Date posted: January 18, 2008 - Friday
Title: TW3 01/18/08
Current mood: satisfied
A Nation of Junkies
Yep, that's us.
No, we're not all crumpled in a heap against the wall of an abandoned building with a needle sticking out of our veins, but some of the mentality is the same. We seem to be far too quick to grab a pill to deal with every little physical, or mental, inconvenience.
A lot of this was brought home to me this week. My Sunday paper held advertisements for Longs Drugs, CVS Pharmacy (formerly Savon), Rite Aid and Walgreens. Each of these businesses wanted you to fill your prescriptions with them. And if these weren't enough the ad for Target stores featured a section where they announced you could now fill your prescriptions with them.
And then there was the television commercials. I'm not talking about over-the-counter things (although there were enough of those), but the advertisements which required you to go in and lobby your doctor to write a prescription for the latest 'wonder drug' being pimped on your TV set. Drugs for high cholesterol, drugs for impotence, drugs for anxiety or depression, drugs for Restless Leg Syndrome. (Restless Leg Syndrome????)
And the major thing separating these drugs from those you would buy from your neighborhood pusher was the fact the ones on television had to warn you about the possible side effects. (Not something you're going to get from a pusher.)
Nausea. Trouble with your bowels. Possible fatal drug interaction. Trouble sleeping. Possible development of gambling or sexual addiction. Hell, these side effects could scare you to death; or at least into needing anti-anxiety drugs.
Now I know there are many conditions where it is necessary to use prescription drugs to maintain a normal life. I have Type II diabetes and take a handful of pills every day to try and control my blood glucose level and the other effects of the disease. So, as we age we are more likely to need a little chemical help just to maintain the status quo in our bodies.
But, hell, the way the drug companies are assaulting us at every turn to get us using their product smacks so much of the same atmosphere as a pusher all the TV pitchmen should be wearing trench coats and dealing from the street corner.
Oops, Guess Our TV Ads Were Wrong
Just a second note on drugs.
Early in the week the word came out one of the popular cholesterol-lowering drugs might not be working the way it should.
You know the one. The television commercials for it feature all those cute pictures of people wearing funny outfits that match the color and pattern of the fatty food in the picture beside them. The trade name is Zetia and the pill that contains it is called Vytorin.
Seems it doesn't help control the build up of plaque in the arteries at all. In fact the two-year study completed in 2006 said the drug could actually contribute to the buildup of plaque. The manufacturer dismissed this as being possibly just a coincidence since the contribution to buildup was so small.
Of more interest is the fact Merck and Schering-Plough, the manufacturers of the drug, repeatedly missed their own deadlines for releasing the results of the study. Cardiologists are suspicious of the delays in issuing the report while millions of people continued to take the drug before the results of the study were made public. The suspicious delay has also drawn the interest of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
So, not only does the drug not help the patient, but it can actually increase their chances of suffering a heart attack and exposing them to harmful side effects.
Late in the week one of the national news shows had a story that even questioned the need for Statin cholesterol-lowering drugs in many cases. While there was probably a need for people who were at great risk for heart attacks, one study showed for people in low-risk groups only one in a hundred is spared from a heart attack by using the drug. Which then means 99 people are taking a fairly expensive drug for little or no benefit and having the false sense of security about the possibility of developing heart disease instead of changing their life style to live healthier.
My question? Is anybody really testing these things before they are released on an unsuspecting public for the profit of the drug companies?
The "R" Word
It's being said more and more as the yearly financial reports and predictions for next year come out.
Recession.
I saw this week how the bottom has dropped out of the housing market in the area where I live. Well, maybe not the bottom, but the value has fallen so far the median price of a home has dropped $65,000 between December 2006 and 2007.
A report on Tuesday (1/15/08) said consumers had put the breaks on spending and the world's largest retail trade group (Sears Holdings) issued a downbeat sales forecast for 2008. What had been a slowdown in spending at mid-level retailers has spread to the upper-end economic stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Tiffany.
Tiffany cut its 2007 profit outlook by 2 percent. Sears Holdings said sales figures for the end of the year were as much as 57 percent below that period for the previous year. Holiday sales overall were the weakest since 2002.
Predictions for 2008 say sales will grow at the weakest pace in six years.
Adding to the grim outlook was the fact job growth in December practically stalled and the unemployment rate reached a 2-year high of 5 percent.
Some economists are denying the idea of a recession, but one retail analyst said, "I don't care if the economy is in a recession, the consumer is in a recession."
This is borne out by the fact not only are people not spending as much, but are looking for store brands instead of name-brand products.
And on Friday I see where both the President and Congress are scrambling to enact a package of economic incentives including tax rebates and possibly extending unemployment benefits in order to fend off the "R" word.
