Anti-depressants can't cure sadness

Big Pharma caught in thier marketing schemes

I've been telling you for so long about the over-prescription of antidepressant medication that at times it's made me, well … depressed. But finally, a new study has been released that's put a smile on my face. Because nothing makes me smile like saying, "I told you so!"

According to research out of the University of Hull in the UK, antidepressant medications are only effective on those patients with severe cases of depression. Subjects in the study who suffered only from mild depression responded just as well to placebos as they did to various antidepressant medications such as Prozac.

I've been saying for years that depression is the most over-diagnosed (and, consequently, misdiagnosed) ailment in American society. Over the years, the line between true, clinical depression and, for want of a better term, "feeling down in the dumps," has been blurred to the point where it's almost vanished. The result is that doctors are handing out Prozac prescriptions to everyone with a mere case of the blues, and creating, to borrow from the title of a bestselling book, Prozac Nation. This new study merely backs up what I've long suspected: that most of these "depressed" patients don't really have anything clinically wrong with them.

The study's lead researcher, Irving Kirsch of the University of Hull, said that "although patients get better when they take antidepressants, they also get better when they take a placebo, and the difference in improvement is not very great." Kirsch added that "this means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments."

This led the Kirsch and the other researchers to conclude that there's basically no reason to prescribe antidepressants to anyone but the most severely depressed patients. Which is, of course, the absolute correct conclusion to draw – and one that, quite frankly, I think could have and should have been drawn long ago by responsible people in the medical community. And I think it's a conclusion that could easily have been drawn without a protracted study.

I'm very happy that this study has drawn this conclusion, but like so many logical conclusions it must now swim upstream against Big Pharma's tireless efforts to push these antidepressants as cure-alls to the American populace. Just think of all the TV commercials you've seen advertising antidepressant drugs such as Paxil. When you realize that these drugs only benefit people with severe depression, doesn't it seem absurd to hawk them to one and all in prime time? If you're clinically depressed, are you really in the correct state of mind to even respond to a TV ad? Of course, this matters little to the pharmaceutical companies because they have a lot more money than any given supreme being, and will stop at nothing to create more buyers for their products – whether those buyers need their products or not.

But there's something even more depressing to consider.

What's more depressing is that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has been complicit in the spread and needless prescribing of psychotropic drugs because their own diagnostic manual doesn't adequately differentiate clinical depression from normal feelings of profound sadness (except in the case of bereaved patients). Nowadays, "depression" is all but formally diagnosed at school nurses offices and university health centers using ridiculously simple checklists, which don't take life events into proper account (seriously – has anyone ever encountered a teenager or college kid who isn't "depressed" at some point?).

As a result, some studies have suggested that of the more than 30 million Americans that have been reported to suffer from depression at some point in their lives, as many as a quarter of this number may have been misdiagnosed and needlessly medicated. Which ads up to about 7.5 million more buyers for Big Pharma products.

And don't forget that antidepressant medications are often the pharmaceutical equivalent of "bringing out the big guns." And that means that many of these drugs can have serious side effects that can be difficult to wrestle with on their own. Prozac alone has side effects that include nausea, insomnia, anxiety, and anorexia. Not to mention sexual dysfunctions such as impotence. Imagine how those side effects could make you feel if you thought you were depressed BEFORE you started taking Prozac!

And it's not just because of Big Pharma and the APA. Because they've been taught to believe that these drugs will solve their problems, patients now expect to go to their doctors crying "depression" and walking out the door with a script for the "happy pills" of their choice. Unfortunately, the doctors seem to be all-to-willing to comply.

All of this means that although this study by Kirsch and his colleagues is spelling out a very important truth, this truth may go unheeded. At the very least, this study faces a long, upstream swim toward acceptance in today's prescription-happy culture. In spite of the fact that the study suggests that there should be a more tailored approach to the treatment of depression – and that each individual case must be treated as unique – this isn't likely to happen overnight.

