And in case you have not read about this one. A lot of places have
banned fluoride in drinking water or opted out of doing this in the
first place(?), but hope this will lead to the abolishment of this
backwards practice.
Environmental Working Group: Fluoride and Bone Cancer in Boys
Government Asked to Evaluate the Cancer-Causing Potential Of Fluoride
in Tap Water
http://www.ewg.org/issues/fluoride/20050606/index.php
And another older one below on relationships between Bush and drug
companies, in case you missed this one. There is tons of information on
the internet on biological psychiatry as pseudo science. Can do a
search on these terms. Also can search on things like ‘anti
psychiatry,’ ‘anti psychology,’ ‘critical psychiatry,’ and ‘critical
psychology’ for some more very interesting articles on this.
Bush-Backed Drug Marketing Schemes
http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=824
What else? What? Pharmaceutical companies were among the top donors to
the Bush-Cheney, different republican’s, campaigns in recent years?
Gave much more to Republicans than Dems? Can do a search on ‘drug
companies republicans’ for more on this as well? Also helped to get
Tony Blair elected? Is that right? Big proponents of genetically
engineered food junk science, genetically modified organisms, backed
Blair?
Hi, I’m trying to put together a list of resources for people with AIDS
and their families. Right now, I’ve got about 1000 cross-references,
but I’m not sure about the structure. Can some of you folks try it
out?
http://aidsstation.com
Anyway, reply if you have any suggestions for me.
Thanks,
Dan
ps:
I put some ads on it to help pay for the server space, but they only
get a few cents a click. Still, if you’d like to click a few, that’d
be nice :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/national/04drug.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
New Drugs Hit the Market, but Promised Trials Go Undone
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: March 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 3 ?
When it approves new drugs for sale, the Food
and Drug Administration often requires their manufacturers to study
whether they are working as intended and whether they have unwanted
side effects. But the agency reported Friday that two-thirds of the
studies had not even been started.
Hundreds of studies have been pending for years, the F.D.A. said, with
one dating to 1955. In many cases, pharmaceutical makers promised to
undertake the studies as a way to speed their drugs’ approval.
Critics of the industry promptly seized on the new numbers, saying
they demonstrated that the drug agency needed more power to compel
drug makers to complete needed studies.
Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, said that
while the agency insisted that it demanded that drug makers prove
their medicines safe, those demands "continue to be blatantly ignored
by the pharmaceutical industry."
Mr. Hinchey has introduced legislation that would authorize the agency
to require drug makers to follow through on their promised commitments.
But Dr. John Jenkins, director of the Office of New Drugs at the
agency, said that many drug companies who promised to undertake trials
"are taking that commitment very seriously."
Dr. Jenkins emphasized that only 5 percent of the promised drug trials
were officially considered "delayed." In many cases, trials have been
pending for more than a decade but are not considered delayed because
the agency never insisted on a specific timeline for the tests.
As with many debates regarding the F.D.A., the controversy over
promised but uncompleted trials revolves around what level of
certainty drug reviewers should insist upon before approving medicines.
Conservatives and some patient-advocacy groups have long argued that
the F.D.A. should approve medicines as rapidly as possible even when
there are significant doubts about whether they work or are safe.
Drug-safety advocates have argued that the agency needs to slow its
approval process by demanding more thorough drug testing.
The agency often compromises by approving a drug quickly and then
insisting that its maker prove after approval that the drug actually
works. This strategy, as the numbers released Friday show, has been
only marginally successful.
As of Sept. 30, of the 1,231 promised drug trials, 797, or 65 percent,
had not begun or were "pending," according to the F.D.A. Another 231
were considered "ongoing" and 28 were "delayed." In the 2005 fiscal
year, drug makers completed and submitted the results of 172 trials,
the agency reported.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the deputy F.D.A. commissioner for medical and
scientific affairs, said last month that the agency would ask an
outside group to evaluate the problem, a process that could take a
year.
Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of the cardiology department at the
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, said, "I think it’s very disappointing
that we’re not seeing the studies that are promised being done."
