Big Bad Pharma

Big Pharma is a bunch of crooks. It is perhaps the most crooked industry in America.

We in America come up with a million different diseases that we all need a cure for. At first it seemed believable enough. There was ADHD and depression. OK those are real, I’ll go for it. Then the allergy pill commercials all the time. OK still seems not so bad. Then all the boner pill ads. OK going a little too far? Then I saw ads for drugs where it wasn’t clear, or even somewhat evident that the alleged ailment was. All I could tell from the TV ads was that I’d be dancing in fields of flowers after I had these pills. Maybe allergy pills? Maybe arthritis pain relief? Who knows. Finally the last straw was a few years ago when I saw an ad for some new dry eye syndrome drug, and suddenly felt as if my eyes were dry, and maybe I should ask my doctor…

There were some problematic products. They started not blatantly evil. Oxycontin: OK it was just misused by some people. Things like that happen. Then there were these drugs recently (whose names I can’t remember) that were found to kill people, while treating them for like blood pressure or something. And it wasn’t clear how rigorous the pre-market trials were, and it seemed like maybe the manufacturers might have thought there was some sort of risk of death, but the product still went to market. Hmm… what was that oath again? Some nonsense about doing no harm?

Then just the other day, I learned that we are the nation with the most depression and who takes the most depression medication. Now if the medication were effective, we should have lower rates of depression due to medication alleviating symptoms of depression. But apparently not. And then it turns out that one of the side effects of the depression meds like Prozac is depression. WHAT! What good does it do to take a medicine which causes the thing it is meant to fight. This basically means that it doesn’t fight what it is supposed to. I guess that just because it helps serotonin, doesn’t mean it solves depression. Logically thinking, lifestyle change and good old talking about it is probably more likely to cure depression.

So the overall story is that big pharma makes drugs to fight diseases, and sometimes they are good. But a lot of times, they are maybe not as effective, and even can be harmful. I didn’t even go into Ritalin for kids, or Prozac for kids (or dogs!), but something’s going on. I am not saying that people who use these things are in the wrong. If you have a problem, you want to solve it. But I am saying that we need to make sure we are treating the right things when we use medication. Sometimes the “quick fix” solution of medication is not really an effective or long term solution. But until drug companies get out of physicians’ beds, it will be hard for us to get non-medicinal solutions to our medical ailments.

"Beer Track" Voters

I just posted about this over on My Life With Beer, but I need to continue on a different angle over here.

The overview: beer track voters are supposedly poor democrats who care about unions and making ends meet, while wine track voters are supposedly rich democrats who care about global peace and more cerebral issues. This really pisses me off. I am a beer lover, but I would fit into their wine track.

This differentiation just shows how wrong stereotypes can be, and how it can really turn off people you don't want to turn away. It also is a way that the entire government itself works to promote the interests of huge companies, such as Budweiser. It is clearly Bud Miller Coors fans that are the beer track voters for the most part. It's like they don't even know about craft beer, which is up to 5% of the market now, and growing about ten times faster than the overall beer market.

It reminds me of the NASCAR Dad's thing from last time. I am a NASCAR fan, a dad, but I am NOT A republican who wants to go to war, like the NASCAR dads were supposed to be. Sometimes it seems that the so-called lberal media is more regressive since they constantly play off old stereotypes. Furthering these things in such a public way works to suppress any difference from the stereotype. In other words, as a NASCAR fan who is a liberal, I was sort of put in a state of limbo by the promotion of that stereotype of NASCAR Dad. It worked to alienate me from politics and NASCAR. Although I have recovered ;)

Now beer track voters alienate me from politics and beer. Although I will sooner discard politics than beer. I think I need to find acceptance of broad generalizations that must be made by people in the position of presidential candidates or media organizations. But then again, blogging is all about fighting stereotypes and getting the voice of the little guy out there. So here I am.

"wine track" beer entrepreneur
liberal anti-war "NASCAR Dad"

FEMA in San Diego

These terrible fires that are ravaging the San Diego have displaced many thousands of people, and destroyed countless homes and businesses. The life of many in the area will never be the same.

This reminds me of Katrina a few years ago in New Orleans, especially using the sports arena for a shelter. FEMA claims to have "learned from its mistakes on Katrina" and says they're doing better this time. Like Katrina was the first big catastrophe that they ever had to deal with? Last time, Chertoff didn't even know there was a hurricane. Now, he's there in Qualcomm staduim.

I just can't help but think that it's different this time not because FEMA is somehow more prepared, or that they're somehow better at working with state and local officials. I think it has more to do with the socio-economic profiles of the victims of this tragedy. This isn't a bunch of poor people living in trailer parks, this is a bunch of (at least) middle class people living in (at least) half million dollar homes. Everyone knows the real estate market in that area is inflated, and it follows that you need to be doing pretty good for yourself to be able to live in that area. True, not everyone there is a celebrity living in Malibu, but there probably aren't a lot of welfare recipients living in trailer parks either.