Batten down the hatches, Mateys, it's going to be a rough year.
I Don't Care What You're Selling
I have been watching too much television and it's getting to me.
I spoke last week about the lack of creativity in television commercials. But, as I see more and more of them, it's not just the lack of clever commercials that's so irritating it's the abundance of really terrible ones.
Most of them are just boring or bad, but a few rise to the level of really offensive--or should I say sink to that level.
I single out for special consideration …
Toyota trucks. I don't know who their advertising agency is, but all those commercials where huge I-beams are swinging at the trucks, the vehicles are slamming on the brakes just short of going over a cliff or pulling a huge trailer past a large array of fans trying to topple the load are just plain disgusting. It was bad enough when they just advertised their trucks tearing up the environment, but now they are trying to hype features to deal with situations no normal driver would encounter in a lifetime of driving.
Burger King. Commercials where they tell customers they have stopped selling their signature burger, or replace it with a burger from another chain are irritating in the extreme. And the only thing we learn about the customers is they know far too much about fast food when they can identify a burger from another chain being served at Burger King.
Payton Manning. I don't care what kind of a quarterback his is. I don't care if he winds up in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I am not going to by a cell phone or a Sony television just because he is pitching them. I am just damn tired of seeing him all over my TV set.
And thus I am remembering why I choose to spend the majority of my television viewing time on the pay cable channels.
A Hope Frustrated
There was an announcement this week a researcher had found a way to develop a strain of stem cells without harming embryos. Previous efforts were successful, but the resulting strain of stem cells was tainted and useful for only limited applications.
Successful research into the use of stem cells in therapy promise possible solutions for such debilitating diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's as well as heart disease, diabetes and spinal cord injuries.
Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology, made the announcement and hoped for funds from the National Institutes of Health to continue research.
Story Landis, who heads the NIH's stem cell task force threw cold water on those hopes almost immediately.
Acting in its' role as Big Brother (and the tool of the conservative right) Landis said the research didn't meet the criteria established by the Bush administration for the release of funds.
There has to be proof embryos are not harmed in order to qualify for NIH funds. And, apparently, the only way to provide this proof is the embryos have to be implanted in a woman and brought to term and shown to have no effect on the resulting children.
Since the embryos used by Lanza were donated specifically for the purposes of research and not for implantation he can't meet the criteria required by Landis.
The fact the embryos used were allowed to develop beyond the extraction of the single cells used to develop the stem cell strains and showed no ill effects isn't enough according to the government.
The survival rate of Lanza's embryos was the same or better as those used in fertility clinics where cells are extracted from embryos to check for DNA defects before being used in vitro fertilization.
So the National Institute for Health frustrates attempts to develop stem-cell therapies. Now there is a long road ahead before stem-cell therapies can be realized, but we can't even walk that road if the government (read The Bush Administration) stymies researchers at every turn to placate the religious right.
Health care in this country is fouled up enough without the government frustrating efforts to fight some of the most devastating diseases we all face.
President, "I Don't Care"
George W. Bush.
No, he hasn't outright said it, but actions speak louder than words and the actions of this President and his White House staff have said loud and clear they doesn't care about the rules of law.
There is a law against revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent and the Bush White House blows Valerie Plame out of the water. And now, while the case is still being investigated, comes the word that millions, (yes, I said millions) of e-mails are possibly missing from White House records. The announcement from the White House came only minutes before a court-imposed deadline to provide information it had refused to provide in the past.
Once the probe started in 2003 the White House was supposed to be preserving records. There are two separate laws that require the preservation of federal documents and White House records. In 2005 evidence came out that perhaps as many as 5 million e-mails (including internal White House communications that could have discussed the CIA leak incident) were missing.
Now, Theresa Payton, chief information officer for the White House, says they don't know if any information is missing. This, despite earlier admissions from the White House that records were definitely missing.
Huh? How can you not know about your own information system?
One of the groups seeking information on White House records estimates the missing records could now actually be more than 10 million in number.
Later in the week Bush overruled a Federal Court ruling prohibiting the use of certain types of sonar in US Navy training of the Pacific Coast. Environmentalists claim the sonar harms marine mammals and had petitioned to limit its' use in training exercises. The Navy's own research says the sonar can harm some 30 species of marine mammals.
The 1972 U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act gives states the right to review federal activities that impact coastal resources and this marks the first time the President has ever overruled the law.
In the past the Navy has managed to complete training with modified sonar. They even had a plan in place to modify its use during these exercises before Bush stuck his heavy hand into the proceedings and ordered things back to court. And there is even some belief the President doesn't have the authority to overrule environmental rulings.
Where do these "Imperial" Presidents come from? What makes them think they can ignore the law when they want to? Didn't we show that isn't true with Dick Nixon?
