-MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Dr. Eric Topal, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in a column posted the week of April 8th on the New England Journal of Medicine’s web site called for a congressional review of the “catastrophic” events”. “The senior executives at Merck and the leadership of the FDA share responsibility for not having taken action and not recognizing they are accountable for the public health.” Dr. Topal has also stated, “The FDA didn’t do anything. They were passive here.” Remember Dr. Graham linked Vioxx to 27,000 deaths.
There are other interesting aspects of the Vioxx case. Dr.David Graham the. Lead scientist mentioned in Blog 2, told the Senate Finance Committee investigators that the FDA tried to BLOCK publication of his findings, according to Senator Grassly chair of the Senate Finance Committee. “Dr. Graham described an environment where he was ‘ostracized’, ‘subject to veiled threats’ and”intimidation’. Dr Graham showed Senator Grasslay e-mails that appear to support Dr. Graham contention that his superiors suggested watering down the conclusions.
It APEARS THAT THE SUPERIORS AT THE FDA WERE MORE INTERESTING IN PROTECTING THE MERCK CO THAN INPROTECTING THE PUBLIC.
More on Merck and other troubled drugs in Blog 5
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Why can’t the police stop gang violence?
Get the FACTS behind the NEWS
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestle with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time> to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces another blog,
The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.
As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestle with a thug when he was 16.
He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.
Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time> to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.
Problems with the police forces another blog,
Friday, November 21, 2008
NAIN STREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY?
can we make a RECESSION PAINLESS? PART 3
GET the FACTS behind the NEWS
The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.
However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses. If financially well of,with the approval of Treasury Secretry Paulson, they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .
Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices. The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.
WASHINGTON Nov. 19 — The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., on Tuesday rejected pleas to use money from the $700 billion bailout program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure or to stave off bankruptcy by Detroit’s Big Three automakers.
Mr. Paulson acknowledged that he had the authority to use bailout money for homeowners, but he insisted that the money should go toward “investment” in financial institutions rather than “spending” on rescue efforts.“We have seen that capital purchases are clearly powerful in terms of impact for dollar of investment,” he said in his prepared testimony.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL HELP IS NOT GETTING TO MAIN STREET.
Next, what are others doing to help.
GET the FACTS behind the NEWS
The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.
However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses. If financially well of,with the approval of Treasury Secretry Paulson, they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .
Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices. The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.
WASHINGTON Nov. 19 — The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., on Tuesday rejected pleas to use money from the $700 billion bailout program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure or to stave off bankruptcy by Detroit’s Big Three automakers.
Mr. Paulson acknowledged that he had the authority to use bailout money for homeowners, but he insisted that the money should go toward “investment” in financial institutions rather than “spending” on rescue efforts.“We have seen that capital purchases are clearly powerful in terms of impact for dollar of investment,” he said in his prepared testimony.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL HELP IS NOT GETTING TO MAIN STREET.
Next, what are others doing to help.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Real Ortho Eva Story
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The Ortho Evra case is the latest in a series of failures to protect he public against the serious health hazards of powerful medicines. This situation has caused experts and others to question the Food and Drug’s commitment, and the present Federal Administration’ s commitment to protect and preserve the nation’s health.
It was six years after the companies’ own researchers found that the Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, even before Ortho had been approved by the FDA, At last six years later the public was notified.. In the six-year interval, the larger amount of estrogen increased the risk of blood clot’s and strokes. The Food and Drug Agency received reports of at least 50 deaths associated with the drug according to an article in the April 6. 2008
New York Times.
In addition it appears that the Ortho people deliberately camouflaged the increased estrogen by reducing the actual figures by 40% .This correction was mentioned only once in a 435 page report to the FDA and then in a complex mathematical formula according to an April 14, 2008 New York Times article..
3,000 Women and their families have sued Johnson and Johnson claiming that ORTHO EVRA patches caused heart attacks, strokes, and in some cases death.
How could this happen? Why didn’t the FDA catch this error and do something about it?
In Blog 2,3,4 and 5 we discuss several other hazardous mistakes. by the FDA. In Blog 6 we have a brief look at the FDA and its support from the Federal gov’t. Blog 7 explains how the Johnson Co, makers of Ortho, are trying to avoid any legal and financial responsibility for the deaths and illnesses caused by the larger estrogen dosage.
The Ortho Evra case is the latest in a series of failures to protect he public against the serious health hazards of powerful medicines. This situation has caused experts and others to question the Food and Drug’s commitment, and the present Federal Administration’ s commitment to protect and preserve the nation’s health.