Just remember that just because you're sad, it doesn't necessarily mean you're depressed. Depression has become its own strange badge of honor in today's society. There's nothing glamorous about it. People should be happy that they're merely sad, and the medical community should do a better job of teaching misguided patients to recognize themselves as such. "Clinically depressed" is a badge that no one should want to wear.

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Trigger happy on gun rights

Gun control laws in place now are useless because there is poor enforcement. The easy way out for the government is to crush law abiding citizens through banning all guns. You realize all these guns go around by themselves killing people, Nah, it take a person to use the gun and it takes some work on the part of the justice system to convict an process a person appropriately to make a deterrent for improper use of a gun, something they are too lazy to do. And to think for a minute of the war mongering in the US government today and all the deaths that we can count up because of the wars fought by US government makes one really wonder. The Christian Science Monitor seems to lean toward more foolish gun control laws or the out right ban on guns here.

Thomas


Fri Mar 21

During oral arguments March 18 on a historic case, a majority of the Supreme Court indicated it sees gun ownership as a right. Nonetheless, their ruling, due by July 1, will also likely restrain such a right, igniting a critical national debate only four months before the election.

Just on its own, a ruling that the gives Americans the same inalienable right to gun ownership as to freedom of speech could send shock waves into the campaigns for president and Congress – campaigns that have largely dodged talk of gun limits up to now. In a country that sees an average of 80 gun deaths a day and, recently, mass killings by firearms almost once a year, this ruling probably won't settle the debate.

The nation has gnawed on the Second Amendment for two centuries with no clear-cut decision by the high court. Yet a majority of the justices may now claim historical clairvoyance on the framers' intent regarding militias and gun ownership. And they may overreach for grammatical acuity into the amendment's ambiguous, oddly punctuated wording. ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

Even as the majority appear poised to assert a right, the justices also seemed eager to explore limits. Chief Justice John Roberts warned against an "all-encompassing" ruling that would apply to every gun law. One reason for such hesitation may be a key argument from the National Rifle Association that an absolute gun right is necessary to allow citizens to rise up against a future "tyranny" in this democracy. That threat of insurrection could even apply against a Supreme Court that denies a right to bear arms.

Such a possibility must give the justices pause and provide a perverse incentive to proclaim a gun right. The court might recall last year's shootings at a Missouri city council by a man out to avenge the perceived wrongs of government. Five officials died.

Recognizing an absolute right to guns could kill other rights and give freedom to deny other freedoms.

The NRA has paid out nearly $20 million in campaign donations since 1990, and Democrats decided after the 2000 election that it's better not to speak strongly for restraints on gun ownership. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have dropped past support for licensing gun owners and registration of new guns. John McCain is the more pro-NRA and says the Second Amendment should be protected from "political vagaries," but even he supports background checks on people who buy weapons at gun shows.

Right or no right, politicians are now more constrained by the political power of the NRA than the courts, but that may soon change. And as Mr. Obama points out: "We essentially have two realities when it comes to guns in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership....[A]nd then you've got the reality of public school students who get shot down...."

No constitutional right has a winner-take-all quality to it. The court may now shift the balance toward the interests of gun owners, but it already knows that its primary role is in balancing rights, not sticking the barrel of one right into everyone's face.

Reversal of fortunes

Sinking home values call for property tax reassessments

By Eva Rosenberg, MarketWatch
March 20, 2008

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- With home prices dropping dramatically in the past year, are you paying too much property tax?
According to Standard and Poor's Case-Shiller index, home prices have dropped an average of 14% since March 2007. And perhaps as much as 20% since the peak values in June 2006. When was the last time your home was assessed?
Sue, a reader in New York, brought up the issue by asking: "Now that home prices are falling shouldn't we all be getting our homes reassessed so that we pay less property tax?"

