Posted by Elroy on July 8, 2005, at 17:29:58
In reply to Re: Lou's response to an aspect of this thread-lngtrm?, posted by haddsl on July 8, 2005, at 13:29:39
I agree with your posting to a large degree (in fact, see my earlier posting in reply to this individual)...
But....
To play devil's advocate both ways, consider the following (this was an e-mail message that I received just this afternoon from the Alliance for Retired Americans www.retiredamericans.org:
QUOTE:
Drug Industry Spends More than Any Other to Influence Government - - - In the past seven years, drug makers have spent a staggering $800 million to influence public policy, the biggest lobbying operation in the nation, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The industry's lobbying expenses are just a small fraction of its massive profits (industry leader Pfizer made $50.9 billion in 2004), but its money has bought considerable influence in fighting off measures that would contain skyrocketing drug prices. In 2003, the year President Bush and Congress passed the Medicare drug law, pharmaceutical companies spent $128 million to ensure Medicare was prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices, a provision that was included in the law. A study by Boston University predicted that over 8 years the industry would realize $139 billion in new profits thanks to the law. Drug makers have also defeated repeated Congressional attempts to legalize drug imports, this despite the fact that a significant majority of Americans supports the idea. "When it comes to drug prices, money talks," said George J. Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. "Public opinion contradicts what's actually been done on Capitol Hill and clearly the drug industry has a stranglehold on Congress and the White House." The study found the drug lobby contributed $87 million to political campaigns, 69% of which went to Republicans. President Bush was the industry's top recipient with $1.5 million. Aside from the millions spent, the drug lobby also secures influence by employing many former government employees, including about 70 former House and Senate Members. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) hired former Congressman Billy Tauzin, a chief architect of the 2003 Medicare law, as its president. To find out more, visit the Center for Public Integrity at www.publicintegrity.org. END QUOTEThen review this:
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=27&i=64&t=64
QUOTE:
Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in April 2002 to conduct a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." The commission issued its recommendations in July 2003. Bush instructed more than 25 federal agencies to develop an implementation plan based on those recommendations. The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages,"... The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with treatment and supports" including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The commission commended the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."But the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, sparked off controversy when Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, revealed that key officials with influence over the medication plan in his state received money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the medication algorithm (15 May, p1153). He was sacked this week for speaking to the BMJ and the New York Times.
The Texas project started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson grant — and by several drug companies. Mr Jones told the BMJ that the same "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that generated the Texas project was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which, according to his whistleblower report, were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab". (for moer details see:
http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf)Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush Sr was a member of Lilly's board of directors and Bush Jr appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party. Jones points out that the companies that helped to start up the Texas project have been, and still are, big contributors to the election funds of George W Bush. In addition, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.
Bush was the governor of Texas during the development of the Texas project, and, during his 2000 presidential campaign, he boasted of his support for the project and the fact that the legislation he passed expanded Medicaid coverage of psychotropic drugs. END QUOTE
And this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1020-20.htm
QUOTE:
Critics See Drug Industry Behind Mental Health Plan - by Ritt Goldstein - STOCKHOLM - Bush Plans to Screen Whole U.S. Population for Mental Illness', read the headline in the 'British Medical Journal' (BMJ) and the project, with increasingly controversial drug treatment at its core, is underway as you read this. Structures to put the scheme in place have been developed under a so-called "Federal Action Agenda," announced in Washington on Jun. 9, and include mandatory mental health screening, which the plan recommends be linked with "treatment and supports". The plan's full details have yet to emerge as the Action Agenda still "has not been publicly released," according to A Kathryn Power, director of the Centre for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Bush administration body spearheading the effort.Developed by the President's New Freedom Commission On Mental Health, the effort, critics charge, is a pharmaceutical industry marketing scheme to mine customers and promote sales of the newest, most expensive psychiatric medications. Under 'New Freedom', mental health screening of adult Americans is slated to occur during routine physical exams while that of young people will occur in the school system. Pre-school children will receive periodic "development screens."
The plan highlights the importance of "state-of-the art medications," though a scandal has erupted recently regarding the safety and effectiveness of the main types of drugs in question, particularly antidepressants. Deadly side effects of these drugs have already claimed numerous lives. In mid-September an advisory committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said antidepressants should come with "the nation's strongest warning" that they can cause suicidal behaviour in children and young people.
END QUOTESo what's the bottom line?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not really out to get you!
Be involved in your own health care - both physical and mental. Don't trust that either the government - or the pharmaceutical companies are doing what's best for you. Even if they truly believe in their product, a Big Pharma's first oncern is profitability (that said, they also don't want to put a product on the market that's going to get their pants sued off either - which is why the government is constantly trying limit lawsuit awards). Assume that your doctors are "probably" on your side, but don't assume that they are up to date on every medication, every technique, every methodology, etc. A large number of them get their "continuing education" via the drug company sales reps that come by selling their wares
Involve yourself personally in those health issues.
Ask your psych doc, for example, if whether also
might be non pharmaceutical treatments that can be used along with - or maybe in lieu of - medication treatments.Elroy
X
X
X
X> This is ridiculous! I feel like the only reason you are here is to badger us and make us feel like we are bad and wrong. Of course there are side effects.... there are side effects to cold medicine too! Everything has side effects, So I guess then according to you we shouldn't take cold medicine either!? If you don't like us and the way that we have decided to FIX our problems then you don't have to waste your time on this thread! If you don't want to take anything.... FINE! now leave us alone! BTW... (which means 'by the way' since you don't know what a med is) a med is medication. the reason they said to try ans stick with it is because there are initial side effects that go away or lessen after about a 2 week period. And finally, if they don't like it and they decide to switch... that is because different pills effect everyone differently. What might make this person ill and abnormal, may make me feel perfect. SO! either try to have a little compassion and understanding for a situation that you are not in, and don't understand. Or... keep your attitude to yourself!
>
>
> > > Some times you just have to pick a med and stick to it. All meds feel strange, especialy at first. You get used to it though. If Cipralex is intolerable like effexor, try switching again. If not give it a while. Are you just starting to take these types of medication?
> >
> > Friends, in referrence to the above post, I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
> > It is written here, [...sometimes you just have to pick a med and stick to it...].
> > I am requesting that you consider the following:
> > A. What principle of mental-health, if there is one, says that you have to pick a med and stick to it?
> > B.Does the poster define what a "med" is?
> > C.Does the poster define the conditions that could lead for someone to [...sometimes...]?
> > The poster then writes something like,[...if effexor is intolorable...try switching...].
> > I am asking you to consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
> > A. If effexor can be intolerable, could it also cause damage to your health in the near term?
> > B. If any of these type of chemicals can be "intolerable", could it be that all these type of drugs could cause damage to your health in the long term?
> > Lou
> >
>
>
poster:Elroy
thread:13781
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050708/msgs/525086.html