--because abortions would be covered, of course.

Mighty shortsighted of them, I'd say, since I presume publicly financed health care would save them a lot, just on mental health treatment for pedophilia alone.

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2126&q...

When companies apply for drug approval, they submit the results of preclinical studies and usually at least two phase 3 studies — randomized clinical trials in patients with a particular condition. FDA reviewers with clinical, epidemiologic, statistical, and pharmacologic expertise spend as long as a year evaluating the evidence. FDA review documents (posted at www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsa... ) record the reasoning behind approval decisions. Unfortunately, review documents are lengthy, inconsistently organized, and weakly summarized. But they can be fascinating, providing a sense of how reviewers struggled to decide whether benefits exceed harms. Yet in many cases, information gets lost between FDA review and the approved label.

Sometimes what gets lost is data on harms. For example, in 2001, Zometa (zoledronic acid, Novartis) was approved for use in patients with hypercalcemia of malignancy. Approval was based on the results of two trials,1 in which 287 patients with cancer were randomly assigned to receive either 4-mg or 8-mg doses of Zometa or Aredia (pamidronate), the standard of care. According to the label, 8 mg of Zometa was no more effective than 4 mg in reducing calcium levels but had greater renal toxicity (see box on Zometa data). The numbers quantifying the renal-toxicity data for the 8-mg dose did not appear in the label, as they did for the 4-mg dose. But they did appear in the 98 pages of FDA medical and statistical reviews. Surprisingly, the reviews also noted that the 8-mg dose was associated with a higher rate of death from any cause than the 4-mg dose (P=0.03). These mortality data also did not appear in the label. Nor did they appear in the journal article reporting on these studies,2 which actually recommended the 8-mg dose for refractory cases. In 2008, the FDA approved an updated Zometa label with an explicit warning statement: “Renal toxicity may be greater in patients with renal impairment. Do not use doses greater than 4 mg.” Yet the mortality data are still missing from the label.



Sometimes, efficacy data get lost. Lunesta (eszopiclone) was approved in 2004 for chronic insomnia. Sepracor, its manufacturer, began an intense direct-to-consumer advertising campaign — spending more than $750,000 a day in 2007 — featuring a luna moth that transforms frustrated insomniacs into peaceful sleepers. Lunesta sales reached almost $800 million last year. Clinicians who are interested in the drug’s efficacy cannot find efficacy information in the label: it states only that Lunesta is superior to placebo (see box on Lunesta data).3 The FDA’s medical review provides efficacy data, albeit not until page 306 of the 403-page document. In the longest, largest phase 3 trial, patients in the Lunesta group reported falling asleep an average of 15 minutes faster and sleeping an average of 37 minutes longer than those in the placebo group. However, on average, Lunesta patients still met criteria for insomnia and reported no clinically meaningful improvement in next-day alertness or functioning.

Mike Thomas has reported in the Sentinel that the Republicans' five leading candidates all have declined to challenge Congressman Grayson. (Yesterday, as soon as Republican Chair Lew Oliver said that Oliver would endorse Jerry Pierce, Pierce dropped out.) As a public service, we have collected the Top 10 reasons that the Republicans have given for their decision:
(1) "D.C. is so hot in the summer."
(2) "I don't want a raise."
(3) "I can do less for my constituents if I stay in Tallahassee."
(4) "Adulation makes me uncomfortable."
(5) "It's much easier to shake down vendors in Orange County."
(6) "The word 'Congress' sounds dirty to me."
(7) "My wife told me that she would love to have me out of town each week, and that makes me kind of nervous."
(8) "I can make so much more money as a lobbyist."
(9) "Washington? Why would I want to fly to the West Coast each week?"
(10) "Would I have to, like, know stuff?"
Congressman Grayson, asked for a comment, stated: "They don't want to run because they don't want to lose." Grayson Senior Advisor Julie Tagen added, "they don't want to run because they don't want to be gutted like a fish."
P.S. In the last 26 years, 237 Florida members of Congress have run for reelection. All but eight won.

“We owe it to our troops to bring hardnosed realism to whatever we ask them to do”

WASHINGTON – Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, released the following statement today:


“When the Appropriations Committee approved the supplemental request for Pakistan and Afghanistan funding earlier this year, we made it quite clear in the Committee Report that the Administration needed to evaluate the tools available to implement whatever strategy the United States decided to follow.

“The point we tried to make is that the United States government could have the most coherent policy in the world, but if it did not have the tools to implement it, that policy would be futile. Unfortunately, the only tools available to the United States in that part of the world are the Afghani and Pakistani governments.