Companies complete trials rapidly when the F.D.A. demands the results
as a condition for approval, Dr. Nissen said.
Alan Goldhammer, an associate vice president of the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group, said that
"approving medicines for public use is a lengthy and difficult
process."
Although the controversy about these numbers has raged for years, the
ratio of uncompleted trials has remained largely unchanged. In 2002,
the first year that the F.D.A. began closely monitoring the issue, 820
of 1,339 promised trials, or 61 percent, were "pending."
One problem is that the promised studies are often difficult to
complete. For instance, few cancer patients would willingly risk
enrolling in a study that might result in theirreceiving a placebo
when the active drug was easily available at any oncologist’s office.
As a result, just one cancer medicine in five has ever proved that it
extends patients’ lives ? the usual endpoint demanded of postapproval
cancer trials.
The trials are also expensive, and drug makers sometimes have few
incentives to complete them. The F.D.A.’s only recourse is to withdraw
the drug, but because such a step might hurt patients it is considered
so draconian that regulators have never taken it over a failure to
complete a study.
Dr. Alastair Wood, associate dean of Vanderbilt medical school, said
the F.D.A. needed to get tougher on drug makers. "Who would turn in
their homework if they didn’t have to?" Dr. Wood asked.
This page on conflicts of interest and much more interesting
information on the Alliance for Human Research Protection web site,
<http://www.ahrp.org>.
Conflict of Interest: Profits vs Safety
http://www.ahrp.org/COI/COI.php
There is a conspiracy that is preventing a real cure for HIV and Aids.
The govornment could stop the spread of HIV by building institutions
for people who test positive, where they could get free treatment and
couldn’t have sexual contact with people who are negative. We would
have to make HIV testing manditory at every doctors checkup, and in no
time the spread of aids would be contained to countries where they
continued to let HIV positive people infect those of us that were
healthy.
If there was funding for it, we could stop the spread of all diseases
by confining anyone who was sick to a hospital, and giving drug addicts
and criminals a chance to recover with therapy and detoxing. Instead
of doing this we have welfare, and prison. The system is barbaric, but
maybe it isn’t a conspiracy. Maybe we just have a deep desire to live
with our problems instead of healing them.
Tell me what you think about this idea, and we can all start writting
letters to the politicians.
For more info please visit:
www.familywellnessproducts.com
I started my own newsgroup, which I moderat, and the idea is to have
moderated, academic-style debates. I have learned quite a bit from
reading the so-called "AIDS dissidents," but the "establishment" people
don’t seem very interested in talking about the scientific evidence.
Nevertheless, if anyone wishes to represent a position that "HIV"
exists and does serious harm over the course of several years to almost
all who are "infected," please send me a message and I will attempt to
arrange a debate on my forum. Only the evidence for the existence of
"HIV" and of its supposed cytopathic effects will be debated.
Discussions on "epidemiology" and other kinds of indirect effects or
observations will be saved for possible future debates. Personal
insults and discussion of anything not directly related to the topic
will be deleted and I will cut and paste relevant portions of the
deleted post, if any passages are in fact relevant. I will try to the
be the "average person" as moderator, asking questions that someone who
knows the basic claims probably would, so you will be asked to explain
your position in a way that anyone of reasonable intelligence can
grasp. If you are chosen (only one person per "side"), you must state
your position and the evidence for it at the beginning, and then you
will get a chance to challenge your opponent’s position, and then you
will defend your own. Please state how many words you think that you
will need for this task. Once this is accomplished, I will ask some
questions of the two sides, and then you can make closing remarks.
Very simple – no need for histrionics or melodrama.
By Dan Savage
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/05/routine_hiv_testsjus.php
By Dan Savage
Routine HIV Testing–Just Say Yes
Posted by DAN SAVAGE at 11:36 AM
The CDC is recommending that we change our approach to
HIV testing
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/05/09/hiv.testing.ap/index….
Testing for the AIDS virus could become part of
routine physical exams for adults and teens if
doctors follow new U.S. guidelines expected to be
issued by this summer.
Federal health officials say they would like HIV
testing to be as common as a cholesterol check….