You bet it's time. Since it doesn't look as if there will be an immediate let-up in the price decline, this is a good time to take steps to determine the current value of your real estate, whether it's home or investment property.
There is no single procedure to outline. Property valuations are handled differently in each state. Sometimes even in each county or municipality.
New York State's Office of Real Property Services, for instance, reports that communities in New York State have two different ways of valuing real estate: 100% of current market value or a percentage of market value.
The assessed values are spelled out on the tentative assessment roll, which is released on May 1 of each year in most communities. You have the opportunity to look up your property. If you decide the value is no longer correct, you can follow the instructions in the ORPS pamphlet entitled "What to Do If You Disagree with Your Assessment." Check the pamphlet.
California's unique situation
California has a unique situation. On June 6, 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, tying property taxes to purchase price instead of current market value. It was a revolutionary concept, spearheaded by Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, two private individuals who'd had enough of soaring property taxes as the market prices rose along with California's fortunes.
Now, 30 years later, homeowners who bought their homes at the height of the market are undoubtedly paying property taxes on phantom home values. Are they locked into the purchase valuations?
No. According to Christina Sciupac, the Property Owners Advocate for Los Angeles County, there is a special provision, called Proposition 8. It allows homeowners to file a request for a temporary decline in value after a market crash, earthquake, disaster or any other valid reason.
You can file the application between July and November. You will find the new application for 2008/2009 on the assessor's site this summer. Visit the site.
Sciupac cautions applicants that this is not a permanent reduction in your property taxes. Your property's market value will be reviewed each year. If there's an increase in value, your property taxes will increase.
For some folks, especially those homeowners who got the benefit of the Proposition 8 reduction after the Northridge earthquake or other earthquakes, it has seemed as if their property taxes were rising outrageously -- and quickly -- over the last few years. One woman wrote to AARP The Magazine recently, saying she wished she had never asked for the reduction. It caused her to lose the protection of Proposition 13.
Not so, says Sciupac. The valuation only rises until it reaches the original, purchase valuation. Then it locks back in. After a sharp cut in taxes, the annual increases can feel like painful hits. So, even in California, it's worth getting your property's value downgraded.
What do you do, in general?
First, find your state or locality's assessor's Web site to get specific instructions. Look for the application or instructions for the procedure to challenge your assessment. If you can't find the site easily on your own, drop by Assessor.com to find a link to your state assessor's Web site. See the site.
Just in case you're expecting an argument, get some objective proof that your home declined in value. If you've recently refinanced, your lender insisted on an appraisal. That would help. Some homeowners with long-term equity lines have just gotten letters from their lenders cutting the amount of the equity line. One homeowner in Dana Point, Calif., was just notified by Washington Mutual that his home equity line was cut from $225,000 to $72,500.
If you have know a local real estate agent, you can ask for a printout of comparable home sales for you.
In a market like this, you probably won't have to fight much. Your assessor already knows the values have declined. The question is, will you agree with the amount of the decline proposed by your assessor.?
If you don't, there is always an appeals process. The whole process of revaluation can take months -- or years, depending on the volume of applications. In the meantime, property tax payments are coming due. What should you do? Pay the taxes, then challenge.
When you file your request for revaluation, ask the assessor to look back for as many years as you think the market has been declining in your area. And file a claim for refund, or overpayment, for the excess property taxes you paid in the past.
The Los Angeles County application, for example, includes a box to check asking the Los Angeles County Assessor's office to treat it as a claim for refund as well. Perhaps your assessor's office has similar foresight. And, like Los Angeles, it may also have an in-house advocate or ombudsman to help you.

3 candidates' passport files breached

What is the reason and who is behind this stunt. We again deserve a full and truthful investigation of this matter, something that is hard to come by lately in the US.

Thomas


BY DESMOND BUTLER and ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - The passport files of the three presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain — have been breached, the State Department said Friday.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the breaches of McCain and Clinton's passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the privacy violation regarding Obama's records and a separate search was conducted.

McCormack said the individual who accessed Obama's files also reviewed McCain's file earlier this year. This contract employee has been reprimanded, but not fired. The individual no longer has access to passport records, he said.

"We are reviewing our options with respect to that person and his employment status," McCormack said.

In Clinton's case, an individual last summer accessed her file as part of a training session involving another State Department worker. McCormack said the one-time violation was immediately recognized and the person was admonished.