“In Pakistan, we have virtually no boots on the ground, so whatever we seek to achieve, in the end, has to go through the Pakistani government. The disadvantage of that is that the Pakistani government, up to now, has been a mighty weak reed to lean on. The advantage of that is that we will probably encounter less resentment targeted against the United States then we would encounter if we had a larger military footprint; and that is a good thing. And if the Pakistani government is belatedly focusing on the dangers presented to regional stability by the Taliban instead of being distracted by their previous focus on India, then hooray – perhaps we have a chance to achieve some degree of stability in that country. The odds are against us, but the recent change in Pakistani attitudes may give us a chance.

“In Afghanistan, the situation is even bleaker. There are two issues that we confront immediately in that country. The first is whether the number of American combat troops in Afghanistan should be increased substantially as General McChrystal has apparently recommended. The second is whether or not a counter insurgency approach (in plain English, nation building) has any real chance to succeed.

“The problem with increasing the number of troops is that we become the lightening rod, and our presence runs the risk of inciting more anti-American sentiment that can become a recruiting tool for the very forces we seek to curtail. The threat to the American homeland is posed by Al Qaeda, not by the loosely-defined Taliban. Yet the more U.S. troops we send to Afghanistan to fight the insurgency, the more we risk hardening them into an implacable enemy. If any adjustment is made in U.S. troop levels, it would be much better if those troops were focused on the job of training Afghani troops and police to take on the job of securing the population and maintaining law and order. But even there, we have to ask what is achievable. My understanding is that there have never been more than about 90,000 troops under the sway of the central government. Now we are told that the g oal is to train up to 400,000 soldiers and police personnel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether that is a realistic and achievable goal. It is imperative that, even on this issue, we keep our expectations realistically modest.

“The second issue is whether we should in fact engage in the kind of counter-insurgency nation-building that the General is apparently proposing. Intellectually, that might be the most coherent approach; but if we do not have the tools to accomplish it, that policy would be futile. And my honest assessment is that we don’t. Our primary tool, the Afghani government, is bordering on the useless in that regard.

“The other huge disadvantage to this approach is that, in my view, it is highly unachievable. If we were to engage in that kind of strategy, even its advocates tell us that it would require the willingness to make a commitment of a good ten years, and maybe double that. And the cost would be astronomical. The military cost alone would approach a trillion dollars or more. And that does not count the cost of economic and civilian aid to either Afghanistan or Pakistan. I simply do not believe that that kind of long term commitment is sustainable in this country. I do not believe the American people will buy it. A policy that is not sustainable is no policy at all; it is a Hail Mary pass that even Brett Favre would be highly unlikely to complete.

“And there is a third disadvantage to this approach. Because it would drain the spirit of the country over that long period of time as well as drain the U.S. treasury, it would devour virtually any other priorities that the President or anyone in Congress had.

“I wish I did not believe what I believe on this matter, but I was in Russia when the Russians were mired down in Afghanistan. At the height of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, they had 100,000 troops on the ground – which is what we would have if General McChrystal’s reported recommendations are approved. I was shocked at how openly Soviet leaders would admit that the very fabric of their political system was being devoured by their misadventure in Afghanistan. I saw what it did to their country. We are a much richer and a much stronger country then they were, but we would still pay a price that is far too high.

“That’s why I believe we need to more narrowly focus our efforts and have a much more achievable and targeted policy in that region, or we run the risk of repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam and the Russians made in Afghanistan.

“There are some fundamental questions that I would ask of those who are suggesting that we follow a long term counterinsurgency strategy:

1. As an Appropriator I must ask, what will that policy cost and how will we pay for it? We are now in the middle of a fundamental debate over reforming our healthcare system. The President has indicated that it must cost less than $900 billion over ten years and be fully paid for. The Congressional Budget Office has had four committees twisting themselves into knots in order to fit healthcare reform into that limit. CBO is earnestly measuring the cost of each competing healthcare plan. Shouldn’t it be asked to do the same thing with respect to Afghanistan? If we add 40,000 troops and recognize the need for a sustained 10 year or longer commitment, as the architects of this plan tell us we do, the military costs alone would be over $800 billion. And unlike the demands that are being made of the healthcare alternatives that they be deficit neutral, we’ve heard no such demand with respect to Afghanistan. I would ask how much will this entire effort cost, when you add in civilian costs and costs in Pakistan? And how would that impact the budget?