It was six years after the companies’ own researchers found that the Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, even before Ortho had been approved by the FDA, At last six years later the public was notified.. In the six-year interval, the larger amount of estrogen increased the risk of blood clot’s and strokes. The Food and Drug Agency received reports of at least 50 deaths associated with the drug according to an article in the April 6. 2008
New York Times.
In addition it appears that the Ortho people deliberately camouflaged the increased estrogen by reducing the actual figures by 40% .This correction was mentioned only once in a 435 page report to the FDA and then in a complex mathematical formula according to an April 14, 2008 New York Times article..
3,000 Women and their families have sued Johnson and Johnson claiming that ORTHO EVRA patches caused heart attacks, strokes, and in some cases death.
How could this happen? Why didn’t the FDA catch this error and do something about it?
In Blog 2,3,4 and 5 we discuss several other hazardous mistakes. by the FDA. In Blog 6 we have a brief look at the FDA and its support from the Federal gov’t. Blog 7 explains how the Johnson Co, makers of Ortho, are trying to avoid any legal and financial responsibility for the deaths and illnesses caused by the larger estrogen dosage.
The World Turned Upside DOWN
Where is the conservative Blog3A
Supreme Court taking us?
GET THE FACT BEHIND THE NEWS
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?
GET THE FACT BEHIND THE NEWS
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B
Monday, November 10, 2008
MAIN SREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY
can we make
A RECESSION PAINLESS? Part 2
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The Congress and the Executive branch of the Federal gov’t have embarked on a new mission. How to make a recession painless. The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to $420 billion Federal deficit budget.
Diogenes is concerned that the measures taken so far are essentially blank checks to the same managements that appear incompetent and failed their company and the public. AIG Insurance was a large well financed insurance company. Management has changed recently. Maybe it should change again. AIG was originally given $85 billion and requested an additional$37.5 billion. General Motors received $25 billion and has now requested an additional $25 billion. GM is a company that was at the top of its field. GM has been going downhill for 40 years. Diogenes believes the Congress should demand new management and demand all models of GM have hybrid engines within three to four years.
This system of subsidizing inefficient companies only leads to trouble further on. It is a system used by communist China before they decided to modernize. One day in the near future you turn around and you have a whole range of inefficient companies that can not compete in the marketplace on their own but require constant subsidies.
Next we will discuss the validity of the gov't(public) making good on everyone’s loses.
A RECESSION PAINLESS? Part 2
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The Congress and the Executive branch of the Federal gov’t have embarked on a new mission. How to make a recession painless. The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to $420 billion Federal deficit budget.
Diogenes is concerned that the measures taken so far are essentially blank checks to the same managements that appear incompetent and failed their company and the public. AIG Insurance was a large well financed insurance company. Management has changed recently. Maybe it should change again. AIG was originally given $85 billion and requested an additional$37.5 billion. General Motors received $25 billion and has now requested an additional $25 billion. GM is a company that was at the top of its field. GM has been going downhill for 40 years. Diogenes believes the Congress should demand new management and demand all models of GM have hybrid engines within three to four years.
This system of subsidizing inefficient companies only leads to trouble further on. It is a system used by communist China before they decided to modernize. One day in the near future you turn around and you have a whole range of inefficient companies that can not compete in the marketplace on their own but require constant subsidies.
Next we will discuss the validity of the gov't(public) making good on everyone’s loses.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
MAIN STREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY
can we make A RECESSION PAINLESS ? Part 1
The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.
However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses or if financially well off they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .
Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices.
The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.. Financial help is not rapidly getting to main street.
Perhaps some of this tightening was needed. But, we must be careful not to repeat one of the great mistakes of the 1929 Great Depression. According to Milton Friedman, in reacting to the speculation at that time, we tightened credit too much and stifled the economy.
The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.
However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses or if financially well off they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .
Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices.
The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.. Financial help is not rapidly getting to main street.
Perhaps some of this tightening was needed. But, we must be careful not to repeat one of the great mistakes of the 1929 Great Depression. According to Milton Friedman, in reacting to the speculation at that time, we tightened credit too much and stifled the economy.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Is the Bill of Rights in danger?
Where is the conservative
Supreme Court taking us?
IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.
In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”, unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion.. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.
Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.
The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Right by passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.
Supreme Court taking us?
IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.
In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”, unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion.. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.
Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.
The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Right by passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)