The incidents raise the question of whether the information was accessed for political purposes.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with Obama and Clinton on Friday and expressed her regrets. She planned to speak with McCain as well. State Department officials headed to Capitol Hill to brief the staffs of all three candidates.

"The secretary has made it clear . . . to them that this is top priority," McCormack said. "There's nothing else that's more important than make sure go through and do this investigation."

The State Department said the Justice Department would be monitoring the probe in case it needs to get involved. The Justice Department declined to comment on its role.

McCormack declined to name the companies that employed the contractors, despite demands by a senior House Democrat that such information is in the public interest.

"At this point, we just started an investigation," he said. "We want to err on the side of caution."

Sen. McCain, who was in Paris on Friday, said any breach of passport privacy deserves an apology and a full investigation.

"The United States of America values everyone's privacy and corrective action should be taken," McCain said.

It is not clear whether the employees saw anything other than the basic personal data such as name, citizenship, age, Social Security number and place of birth, which is required when a person fills out a passport application.

Aside from the file, the information could allow critics to dig deeper into the candidates' private lives. While the file includes date and place of birth, address at time of application and the countries the person has traveled to, the most important detail would be their Social Security number, which can be used to pull credit reports and other personal information.

The violations were detected because electronic files of high-profile people are flagged.

New Crisis, Old Isms

By David Sirota

The Federal Reserve Bank’s decision last week to address the housing crisis by extending $200 billion of taxpayer-financed credit to Wall Street banks was met with a stunned reaction typical of surprising events. But really, the move was the expression of longstanding isms that routinely package corruption as sound public policy.

Some background: During the housing boom, banks doled out home loans to financially strapped borrowers, often on predatory terms. On the creditor side, these same banks packaged many of the loans as complex securities and sold them off to unwitting investors, generating a handsome profit on the paper transactions. At the same time, Wall Street used campaign contributions to coerce Congress into blocking anti-predatory-lending bills and repealing a landmark law regulating how banks could buy and sell securities.

Predictably, many borrowers are now defaulting on their loans, meaning losses for financial institutions that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. The Fed responded with what author Naomi Klein calls disaster capitalism—the age-old practice of using a crisis to enrich corporate interests. In this case, the Fed is using the housing emergency to justify giving taxpayer cash to Wall Street in exchange for its worthless mortgages.

“What the Fed really did was lend money to banks and accept the counterfeit currency as collateral, treating it just as though it were real money,” says Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

But this is not only disaster capitalism, it is also Big Boy Bailout-ism—the kind we’ve become accustomed to since the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s. It is an ideology that rewards wealthy political donors for irresponsible behavior and ignores the real victims.

If you are a banking executive whose risky loans go bad, your industry’s campaign donations get you Big Boy Bailout-ism that makes taxpayers “take the bad loans off the banks’ books,” as one financial analyst gushed this week. If you are a regular Joe who can’t pay your home loan, you get foreclosed on.

The Fed’s scheme also embraces Feed-the-Beast-ism—an ideology that prescribes pumping taxpayer money into a crisis, rather than demanding reforms.

Confronting an energy and climate emergency, Republicans’ answer was not massive alternative energy investments, but a 2005 energy bill giving tax breaks to the carbon-belching fossil fuel companies that finance the GOP. In the face of a health care catastrophe, the Bush administration’s 2003 Medicare bill didn’t crack down on pharmaceutical industry profiteering, but instead created a system that effectively subsidizes drug industry campaign donors. The list of examples goes on, and now includes the housing crisis.

The Fed’s action says the solution to the credit crunch is not to re-regulate the banking industry or force it to clean house, but to loan Wall Street your hard-earned taxpayer money, allowing the same destructive system to remain and permitting the same vultures to stay in their jobs—and, of course, to keep writing big campaign checks.

But worst of all is the Trickle Down-ism. For three decades, our government has said economic challenges can be solved with tax cuts for the wealthy—the same people who, not coincidentally, underwrite political campaigns. Trickle Down-ism claims that the wealthy will spend the tax cuts and the benefits will “trickle down” to us commoners.