One-quarter of the 1 million Americans with the AIDS
virus don’t know they are infected, and that group
is most responsible for HIV’s spread, CDC officials
said.
I agree 100% with Georgia10 at DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/9/123010/8639
We cannot stop the AIDS epidemic with a rate of
24%-27% of undiagnosed carriers. Making AIDS testing
as common as an ordinary blood test can go a long
way to dealing with this health crisis.
If everyone who carried the virus knew his or her HIV
status, it would significantly reduce the infection
rate. It wouldn’t eliminate new infections, of course,
but it would bring it way down. Not only would more
people who are currently infected know that they had to
take steps to protect their sex partners, routine HIV
testing would also mean that more people who are
infected would get treatment–and treatment seems to
make HIV-positive people less infectious by reducing
their viral load, which would further cut the infection
rate. It would also lead to more, and more effective,
sero-sorting, the practice of positives seeking out
other positives as sex partners, and negatives seeking
out negatives. Sero-sorting is credited with reducing
the infection rate in San Francisco, of all places.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sfaids1apr01,0,4272516.story?…
Wow! Routine testing for HIV would save lives–so
naturally the AIDS establishment is opposed to the
CDC’s sensible recommendation:
Some patients’ advocates have voiced concern that
the recommendations do not include pre-test
counseling and sufficient informed consent.
You can read GMHC’s take here
http://gmhc.org/about/releases/060404.html
and San Francisco AIDS Foundation’s take here
http://www.sfaf.org/policy/testing/cdc_guidelines.html
Perhaps the CDC’s proposal can be tweaked–who could
object to more counseling?–but the primary reason AIDS
orgs will oppose the new guidelines is that many do
little more than encourage people to get tested and
offer HIV tests. If HIV tests become a routine part of
regular medical care–and it should–it will be harder
for many HIV orgs to justify their expensive,
ineffectual existences.
Please don’t listen to the AIDS orgs on this issue:
It’s past time that we began treating HIV like other
sexually transmitted diseases. That means routine
testing, names reporting, and contact tracing–all
routine public health measures that will save lives,
particularly the lives of African American women.
In a side note: One of the problems with HIV prevention
education in this country is the slogan "Be Safe–Get
Tested," which creates the impression that testing is
safety. I know lots of gay men who regard regular
testing as some sort of retroactive absolution for
whatever unsafe or risky activities they participated
in between tests.
By Dan Savage
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/05/routine_hiv_testsjus.php
permalink
Comments
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/05/routine_hiv_testsjus.php
The only problem I would have with it is how the
insurance companies would react. Would they/could they
dump you or jack up your policy if they see you are
positive? How will employers react? Would they/could
they dump you from their group policy if they find out
you are positive?
Of course, if we were sensible and would just open
medicare up to everyone, this wouldn’t be an issue. I’m
usually fairly retro in my sensibilities, but this
1940′s way of insuring people just sucks.
Posted by: catalina vel-duray | May 9, 2006 12:10 PM
Dan,
I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are a lot of
ineffectual HIV orgs out there. I find it interesting
that there are more and more people interested in
"starting an HIV organization," from scratch, from
ever-dwindling HIV prevention funds. Unfortunately, the
CDC source-of-all-major-funding doesn’t operate on
"survival of the fittest/leanest/most efficient"
policies, but rather on the beliefs of whatever
political party is in power (which means we are all
screwed until at least 2009).
But I digress. I’ve worked in HIV/syphilis
prevention/education/testing/partner
notification/social work for over 10 years, and I
totally see the "Be Safe – Get Tested" thing as
fallacious reasoning, especially for gay men. If
somebody continues with risky behaviors, but continues
to test negative, they either think, "Gee, I must be
doing something right," or worse, yet, "I must be
immune." [I once counseled a guy that swore that
vaseline (and nothing else) was keeping him negative
all these years. His test came out negative; how could
I convince him otherwise?]
Which is why your last paragraph seems to contradict
everything else you said in your blog. How is the
"routine testing" plan different from "Be Safe – Get
Tested?" I think it will also lull people into thinking
that just because they regularly test negative, they
must therefore be "safe."