So I am glad that people that need help are getting it there in California, but I just wish that everyone in need of help would get it, no matter what they look like, what they do for work, where they live, or how much money they have.

Middle School Birth Control

I can see how this school in Maine that is "giving birth contol pills to 11-year old girls without requiring parental consent" is alarming to many people. I read an article from Bill O'Reilly on it. Big surprise, he hates it. But even NPR had a story today (that I haven't listened to yet - not sure which show it was) basically asking "is this really okay for them to do?"

I think it is really important for girls of all ages to have access to birth control and good information about sex education. That is not to say that I want my daughter to be having sex at eleven years old, but if she were to be doing it, I'd MUCH rather she was on the pill than have her get pregnant.

The thing that really gets me about this is that the right will not allow these girls to get birth control pills (they would probably not even want the boys with condoms), and then if the kids get pregnant, they won't let them get an abortion (they say give it up for adoption - I have two kids, and I don't know how anyone could carry a baby for nine months and then just give it up for adoption - you become quite attached to that future baby). In fact, they are probably the first ones to provide judgement and unsupport to pregnant teens (and pre-teens in this case). On top of all this, they are the ones against sex education in the classroom (although even if I was going to send my kids to school, I still wouldn't rely on the sex ed they provide in there.)

Think about it this way. If a kid is having sex at eleven years old, there might be some sort of a deeper problem there. Could be anything from run-of-the-mill low self esteem all the way up to abuse. But something isn't right, and there's a good chance there's a parental rift involved there. So to require parental consent is just like putting up a big wall, and to require it would be to essentially prevent practically all of its intended utility (which I'm assuming is to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies.)

There's nothing wrong with sex. It is totally natural. Anyone who's ever had it can tell you that it is enjoyable, and they probably thought about it a lot before they had it for the first time, and possibly even more after they had it for the first time. Again, not that I want my eleven year old doing it necessarily, but at the same time, I don't think we should be viewing it in a shameful way that it seems to be protrayed most of the time.

If you want to act like there's no sex, and kids don't want to have it, then you do that on your own turf, but don't prevent my kid from getting essential tools for dealing with real life consequences of sex in a mature way.

Responsible Spending? HA!

It just amazes me how much money goes into campaign spending, even just running for the nomination. This just seems crazy to me.

It really hit home when Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize the other day, and speculation about "maybe he'll run for President now" were dismissed for, among other reasons, the fact that he'd be "way behind in fund raising".

Now why would he need so much money? Everyone already knows who he is. What do they spend that money on? Maybe it's just because I live in CT, where nobody really bothers to do any hometown campaigining that I don't see what the big expense is.

Sure, I can see spending a few days around each big city in a state, doing big public functions, and that could cost a bit, but hundreds of millions of dollars?? Something is wrong when you need to have hundreds of millions of dollars behind you before you can be considered a viable candidate for President.

I do not like Joe Lieberman

Every time I hear Joe Lieberman speak now I get so angry and feel sick.

He is just so wrong. I thought it was odd when he went to run for VP, but at the same time it was cool to have a guy from CT to run for that high office.

Then this past election, was where the crap really started. When he didn't win the Democratic nomination, he decided to run as an Independent instead. This totally undermines the system that we have in place. To make matters worse, he went and won. This shows that his support comes from the right, the people who can't vote in the Democratic primary. He's just a Republican in disguise. He is pro war, and votes with the GOP on war issues, such as troop reduction, etc.

I am not categorically against politicians who don't always go with their party line. For example, I really like John McCain (for a Republican). He is the classic Republican who wants to reach across the aisle to get important things done. Lieberman has sort of the same MO, but he has done it in a really sneaky way. If he wants to vote GOP, then run GOP. He could have won on the GOP ticket, but instead he tried to go for the Democratic nomination, didn't get it, but decided to bypass the system and play anyway.

On top of all this, I just can't stand to listen to him. He always sounds like he's about to cry, or like he just woke up from a nap. Then he's spinning all the war stats more than Bush does. He just needs to join the GOP where he belongs.

Bush Speaks

I hate to say it, but I believe part of what Dubya is saying today. He's talking about how congress isn't doing anything really productive. To me, this is a part of the extended extended campaign season for presidency. Congress is using its Democratic majority to keep anything from getting done. Partly this makes Bush look bad because nothing's happening, but at the same time it makes the Dems look bad because they're blocking things from happening in their passive-aggressive way.

But I actually like the way Bush is using his press address power to call out congress in their attempts to hold up meaningful work.

Now it is possible that he's just spinning the situation, and that there have been meaningful bills passed. If you can inform me of some progress made this session by congress, please set me straight. I would much rather feel that Democratic congress is good.

And now of course in the Q&A he is getting really defensive and impatient. I like it when that happens. The press keeps trying to trick him into commenting on something, and he keeps saying "you're trying to trick me", then he ends up frustrated.