It’s the same nonsense with housing today. The root of the financial crisis is mortgage defaults—brought on, in part, by Trickle Down-ism’s original failure to raise wages. Yet, rather than help borrowers pay or restructure their mortgages, the government is covering the banks’ losses, claiming that aid will eventually “trickle down” and benefit the rest of us.

During the Great Depression, Eleanor Roosevelt said, “We need not fear any isms if our democracy is achieving the ends for which it was established.” It’s the “if” part that has become the problem.

David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June of 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network—both nonpartisan organizations.

How will you be affected by the latest FDA mix-up?

The FDA recommends consumers don't go outside of the US to buy less expensive prescriptions but............ Come on FDA, just do your job.


Even I've grown tired of hearing myself beat on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Believe me, I'd like to lay off these guys, but they keep making the gaffes that make me nuts. And I feel compelled to pass this info on to you because everyone should know that the government agency that's allegedly responsible for protecting is often, well … out to lunch.

And this time, it's a big screw up.

The good news is that FDA officials were in China to look into the safety of a Chinese- made drug that's found in heparin, a blood thinner made by Baxter International, that's been linked to four deaths due to allergic reactions. The bad news? They actually evaluated the wrong factory.

The next time you reach for your prescription bottle, remember that it's been approved by the Keystone Kops.

Instead of inspecting the suspect manufacturer, the FDA confused it with another company in the agency's database that has a similar name. Worse still, even though they THOUGHT they had the suspect company, the company that they were inspecting had a history of positive inspections … SO THEY DIDN'T RE-INSPECT IT. You can't make this stuff up, unfortunately.

After discovering the error a month after the fact, the FDA immediately dispatched investigators to the suspect company.

Keeping in mind that there are over 2,000 characters in written Chinese and who knows how many dialects of that language, I'm inclined to say that it was an honest mistake for Western bureaucrats to get a little mixed up with the name of a Chinese company. Given all the recent news stories about shoddy and potentially deadly products from China that have been finding their way into America, it's hard to believe that the FDA wouldn't check and triple check the DRUGS coming from the same place—ESPECIALLY when the ingredient in question could possibly be linked to DEATHS.

In my opinion, the U.S. government should have immediately banned ALL Chinese imports the second the first tube of poisoned toothpaste was discovered. But of course, that would cost big business too much money. And you know that Big Pharma has repeatedly assured their friends in the FDA that the Chinese companies who supply many ingredients to for Big Pharma's vastly lucrative drug brands (at cut-rate prices) are surely on the up-and-up.

So of course the FDA had no need or desire to do the most logical thing: RE-INSPECT EVERY SINGLE CHINESE DRUG PLANT THAT EXPORTS INGREDIENTS TO THE US. And to halt the sale of drugs containing those ingredients until, in the case of heparin, the source of the allergic reactions that caused the deaths could be determined.

Am I naïve to think that the government agency charged with the inspection of drugs sold in the U.S. should do their job? To be fair, the FDA did tell physicians across the country to immediately cease the use of the Baxter's brand of heparin, which has had as many as 350 reported cases of side effects in just 2008 (there were 100 reported cases last year). And Baxter has recalled nine lots of the injectable drug and stopped production while the source of the allergic reactions is investigated.

But like so much with the FDA and Big Pharma, the measures are just temporary and don't go far enough. I write so many negative things about the FDA and Big Pharma that you may get the impression that I think they're out to harm people. I know that's not the case. And I'm not at all surprised that both the FDA and Baxter International have done the right thing and brought an immediate halt to the distribution and manufacture of heparin while these lethal side effects are investigated. What bothers me is that, because of money, they won't take the logical next step which – to my mind – is to stop the use of Chinese drug imports as ingredients in drugs sold in the U.S.

I don't believe the Chinese can be trusted to follow safety regulations that are up to U.S. standards. Plain and simple. This country has exhibited a complete disregard for the safety of the drugs, food, and goods distributed within their own country – why should we expect them to have a higher standard for good meant for export?