Let me tell you first-hand, there are a TON of people
that are cajoled into testing for HIV (say, as part of
chlamydia testing and treatment), and if people are not
really ready to be tested, they sure as heck won’t
stick around/come back for the results, and (take it
from me), they sure as HELL don’t want to be found,
especially if their results are positive.
Also, with dwindling resources for HIV/AIDS treatment,
and with an ever-increasing number of people testing
positive (especially with the CDC’s unbrilliant
strategy of mass-testing without accompanying
counseling), are we really doing anyone any favors, by
saying, "OK, I know you didn’t really want to test, and
aren’t ready for these results, but congrats, you’re
HIV positive. Sorry, Ryan White funds have been cut
again, so you’re on a 1-year waiting list to get CD4,
etc. testing paid for, and pretty much have to wait for
somebody to DIE before you can get on the AIDS-drugs
waiting list." ?
While I dread the results of the CDC’s new "routine
testing" incentive, I do agree with your beliefs in
holding people personally accountable for their
actions. I’m an HIV-negative gay man (here but for the
grace of goddess), and it’s pretty much a miracle that
I’m still negative, as over half of my ex’s are now
positive, and I can guaran-fucking-TEE you that they
didn’t give a rat’s ass about my health or safety. I am
35 and negative BECAUSE I PROTECTED MYSELF.
Teach people that they MATTER, and that they have to
look out for themselves – not that it’s the government
(and taxpayer’s) responsibility to test them, give them
the bad news, and pay for their treatment.
Keep up the great writing (even if I disagree with it
sometimes)!
Peace Out
Posted by: tester | May 9, 2006 12:25 PM
BTW – I wouldn’t be so heavy on the praise to San Fran
on being so forward-thinking on lowering HIV rates. The
midwest et al. are always looking to San Fran as the
source of the "next best thing" in HIV prevention. WAKE
UP, HEALTH DEPARTMENTS! San Fran is usually the first
place to find the "worst new thing" – crystal meth,
STD’s du jour, etc. You are perfectly capable of coming
up with your own, effective prevention techniques –
believe in yourselves! Or at least look to Seattle –
their needle exchange program has done a kick-ass job
of keeping down the rates of new IDU-transmitted HIV
infections.
Posted by: tester | May 9, 2006 12:54 PM
| Wow! Routine testing for HIV would save lives–so
| naturally the AIDS establishment is opposed to the
| CDC’s sensible recommendation
Please define the term… AIDS establishment
| "Be safe–Get Tested"
Note every time that this term is used referring to
preventing sexually transmitted infections
the correct term is always…
safer
There’s never zero risk.
Posted by: NotB4WeKnow.blogspot.com | May 9, 2006 01:05
PM
Regarding the comment about health coverage insurance,
can you name a case, an example?…
All’s there has to be is a few cases of that and that
will be the end of that. It’s a disease and should be
treated as a disease.
Regarding the thought experiment…
The strategy.
Get tested together for a variety of sexually
transmitted infections including human immunodeficiency
virus and share the results with your potential sex
partner BEFORE having sex.
Here’s the collaborative blog and wiki about the
strategy of let’s get tested together BEFORE we have
sex… for STDs
http://NotB4WeKnow.blogspot.com
Posted by: NotB4WeKnow.blogspot.com | May 9, 2006 01:23
PM
"Regarding the comment about health coverage insurance,
can you name a case, an example?…"
Read my comments again, please. What I was asking was
how would routine testing affect health insurance
coverage and rates for people who were found to be
positive. I don’t trust insurance companies to do the
right thing, and neither does anyone else who is of
normal intelligence. That’s the only flaw I can find
with routine testing.
Posted by: Catalina Vel-DuRay | May 9, 2006 01:40 PM
Post a comment
Name:
______________________________
Email Address: (will not be displayed)
______________________________
URL:
______________________________
[_] Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Please click Post only once.
Preview Post
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/05/routine_hiv_testsjus.php
By Jia-Rui Chong
Rising Syphilis Rate Linked to Gay Men
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymenshealthsummit