Thursday, March 16, 2006

Sinners and Souls

It is interesting that Christian philosophy believes that all men are sinners in need of a savior. If that is true, why does anyone bother to be good? We might as well all act as terrorists and criminals abusing our fellow man, since no matter how evil man is; he will be saved in the after life. This illogical philosophy makes no sense to me. I would suspect that if there were a God, it would want man to behave not as a sinner but as a decent human being treating his fellow man with respect and decency. Man is not born as a sinner and certainly need not be one during his life.

The atheist may have the right idea. If there is a God, it must look with disappointment on Christian philosophy that only sees bad in man and only after death does man become good.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Are drug companies ripping us off

Is The High Cost of Drugs Justified?


The following article illustrates the schemes drug companies are using to raise prices. The drug company spokesman have been claiming that they need high drug prices to pay for research and development of new drugs. Well, that is far from the truth. Here are examples of drug companies pricing drugs on the basis of what the traffic will bear. I think the government should institute price controls to keep drug costs within reason and prevent medicare from going bankrupt. What do you think?


NEW YORK TIMES


March 12, 2006

A Cancer Drug's Big Price Rise Is Cause for Concern

By ALEX BERENSON

On Feb. 3, Joyce Elkins filled a prescription for a two-week supply of nitrogen mustard, a decades-old cancer drug used to treat a rare form of lymphoma. The cost was $77.50.

On Feb. 17, Ms. Elkins, a 64-year-old retiree who lives in Georgetown, Tex., returned to her pharmacy for a refill. This time, following a huge increase in the wholesale price of the drug, the cost was $548.01.

Ms. Elkins's insurance does not cover nitrogen mustard, which she must take for at least the next six months at a cost that will now total nearly $7,000. She and her husband, who works for the Texas Department of Transportation, are paying for the medicine by spending less on utilities and food, she said.

The medicine, also known as Mustargen, was developed more than 60 years ago and is among the oldest chemotherapy drugs. For decades, it has been blended into an ointment by pharmacists and used as a topical treatment for a cancer called cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a form of cancer that mainly affects the skin.

Last August, Merck, which makes Mustargen, sold the rights to manufacture and market it and Cosmegen, another cancer drug, to Ovation Pharmaceuticals, a six-year-old company in Deerfield, Ill., that buys slow-selling medicines from big pharmaceutical companies.

The two drugs are used by fewer than 5,000 patients a year and had combined sales of about $1 million in 2004.

Now Ovation has raised the wholesale price of Mustargen roughly tenfold and that of Cosmegen even more, according to several pharmacists and patients.

Sean Nolan, vice president of commercial development for Ovation, said that the price increases were needed to invest in manufacturing facilities for the drugs. He said the company was petitioning insurers to obtain coverage for patients.

The increase has stunned doctors, who say it starkly illustrates two trends in the pharmaceutical industry: the soaring price of cancer medicines and the tendency for those prices to have little relation to the cost of developing or making the drugs.

Genentech, for example, has indicated it will effectively double the price of its colon cancer drug Avastin, to about $100,000, when Avastin's use is expanded to breast and lung cancer patients. As with Avastin, nothing about nitrogen mustard is changing but the price.

The increases have caused doctors to question Ovation's motive — and left lymphoma patients wondering how they will afford Mustargen, which is sometimes not covered by insurance, because the drug's label does not indicate that it can be used as an ointment. When given intravenously to treat Hodgkin's disease, its other primary use, the drug is generally covered by insurance.

"Nitrogen mustard has been around forever," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. "There's nothing that I am aware of in the treatment environment that would explain an increase in the cost of the drug."

Dr. David H. Johnson, a Vanderbilt University oncologist who is a former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said he had contacted Ovation to ask its reasons for raising Mustargen's price.

"I'd like to have some evidence from them that it actually costs them X amount, so that the pricing makes sense," Dr. Johnson said.

"It's unfortunate that a price adjustment had to occur," Mr. Nolan said. "Investment had not been made in these products for years."

Ovation, a privately held company, also needs the money to conduct research on several new drugs for rare diseases, Mr. Nolan said.

He acknowledged that Merck still made Mustargen and Cosmegen, an antibiotic that is used to treat a rare childhood kidney cancer, for Ovation. He said he was not sure when Ovation would begin producing the drugs, and a Merck spokesman said that Merck would continue to provide the drugs to Ovation as long as necessary.

But people who analyze drug pricing say they see the Mustargen situation as emblematic of an industry trend of basing drug prices on something other than the underlying costs. After years of defending high prices as necessary to cover the cost of research or production, industry executives increasingly point to the intrinsic value of their medicines as justification for prices.

Last year, in his book "A Call to Action," Henry A. McKinnell, the chairman of Pfizer, the world's largest drug company, wrote that drug prices were not driven by research spending or production costs.

"A number of factors go into the mix" of pricing, he wrote. "Those factors consider cost of business, competition, patent status, anticipated volume, and, most important, our estimation of the income generated by sales of the product."

In some drug categories, such as cholesterol-lowering treatments, many drugs compete, keeping prices relatively low. But when a medicine does not have a good substitute, its maker can charge almost any price. In 2003, Abbott Laboratories raised the price of Norvir, an AIDS drug introduced in 1996, from $54 to $265 a month. AIDS groups protested, but Abbott refused to rescind the increase.

And once a company sets a price, government agencies, private insurers and patients have little choice but to pay it. The Food & Drug Administration does not regulate prices, and Medicare is banned from considering price in deciding whether to cover treatments.

While private insurers can negotiate prices, they have limited leeway to exclude drugs from coverage based on price, said C. Lee Blansett, a partner at DaVinci Healthcare Partners, which works with drug makers on pricing and marketing.

"Price is simply not included in whether or not to cover a drug," Mr. Blansett said.

The result has been soaring prices for some drug classes, notably cancer treatments. In 1992, Bristol-Myers Squibb faced protests for its plans to charge $4,000 a year for Taxol, a breast cancer treatment.

Now, most new cancer treatments are priced at $25,000 to $50,000 annually. In some cases, companies are pushing through substantial price increases on already-expensive drugs.

Last year, Genentech raised the price of Tarceva, a lung-cancer drug, by about 30 percent, to $32,000 for a year's treatment.

In an interview last month, Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellmann, the president of product development for Genentech, said that the company had raised Tarceva's price because the drug works better than Genentech had anticipated.

"Tarceva was a more powerful and more active agent than what we understood at the time of launch, and so more valuable," she said. In an environment of soaring cancer drug costs, Mustargen's previous price was a comparative bargain, giving Ovation the opportunity to raise it substantially, said Dr. Richard Hoppe, a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford University and an expert in treating cutaneous lymphoma.

Mustargen's patent protection expired many years ago, so any company can make it. But because its sales are tiny, no drug maker has invested in a generic version.

"There's only one company that makes the drug, and they can decide what it's worth," Dr. Hoppe said.

Nitrogen mustard was initially tested as a chemical weapon. Its properties as an anti-cancer agent were discovered more than 60 years ago; today, it has been superseded by newer, less toxic medicines, and it is a niche product, with sales of only $546,000 in 2004, according to IMS Health, a market research firm.

Still, Dr. Hoppe and other oncologists call nitrogen mustard an effective treatment for cutaneous lymphoma, which initially appears as a rash but can turn deadly if it spreads inside the body. Some patients need only tiny amounts of the ointment, but others must apply it every day across large areas of their bodies.

For instance, Ms. Elkins has a severe case of lymphoma and must cover much of her body with Mustargen each day, a process that requires her to refill her prescription every two weeks. She said that the ointment was working, so she and her husband would find a way to pay for it.

Mr. Nolan of Ovation said that his company intended to work to improve access to insurance coverage for Mustargen. But Ovation has just begun to petition insurers to cover the drug. Meanwhile, patients are paying Mustargen's new, higher price out of pocket.

This is not the first time that Ovation has sharply raised the price of a drug it owns. In 2003, the company bought Panhematin, a treatment for a rare enzymatic disease called porphyria, from Abbott Laboratories. While Abbott still produces Panhematin, Ovation raised Panhematin's price, which had been $230 a dose, to $1,900, according to Desiree Lyon, executive director of the American Porphyria Foundation.

"It was a major increase," Ms. Lyon said. But she said that Ovation had worked to improve insurance coverage for Panhematin and to find ways for patients to get the drug even if they could not afford it.

Ovation also financially supports the porphyria foundation in its efforts to increase awareness of the disease and of Panhematin as a treatment, she said.

But many patients who rely on expensive drugs are stuck in a bind. Don Schare of Saratoga, Calif., said he paid $1,260 last month for 200 grams of nitrogen mustard cream, about 10 times what he paid for his prior prescription.

Mr. Schare, 69, said he was covered by the new Medicare Part D drug program and by supplemental insurance from AARP, but that neither of his plans covered Mustargen.

Jeffrey Malavasic, 58, a retired railroad worker in Florence, Ore., said he had decided to fill only half of his Mustargen prescription when he learned of the price increase. He used the drug sparingly in the past and will be even more frugal, he said.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

A voice of reason

It's good to see that there are Muslims who can reason. We need to encourage them to speak out.

For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats

By JOHN M. BRODER New York Times

Published: March 11, 2006

LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.

“I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book.”

- DR. WAFA SULTAN

Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.

Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."

Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.

She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.

DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."

The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.

After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.

BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.

An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.

Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.

The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.

One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.

"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."

Mad Cow Desease and Govertment Ineptness

Here is another mess Ollie.


Is our government doing its job in protecting us or is it more worried

about the politics of some contributors? Here is another example of

"don't see-don't tell". It's time for the impeachment of King George.

He is leading a party of politicians that are only interested in feathering

their own nests. They are not concerned about how much of a mess

they leave behind for the rest of us to clean up.

Editorial from USA Today



Posted 7/31/2005 8:49 PM

Mad cow cases met with shrug instead of safeguards

When bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow

disease, first surfaced in the United States in 2003, cattle ranchers

and government officials shrugged it off as a cow infected in

Canada before being imported here.

When a native-born cow tested positive this June, they explained

it away once again, saying the animal was infected before cattle

feed restrictions were put in place in 1997.

nd when a third possible domestic case surfaced last week, they

hastened to note that the 12-year-old cow hadn't entered the

food chain.

The story is always the same. Consumers are urged not to worry

about the chance of a major outbreak of the disease, like the

one that occurred in Europe a decade ago. They are assured

they will be protected by the practices of the cattle industry

and the policies of responsible government agencies.

In fact, those practices and policies are considered so

ineffective that 64 nations have total or partial bans on U.S.

beef products. And the two agencies charged with ensuring

a safe beef supply, the Agriculture Department (USDA)

and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have

become as much a part of the industry's public relations

team as they are public health watchdogs. Agriculture

Secretary Mike Johanns' response to each episode seems

to be to tell everyone he's going to have beef for dinner.

This inadequate oversight, resulting from short-sighted

cattle industry pressure, forces American consumers to

buy the beef that others will not. It's also counterproductive

for the industry itself, which would like diners worldwide

to think of its products as top of the line.

As the Agriculture Department investigates the latest

possible case of the disease - results are expected this

week — it has reaffirmed how lackadaisical and insufficient

its testing practices are. The FDA, meanwhile, oversees

cattle feed policies so riddled with loopholes they would

be laughable if they weren't so nauseating.

Mad cow disease is spread when cows, which are herbivores

by nature, are fed parts of cattle and other ruminant

(cud-chewing) animals. It can be prevented from spreading

to humans by careful monitoring of what cattle eat and by

effective, timely testing.

At the moment, American consumers have neither protection:

Feed loopholes. In 1997, the FDA imposed a so-called ban

on the feeding of ruminant protein to cows. But that policy has

two enormous exemptions. Weaning calves may drink cattle

blood as a milk substitute. And feed may include the waste

from chicken coop floors as a protein supplement. This waste

poses a risk not because of its many unsavory elements,

including feces and feathers, but because FDA officials estimate

that up to 30% of it can be uneaten chicken feed — which

routinely contains beef.

"Keystone Kops" testing. The brain tissue of the cow

that is currently being tested was first collected in April.

The investigation was delayed because the veterinarian

forgot to send the sample to the laboratory. The sample

that tested positive in June had originally been cleared

by USDA last year. Subsequent tests were ordered by a

suspicious internal investigator, showing how inadequate

the department's testing is.

The industry is right to argue that the chances of anyone

contracting the human form of the disease are quite low.

But the issue isn't the overall risk, but whether the

government and industry are taking reasonable steps

to ensure it is as low as it can be.

By that standard, consumers are right to have a beef.

