider that bans compensation for children brain-damaged by thimerosal in vaccines, and actually devised something called the "Eli Lilly Protection Act." (In Canada, thimerosal does remain in some vaccines. Google "thimerosal" to obtain the Public Health Agency of Canada's June statement on this.) The scandal gets worse and more complicated, but the reasoning behind concealing Big Pharma misdeeds apparently is that if millions of children in the West and in poor countries, where the leftover tainted vaccines have been sent, were poisoned, the industry would go under. It would be Thalidomide II: Bankruptcy. Read Irvine Welsh's prescient 1996 short story Fortune's Always Hiding: A Corporate Drug Romance, in which a thalidomide executive retires to Bavaria with his wife and new baby. He has secrets, shall we say, but their life is content. One day, the baby is . . . gone. A parcel arrives. It contains two baby arms. No one can comprehend such a thing. But the father? He goes into the garage and blows his head off with a shotgun. He knows what he did to keep thalidomide selling. Thalidomide is back. It is said to help treat leprosy, Mantle cell lymphoma and pancreatic cancer. A year ago, a baby was born in Kenya without arms and legs. Thalidomide is being used in Kenya. The parents say their son Freddie is the only victim to appear because babies like him are killed at birth. Freddie sits in a baby chair shaped like a flower pot. It's the confluence of stories about the hideous effects of inadequately tested drugs that has turned me against pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma, in partnership with docile governments, is getting its way because both bow to the pressures of the market. If ever there were an unacceptable face of capitalism, this is it. This month, I began withdrawing my bank savings, for inflation meant I was losing money daily. I will find a faintly profitable place to stash them, but I should mention that when I was shown glossy mutual funds with excellent rates of return, they were filled with Big Pharma, with the banks I had just deserted, and companies such as Nestlé that I have boycotted for years. For this is my substitute, my new habit. I have become a boycotter. I don't buy American goods if I can avoid it, never buy from big Bush donors, only buy Fairtrade food and organic food so that farmers aren't forced to buy genetically modified seeds, and so on. It's intellectually absorbing, this boycott habit of mine, though not nearly as much fun as filling my young body with drugs without thought for the morrow. 'Tis a thin gruel to feed the toxic drive. But it has its own satisfactions. fairuse >> And the defense of it being "Fair Use" would have been much >> less spirited (g). >> >> -- >Here ya go boyo: > >oycotting is my new drug of choice <Snipped yet another big stolen piece that had absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand> Well that certainly put me in my place. -- "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." ---PJ O'Rourke > >> And the defense of it being "Fair Use" would have been much > >> less spirited (g). [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." > ---PJ O'Rourke <Snipped yet another big stolen piece that had absolutely > nothing to do with the argument at hand> Which began, oh...here abouts: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.med/msg/0ef2da779d55028d?dmode=source&hl=en >> >> And the defense of it being "Fair Use" would have been much >> >> less spirited (g). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Well that certainly put me in my place. > <Snipped yet another big stolen piece that had absolutely >> nothing to do with the argument at hand> > >Which began, oh...here abouts: > >http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.med/msg/0ef2da779d55028d?dmode=source&hl=en With me being absolutely correct and right even about you violating copyrights, a practice you still feel obligated to continued. I am, yet again, so put in place. BTW: Your last missive STILL had nothing to do with the argument at hand, which you so brilliantly confirm with the above link. -- "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." ---PJ O'Rourke Well you'll have to excuse me Kurt. I have a deadline. Carry on.... Zee >Well you'll have to excuse me Kurt. I have a deadline. You only have a short period of time to steal someone else's work? -- "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." ---PJ O'Rourke <<lol>> > >Well you'll have to excuse me Kurt. I have a deadline. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." > ---PJ O'Rourke > >Well you'll have to excuse me Kurt. I have a deadline. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." > ---PJ O'Rourke Why not let Roman hear your thoughts about fair use, and his contravening of same? Please be sure to post his responses. http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.med/msg/bd2b04ded5bd69c9?hl=en& >> >Be that as it may, if the claim all of a sudden now is that the article was >> >posted with permission, then I call complete bullshit. That would have been [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >oycotting is my new drug of choice Oycotting? Is this some sort of Yiddish thing? >by Heather Mallick >July 3, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >like thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol were being casually prescribed >to obedient women. Not in the US. No thalidomide in the 60s. Canada, maybe. >What shocked me into it was the latest news about autism. British >parents had begun to suspect that the MMR shot, three vaccines in one, >was responsible for the increase in autism. Corporations and >governments said pish posh, what nonsense, and the issue faded. Like hell it did. It's alive and well in the UK and causing epidemics. >Now Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the villain was the 1991 introduction of >thimerosal, a mercury-based additive that preserved vaccines and made >them more profitable for Big Pharma to inject en masse. It now seems >that the mercury (especially in a triple dose) did terrible things to >developing infant brains. Why would anyone have thought it would not, >one wonders. Why anyone thinks thimerosal first appeared in 1991 is beyond me. >Thalidomide is back. It is said to help treat leprosy, Mantle cell >lymphoma and pancreatic cancer. It's useful, too. But that doesn't excuse giving it to pregnant women. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin She did get some dates and points wrong. I generally like Mallick, not necessarily because I agree with everything she says. But that's not why I post any of the writings which I post. I post Mallick because I think she's a terrific stylist, is thought provoking, and tackles topics in a refreshing way. But having worked a news desk, I know how hard it it to meet daily deadlines, and get something wrong when you didn't think you had. Thank you for giving me something to respond to David. Zee >She did get some dates and points wrong. I generally like Mallick, not >necessarily because I agree with everything she says. But that's not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >news desk, I know how hard it it to meet daily deadlines, and get >something wrong when you didn't think you had. Personally, I'd rather have information that's correct rather than crap presented misleadingly with good writing style. While the article you stole is nicely written, it has flaws not only in fact but in logic. If she were writing about fashion or sports or some other topic that doesn't influence life and death decisions, that would be fine with me. In this case, it's irresponsible. It takes more than good writing style to make a good science and medicine reporter. It's not an easy job, but it's not an impossible one. You might have stolen and posted the article to demonstrate what a very bad job she's doing, but you say you did so for the opposite reason. How would you feel about this terrific stylist if she wrote a thought provoking article tackling the problems of aboriginal people in a refreshing way, if what she advocated were odious to you? Perhaps she might suggest that all the social problems of reserves would be eliminated if the people there were isolated from all mainstream cultural influence, made to return to their original hunter-gatherer lifestyle, complete with population control by starvation, disease, war and infanticide in the traditional, natural manner. Well, she can't be bothered to actually learn any law or anthropology, or speak with people who are more knowledgable than she is, but she's a terrific stylist, thought provoking, and tackles topics in a refreshing way, so any influence she has on people's views and opinions is just fine with you, and we should all applaud her talent. Right? > >She did get some dates and points wrong. I generally like Mallick, not > >necessarily because I agree with everything she says. But that's not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Personally, I'd rather have information that's correct rather than crap > presented misleadingly with good writing style. Information that is correct? Would that be say, the medical information done in the '60s and '70s which is now proven 'wrong'? This is a column. It is opinion. Perhaps you don't know the difference. > While the article you stole Uhoh! B. makes errors too; both of fact, and judgement. The article is not "stolen". is nicely written, it has flaws not only in > fact but in logic. If she were writing about fashion or sports or some > other topic that doesn't influence life and death decisions, that would > be fine with me. In this case, it's irresponsible. It takes more than > good writing style to make a good science and medicine reporter. It's > not an easy job, but it's not an impossible one. I can agree with you there. And David was the first one to comment on this. It was not commented on in a previous looooong thread. David did. Kudos. I knew they were there. Did you, or are you just following David? > You might have stolen and posted the article to demonstrate what a very > bad job she's doing, but you say you did so for the opposite reason. I posted it to spur discussion, as I always hope will happen with the articles I post. And I am on recored stating that. Just because I don't take part in the discussion, doesn't mean I (and the authors of the articles I post) don't enjoy reading your pithy comments. > How would you feel about this terrific stylist if she wrote a thought > provoking article tackling the problems of aboriginal people in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lifestyle, complete with population control by starvation, disease, war > and infanticide in the traditional, natural manner. You've been to my reserve? Well, she can't be > bothered to actually learn any law or anthropology, or speak with > people who are more knowledgable than she is, but she's a terrific > stylist, thought provoking, and tackles topics in a refreshing way, so > any influence she has on people's views and opinions is just fine with > you, and we should all applaud her talent. Right? Interesting comments. Thanks. > >Customary but not required. Also be reminded that giving the > >article would not necessarily mean it can posted at will. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > posted with permission, then I call complete bullshit. That would have been > stated long, long ago were it true. Just for you Carey: Boycotting is my new drug of choice by Heather Mallick July 3, 2005 http://www.rabble.ca/columnist s_full.shtml?x=40213 Like most of us, I spent my youth in thrall to "the toxic drive" - the human need to alter reality artificially. For others who stick with the thrall as they age, it's cigarettes, or beer. Wealthier people choose The Macallan. But in those days, when I was offered a pill I would just say yes. The childhood roots of this were my doctor-father's entrancing, corruptive medical magazines with their ads for pharmaceuticals to cure ills I couldn't pronounce. Drugs could never harm, only heal, I thought, and though I wasn't as blasé as those people who take their pet's medications when they can't be bothered to see a doctor ("Hey, an antibiotic is an antibiotic, right?"), in adulthood it was pleasing to feel a drug smash the bacteria, sometimes within minutes. In Grade 2, I remember illustrating a class project with a cover from Life magazine showing a stylized human body packed with hallucinogenically beautiful capsules, like little sorbets. I got an A. It is chilling to think I nursed this taste in the sixties when drugs like thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol were being casually prescribed to obedient women. How times have changed, along with my enthusiasms. Having given up illegal drugs, I have begun trying to clear legal but possibly untrustworthy medications from my innards. The great pharmaceutical firms began merging in the 1980s to keep their share prices high, which made them treat their researchers like slaves manning a Roman galley. Like the big record labels, Big Pharma is only as good as its hottest product, expensive to devise and promote. This explains why Britney Spears defines today's music industry and anti-depressants and bio-sex drugs define Big Pharma. (Levitra, the latest, has a penis-on-fire logo that looks like an illustration in a teen sex pamphlet.) Now Viagra has been linked to blindness and an anti-depressant called Seroxtat has been said to make people kill themselves rather than cheering them up. Drugs are sent to market without long-term testing, with permission from a government that hungers for their campaign contributions. Yes, it has come to this sorry pass: Me, clean and sober. (I used to drink only French wine. I have now decided I should only drink wine in France.) What shocked me into it was the latest news about autism. British parents had begun to suspect that the MMR shot, three vaccines in one, was responsible for the increase in autism. Corporations and governments said pish posh, what nonsense, and the issue faded. Now Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the villain was the 1991 introduction of thimerosal, a mercury-based additive that preserved vaccines and made them more profitable for Big Pharma to inject en masse. It now seems that the mercury (especially in a triple dose) did terrible things to developing infant brains. Why would anyone have thought it would not, one wonders. He says this is why the odious U.S. Senator Bill Frist this year added to an anti-terrorism bill a rider that bans compensation for children brain-damaged by thimerosal in vaccines, and actually devised something called the "Eli Lilly Protection Act." (In Canada, thimerosal does remain in some vaccines. Google "thimerosal" to obtain the Public Health Agency of Canada's June statement on this.) The scandal gets worse and more complicated, but the reasoning behind concealing Big Pharma misdeeds apparently is that if millions of children in the West and in poor countries, where the leftover tainted vaccines have been sent, were poisoned, the industry would go under. It would be Thalidomide II: Bankruptcy. Read Irvine Welsh's prescient 1996 short story Fortune's Always Hiding: A Corporate Drug Romance, in which a thalidomide executive retires to Bavaria with his wife and new baby. He has secrets, shall we say, but their life is content. One day, the baby is . . . gone. A parcel arrives. It contains two baby arms. No one can comprehend such a thing. But the father? He goes into the garage and blows his head off with a shotgun. He knows what he did to keep thalidomide selling. Thalidomide is back. It is said to help treat leprosy, Mantle cell lymphoma and pancreatic cancer. A year ago, a baby was born in Kenya without arms and legs. Thalidomide is being used in Kenya. The parents say their son Freddie is the only victim to appear because babies like him are killed at birth. Freddie sits in a baby chair shaped like a flower pot. It's the confluence of stories about the hideous effects of inadequately tested drugs that has turned me against pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma, in partnership with docile governments, is getting its way because both bow to the pressures of the market. If ever there were an unacceptable face of capitalism, this is it. This month, I began withdrawing my bank savings, for inflation meant I was losing money daily. I will find a faintly profitable place to stash them, but I should mention that when I was shown glossy mutual funds with excellent rates of return, they were filled with Big Pharma, with the banks I had just deserted, and companies such as Nestlé that I have boycotted for years. For this is my substitute, my new habit. I have become a boycotter. I don't buy American goods if I can avoid it, never buy from big Bush donors, only buy Fairtrade food and organic food so that farmers aren't forced to buy genetically modified seeds, and so on. It's intellectually absorbing, this boycott habit of mine, though not nearly as much fun as filling my young body with drugs without thought for the morrow. 'Tis a thin gruel to feed the toxic drive. But it has its own satisfactions. fairuse >Just for you Carey: > >Boycotting is my new drug of choice Double posting off-topic stolen pieces seems to be your new drug of choice. > >Just for you Carey: > > > >Boycotting is my new drug of choice > > Double posting off-topic stolen pieces seems to be your new drug of choice. Why not let Roman hear your thoughts about fair use, and his contravening of same? Please be sure to post his response. http://groups.google.ca/group/ sci.med/msg/bd2b04ded5bd69c9?h l=en& >Why not let Roman hear your thoughts about fair use, and his >contravening of same? > >Please be sure to post his response. Why would I give a crap what he thinks? >http://groups.google.ca/group/ sci.med/msg/bd2b04ded5bd69c9?h l=en& Ah, I see. He stole an article from the AP which you then stole from him. How cute. Oh, and the article is total fluff anyway. Go figure that the press makes a habit out of touting single-study results and misleading the public, and then writes another article decrying single-study results. Meanwhile, scientists and doctors have always known this. Duh. >Oh, and the article is total fluff anyway. Go figure that the press makes a >habit out of touting single-study results and misleading the public, and >then writes another article decrying single-study results. Meanwhile, >scientists and doctors have always known this. Duh. Actually it is even better than that. They are touting the single-study results of a single study of single studies. The circles here are endless. -- "No nation would be so dumb as to say that we all want to go one point, we just don't know how to get there. What we are finding is some want to go to San Diego, some to Seattle. We are ashamed to admit this so we pretend we all want to go to San Francisco." Uwe Reinhardt on the health care debate. >>What if....the writer gave the article to the poster, and it wasn't >>taken off a website at all? > > Then it's customary to add the words, "Reprinted with permission of the > author." But not required. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.