2. Do we really believe that there is an international consensus for such a long-term endeavor, or will we in fact, with the exception of some tokenism, be going it alone? Are we really prepared to “go it alone”?

3. What policy is in fact achievable? We should be asking not what policy is theoretically the most intellectually coherent, but which policy is actually achievable given the only tools we have in the region; the Afghani and Pakistani governments. Is there sufficient leadership, popular support, and political will, not in the United States but in Afghanistan, necessary for effective governance to take hold?

4. What makes us think that a much more aggressive and expansive role for U.S. troops will not harden elements of the Taliban and make them a more potent force, forcing them to stand up to the “occupier”?

5. Does it all add up? The so-called COIN, or counterinsurgency strategy, calls for a certain number of troops and police based on a country’s population. In Afghanistan that equates to 600,000 people in uniform. But the Afghani government has never maintained more than 200,000 before. Can they really sustain a three-fold increase?

6. Do we really have the tools to overcome language, culture, history and a 90% illiteracy rate to sufficiently transform such a country?

“Our military personnel have always responded with what we have asked them to do with dedication and distinction. We owe it to them to bring hardnosed realism to whatever we ask them to do.

“Lastly, after the healthcare reform effort is completed, this country still has four huge long-term challenges that will require a sustained national effort:

1. The need for further action to repair the fragility of our own economy and rebuild the capacity of our economy to provide desperately needed job growth;

2. The need for a long-term commitment to strengthen our national security by dramatically reshaping our energy policy – an effort that will require sustained and meaningful sacrifice by all elements of our society;

3. The need for long-term action to restore fiscal soundness by reining in the federal deficit; and

4. The need for long-term action to extend the fiscal soundness of Social Security and Medicare.

“All of those efforts will require incredibly skilled leadership and a long-term willingness of the entire society to face hard facts.

“Will we really be able to sustain sufficient long-term public willingness to attack those problems if our national determination is drained by ten more years of what is already the second longest war in American history?”

Let's prove to the chickenshit wing of the Democratic Party that there's big bucks to be had for anyone willing to tell it like it is about the Republicans.

Pussyfooting, mealymouthing and wimping out with whiny apologies when the Republicans demand them will not be tolerated.

Let's turn "going all Grayson on the lying shitheads" into a viral phrase.

https://www.graysonforcongress.com / to contribute.

"Wilson went on to express his opposition to extending health care benefits to werewolves, using the ONE RING to subdue our enemies instead of casting it into the pits of Mordor, and called for the resignation of Voldemort, the White House czar for Paranormal Domination."

Just looking at DU today, I see that Rove has implicated himself in having improper knowledge about the Siegelman thing.

Blackwater was licensed to identify & kill supposed terrorists. Sometimes they got the wrong people.

Tom Ridge came clean about the Bushies using terrorism alerts for political purposes.

The Republicans, and their owners the health insurance industry, have been caught out in bald-faced lies.

Last week Sibil Edmonds named names and told stories.

The politicization of the US Attorney appointments, and the corrupt motives behind the selective firings, was revealed.

Gee Wow, All the stuff we knew to be true is now validated. Whooppee, Hallelujah!

So, does anybody think something meaningful is gonna happen now? I don’t.

There was a time, almost 40 years ago, when the media, officialdom, and the public would have been terminally outraged by any one of these cases. Any one of them is fully the equivalent of Watergate in its enormity, and Watergate was big enough to bring down a President, with even Republicans joining in his hounding from office.

But not any more. We’re living in a time in which, to all intents and purposes, the media pretend that there is no truth. There are only competing sides to the story, and they give the most credence to the version their corporate owners want pushed. That version, of course, is invariably the one based on a tissue of lies, because the corporations need to sustain a fabric of lies to keep their unholy grip on power.

Consider science, for example. Science is an enterprise based upon the discovery of facts, upon valuing the truth, no matter where it leads. The principles of science are antithetical to those of the corporate psychopaths. That is, no doubt, why 90% of scientists are Democrats. The attack dogs of the Right are working to destroy respect for science in the public mind. That is why they push creationism, and part of why they have attacked global warming.

So I predict that each one of these scandals, each of these insults to justice and decency, will pass with little note and no significant consequences. Certainly the mass media will pay them little mind, and I believe that the current Administration will also do nothing.

he has always stood with us on most social issues. He is the publisher of Sojourners Magazine, which is a leftist social justice publication for religiously conservative Christians. I think we are fools to turn down alliances withpeople like Wallis simply because they may disagree on Biblical doctrine. Wallis sent this letter out stating his position on health care with the obvious intent of getting it the widest possible dissemination, and in the interest of pushing that cause along a little, I am giving it in its entirety here:

there would be packs of starving lawyers and generals roaming the streets.