The global economy is likely to be a dangerous economy. We need to hope and pray that our government is on its toes. If the FDA is going to allow the import of drugs from China, they need to watch both the Chinese and the U.S. drug manufacturers very, very closely. There's a great deal of money at stake, but patients within the American health care systems shouldn't become victims of a growing economy.

Unfortunately, this is the FDA we're talking about. I know that they don't always make the right decision. Now I'll always be wondering if they're even in the right place at the right time.

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Inspector arrested in NYC crane collapse

Here we go again!!! The infrastructure in the USA is decaying and this type of action is inexcusable. The truth of the matter is that this employee has supervisors who are complicit to this horrible tragedy. Money's are being diverted to special political projects while America crumbles. Corruption and fraud are a way of life from the top to the bottom in government now days.

Thomas, Chief Editor


By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 21,

Inspectors began rechecking dozens of construction cranes after one of their colleagues was accused of lying about examining a crane that collapsed 11 days later, killing seven people.

Edward Marquette, 46, was arrested on charges of falsifying business records and offering a false instrument for filing, buildings Commissioner Patricia Lancaster said Thursday.

The accident occurred Saturday, when a 20-story crane broke away from an apartment tower under construction in a dense midtown Manhattan neighborhood. The crane toppled over, killing six construction workers and a visitor in town for St. Patrick's Day.

A complaint about the crane was logged March 4 to a city hot line, officials said, and Marquette said he inspected it. It was later determined he had not.

"We will not tolerate this kind of behavior at the Department of Buildings," Lancaster said at a news conference Thursday. "I do not and will not tolerate any misconduct in my department."

She said it is very unlikely that a March 4 inspection would have prevented the accident because parts of the crane that failed 11 days later were not on site then. The crane was inspected the day before the collapse, she said.

In addition to suspending Marquette, Lancaster ordered an immediate inspection of all cranes he had checked over the last six months. The Department of Buildings said Marquette conducted 423 inspections at 76 constructions sites, mostly in Manhattan, during that period.

Marquette, who earns $52,283 a year as an inspector in the department's division of cranes and derricks, was arrested Wednesday night, said Barbara Thompson, spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney.

He said nothing during his arraignment Thursday in state Supreme Court and was released without bail. If convicted, he faces up to four years in prison. His lawyer, Kate Moguletscu, had no comment.

The crane collapse created a blocklong swath of destruction not far the United Nations, pulverizing a four-story brownstone and damaging at least seven other buildings.

The gigantic piece of machinery fell over when a 6-ton steel collar used to secure the crane to the building came loose, plunging into another collar that acted as an anchor. Without that support, the spindly structure tumbled with terrifying force.

Neighborhood residents had complained for weeks that the crane didn't appear safe. Bruce Silberblatt, a retired contractor who called in the March 4 complaint, said he was stunned by the arrest.

"My first reaction was astonishment. My second reaction is anger that a person would have the gall to do this," said Silberblatt, who is also vice president of the Turtle Bay Neighborhood Association.

City officials would not discuss why Marquette failed to do the inspection.

Investigators first interviewed him Sunday and got a copy of his route sheet. He told them that he had conducted the March 4 inspection and that it revealed no problems with the crane.

Marquette was also listed in city records as having responded to a Jan. 22 complaint by another caller who complained about the safety of workers assembling the crane. Marquette said in his report, filed two days later, that he examined the crane and found no violation.

Other safety complaints were called in by neighbors Jan. 10 and Feb. 11, according to city records.

The contractor, Reliance Construction Group owner Stephen Kaplan, declined to comment on the arrest and referred inquiries to a company spokesman, who did not immediately return a phone message.

A publicist for the East 51st Development Company, which owns the site, said the developers had no comment.

Residents said they weren't surprised by the arrest.

"It makes me very suspicious of the whole situation. I'd like to feel that it's safe to live in this neighborhood with all the construction going on," Sandra Graham said. "If he's been arrested, I think he should be made an example of."

___