The feed loopholes need to be closed. Quicker, more accurate

testing processes need to be fast-tracked.

Only then will Americans be able to enjoy their summer

barbecues without having to worry that eating a hamburger

might lead to a fatal brain-wasting disease.






Lobbyists and security

It’s nice to know that the Republicans and their lobbyists feel that the security of the United States is secondary to the money they can receive. The evidence shows that it is the Republican Party and their loyalists that are willing to let potential security risks take over operations that can provide open doors to terrorists.

Homeland Security reports that our ports are a
porous sieve allowing anything or anyone into the country through our ports. It is five years since 9/11 and the Bush administration has fallen down on protecting the US. Why does anyone think the Republican Party and it's titular leader King George can solve the security problem.

Remember, its the same
committees that reviewed the DP World's control of US port issue, that identified weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and let us to the debacle in Iraq that is costing us untold lives and treasure.

Should we worry about foreign investment being at risk as some experts claim? No, if it's an attractive
business proposition, the foreign money will still be willing to purchase American businesses. Profit and return on investment guide business decisions. The concern about foreign investment is a smoke screen to deflect opposition to handing over potential security to a country that had a hand in supporting terrorism. Since the Emirates are a kingdom and vulnerable to being overthrown by the same mid east forces that are operating in Iraq and Iran why aren't we concerned?

Let us rid the country of inept, corrupt, and money hungry politicians. Let us start by impeaching King George.

From stardust we came and to stardust we will return.

porous
Purus
pores
pros
Pris
Edit...
Revert to "porus"

sieve
skive
dive
Ive
Siva
Edit...
Revert to "sive"

committees
committee's
commuters
commutes
commits
Edit...
Revert to "commitees"

business
busyness
business's
bossiness
baseness
Edit...
Revert to "buisness"

still
Tilly
silly
stiller
stall
Edit...
Revert to "stilly"

businesses
business's
business
busyness's
busyness
Edit...
Revert to "buisnesses"

business
busyness
business's
bossiness
baseness
Edit...
Revert to "buisness"

supporting
sporting
spurting
spotting
spouting
Edit...
Revert to "suporting"

Friday, March 10, 2006

Christian Evangelist and Muslim Fundamentalists

I would like to suggest that there is little difference between some christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists. For example, both groups believe that their god is the true god and all must convert to their religion. Christians claim that Jesus is the true god and all must worship him. The Muslims claim that Allah is the true god and all must worship him. Who is right?

What about those millions that don't want to worship Jesus or Allah? The world would be better off if all religious extremists would mind their own little world and not bother the rest of us.


Wednesday, March 08, 2006

God and the Devil in Washington DC

The president claims that he is motivated by god. I propose that he is doing the work of the Devil by selling our country piece by piece. For example, it is foreign money that is purchasing most of the Treasury Bonds offered for sale. Treasury Bonds are a debt that must be repaid. The only way it can be done is by selling assets. How much is the Grand Canyon worth in the open market?

We are spending lives and treasure to support a government that is falling into civil war. Why did we get into Iraq? Was it oil, it certainly wasn't to make America safer. We can't find the instigators of 9/11 but we have unleashed the largest growth of poppy fields in Afghanistan and now we have expanded the availability of dope in the world. So is it the Devil that has wasted lives and treasure, increased the availability of drugs, and has limited success in fighting our enimies?

And who is benefiting from the war. Maybe it is the oil companies that are reaping huge profits and are reluctanly spending money to uncover new sources of oil.

Maybe it wasn't God that is talking to King George. If the Republican Party doesn't wake up, they will be religated to the trashheap of history. This country needs bipartisan legislators that are working for the common good of all Americans. It's time the electorate woke up and got rid of the narrow minded, very biased conservative legislators of both parties. It's time we voted for the countries best interest.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Eminent - domain Good Idea?

Letter to the editor Press enterprise 3/7/2006

Eminent - domain Good Idea?

I am not in favor of using eminent domain to take private property from an owner to give to a private developer. However, in the case of the property opposite the Riverside Plaza on Merrill Avenue, I am in favor of the Redevelopment Authority purchasing the property by use of eminent - domain to redevelop the property. If the owners of the property are unable or unwilling to remove what I think is both an eyesore as well as a health hazard, then the Redevelopment Authority should use eminent - domain to purchase the property for redevelopment.