They both oppose a robust public option in health care.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/c...



Now they're both in trouble for accepting, and lying about, "sweetheart" loans.
Anybody suspect that somebody's playing hardball with them?

your own providers, and where you don't get punished for being taken to the wrong hospital by the wrong ambulance while you're unconscious. You know--a system where the good providers get lots of patients and the poor ones get driven out of business because word gets around and nobody will go to them. A system where you and your provider decide what's needed for your care.

Our present system isn't free-market like that. Your insurance company dictates what doctor you can see, what hospital you can go to, and whether or not you're going to get that expensive test or procedure. As long as you are well, you are a profit source for them. If you get sick, you become a problem. If you get too expensive to them, they're pretty good at finding ways to dump you. And, as a side-effect of our ingenious employer-based health care payment system, if you get too ill to keep your job, you will automatically end up on the discard heap.


Very few of us can actually afford the kind of care that we might someday need--bypass surgery, say, or cancer treatment. We have to have a system in which relatively small payments from the many who do not need expensive interventions help to pay for the relatively few who do need expensive care. That means that the young and healthy need to pay in to the system during those periods of their lives when they aren't using much health care so that their elders can be cared for--and so that someday they too can be cared for in their time of need.

No for-profit insurance scheme will ever provide free-market health care. By their very nature, insurance companies are structured to make profits by denying needed services. They reward the providers who cost them the least, not the ones who save or improve the quality of the most lives.

The great paradox of the Western world is that only way to provide a free market for providers is through universal, tax-funded single-payer health care. In this system, the government serves as the collector and disburser of health care funds. You pay into the health care system--ideally through income taxes--and when you need health services, you go to your doctor, he treats you, he submits his bill to the government, and they pay.

Here's an email I got from SEIU (Service Employees International Union)


CNBC isn't exactly a shining example of responsible journalism. The financial news network has been ridiculed for enabling the financial crisis with flawed reporting and fawning coverage of failed CEOs.

Well, CNBC is at it again. Yesterday, CNBC's Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett made a ridiculous, irresponsible statement. Cramer and Burnett compared the aftermath of Iran's recent election to what would happen under the Employee Free Choice Act.

Huh?

This is the height of irresponsible journalism. Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett need to hear from you now about their reckless reporting.

Send an email directly to Cramer and Burnett. They need to get the message that this kind of coverage is unacceptable.

Go here to post a response:
http://action.seiu.org/page/speakout/cnbc

Here was my response:
I note with interest your attempt to equate the EFCA with the Iran election. I guess when you're on the wrong side of the issue, your only recourse is to lie. There is nothing in EFCA that would deprive anyone of a secret ballot. And in any case, the problem in the Iranian election isn't about secret ballots, it's about stolen, miscounted, and uncounted votes. Better you should compare the Iranian election to the 2000 US election and the Bush v. Gore decision than that you should bring in the red herring of EFCA.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Colin Powell
Sonia Sotomayor
Bill Richardson
Barack Obama

If you said, "They're all racists," you're absolutely right. (Wright?)

I have this information from no less an authority than the great, esteemed Rush Limbaugh. And if anybody in America would know about racism, it would be him

...I mean, considering all that he has suffered as a rich, fat white pigboy. That just can't be an easy cross to bear.

Get yourself a tent & waterboard setup, and tour the hinterlands challenging the local rednecks to withstand 30 seconds of water torture boarding. $500 if you can make it for 30 seconds. Make them sign all kinds of waivers, of course. You charge $5 admission to the show, and incidentally educate the masses about whether waterboarding is torture.

From the newsletter of the International Association of Correctional & Forensic Psychologists newsletter


I can't provide a link because the article is in a Members Only area of the IACFP website

APA BANS INTERROGATIONS

THE CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, January 2009

The American Psychological
Association (APA) voted to ban
its members from taking part in
interrogations at the prison at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other
military detention sites where it
believes international law is being
violated. The ban means that APA
members can’t assist the U.S.
military at the sites. Members can
work at these sites for humanitarian
purposes or with non-governmental
groups, according to Stephen Soldz,
a Boston psychologist. Doctor Soldz
is founder of an ethics coalition that
has long supported the ban. The
new policy should take effect at the
APA annual meeting in August 2009.
There is talk from the new Obama
administration, however, that closing
Guantanemo may occur before the
APA’s August meeting.