Science, medicine, and the gullible Left

[multi]

Science, medicine, and the gullible Left
By Mickey Z.

In a recent National Football League game, Tampa Bay Buccaneer quarterback Chris Simms suffered a ruptured spleen. Simms was rushed to the hospital, his spleen was removed, and he is now on the road to recovery. This much talked about injury inspired Robert N. Jenkins of the St. Petersburg Times to declare that Simms, in reality, "didn't need his spleen." In an article called "Humans have body parts to spare," Jenkins went on to pronounce that we also do not need our appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, esophagus, stomach, and adrenal glands because those organs, according to conventional wisdom, are "vestigial."

I'm not here to debate what-if any-human organs are superfluous. What interests me more is the fact that most folks would read Jenkins' article and accept the premises therein without question . . . and this includes the most cynical lefties you'll ever meet. I know people skeptical enough to think the Foley sex scandal was leaked by Republicans to distract the public from the fiasco in Iraq. But tell those same people that some scientist has declared their spleen obsolete and they're not likely to rush off to post a rebuttal on their blog.

Tell them that Israel attacked Lebanon because two of its soldiers were kidnapped and they'll debunk that story in a flash. But how many of them question, say, the need for humans with a functioning immune system to get vaccinations (laden with formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, cells from sickened animals, and genetically-altered materials, no less)? Vote counts are routinely disbelieved but nary a peep is heard about the efficacy of animal experimentation (in fact, to focus on such a topic is to invite being labeled "anti-human" by progressives). Folks who don't even think there were humans on the planes that hit the World Trade Center have no problem eating a tomato spliced with flounder genes. Of course, genetically modified foodstuffs are safe. The experts tell us so.

The most jaded, suspicious, disbelieving radicals turn timid upon entering the realm of science and medicine. They readily accept the fluoride in our water, the mercury in our teeth, the animal flesh on our plates, and the electro-magnetic radiation in our cell phones as safe. They trust that Western medicine knows best: Our infallible doctors and scientists know how to fight cancer and diabetes and heart disease, they know what causes diseases like AIDS, and when a man in a white coat writes them a prescription, they swallow both the pill and the rationale. Even the New York Times -- the propaganda organ of Corporate America -- admits "harmful reactions to medicines, usually attributed to accidental overdoses and allergic reactions, send more than 700,000 Americans to emergency rooms each year." But where are the revolutionary types coming out in support of prevention, healthier lifestyles, and alternative therapies?

Now save yourself the trouble of sending me scathing e-mails to explain why I'm "wrong" about pharmaceuticals or cell phones or any of the above. That's not the point. My very simple question is this: If the heart of being a dissident in America is to reject conventional wisdom and cast doubt on the corporate propaganda being foisted upon us at every turn, why do so many on the Left accept -- without protest -- the scientific and medical company line?

Makes me wonder if it's the brain that's vestigial.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publ...cle_1356.shtml

[multi]

Drug makers pour money into key races
By JOHN D. MCKINNON


(AP) - HERSHEY, Pa., Few businesses have more at stake in next month's congressional elections than pharmaceutical makers. Assailed by Democrats, drug companies are pouring millions of dollars into close races, giving some Republicans a financial edge. In the process, the industry is becoming not just a campaign backer, but also a campaign issue.

Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum is a big beneficiary of the industry's push. He was a leading proponent of the 2003 law that gave seniors Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and helped shape the law in ways that benefited the industry. Battling to keep his seat in a crucial Senate race, Mr. Santorum's campaign has received almost $500,000 from pharmaceutical interests and their employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. The industry has also helped fund television advertisements and aided get-out-the-vote efforts.

Mr. Santorum's opponent, state treasurer Bob Casey Jr., regularly attacks the Medicare program as "a giveaway to Big Pharma," in part because it bars the government from negotiating prices. He and many fellow Democrats say they will overhaul the benefit if they win control of Congress on Nov. 7. Not surprisingly, Mr. Casey counts just $11,850 in contributions from pharmaceutical interests.

Companies and business groups have long thrown money at candidates to further their interests. But with a Democratic victory increasingly likely, few recent elections have been so critical, particularly for the drug industry. On the campaign trail, Democrats frequently lump "Big Pharma" with "Big Oil" in attacking Republican ties to industry. Within the first 100 hours of taking over the House, promises House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrats will rewrite the prescription-drug benefit to take away most of the advantages it handed to pharmaceutical companies.

"It'll take five minutes" to make the biggest change of all, the proposal to let the government negotiate prices, Ms. Pelosi told a group of about 100 retirees in Sunrise, Fla., earlier this month. She said the benefit was a product of "corruption, putting pharmaceutical companies and HMOs first at the expense of America's seniors."

Congressional Democrats propose lifting a ban on the broad-scale reimporting of inexpensive drugs and could toughen the drug-approval process. They've talked, too, of holding hearings into conflicts of interest among Republicans now working for the industry.

"All elections are important, but this one is probably more important than most, because of the threats to the Medicare drug benefit," says Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry's trade group.

Through early September, drug-company political action committees had given about $8.7 million to campaigns, compared with $7 million for all of 2002, the last midterm election, according to CRP. Employee contributions are up, too, rising to about $5 million from $3.3 million four years ago. About 69 percent of the industry's campaign contributions are going to Republicans.

Other industries are also pouring money into races in the hopes of protecting their favored candidates. Oil and gas interests worry about a Democratic Congress axing subsidies and have spent $13.6 million on the campaign so far, of which 83 percent has gone to Republicans. For all of 2002, they and their employees contributed $14.8 million in hard-money donations. Montana's troubled Republican Sen. Conrad Burns is the second-biggest recipient of oil money, according to CRP. He supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

His opponent, state Sen. Jon Tester, hammers on the theme in debates and speeches. He opposes drilling in ANWR and advocates more government support for alternative energy sources, such as biofuels, as well as a greater use of coal, which is abundant in his state.

Electric utilities, fearing tougher environmental rules, have contributed $11.9 million, with 66 percent going to Republicans, compared with $12.8 million in 2002. Commercial banks, bracing for tighter lending standards, account for $19.2 million, 63 percent of which is going to Republicans. That's already more than 2002's $16.5 million.

Despite campaign-finance laws designed to limit the influence of big business and unions, the 2006 midterm elections are on track to be the most expensive ever, costing about $2.6 billion, according to a new study by CRP. That compares with about $2.2 billion in 2002. Business interests account for about three-quarters of this year's contributions.

The Republican-controlled Congress has been kind to drug makers. As the prescription-drugs benefit was crafted, Republicans battled not just Democratic critics but also fiscal conservatives in their own party who opposed creating the expensive government program.

Congressional Republican leaders prevented Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry. They also killed a proposal that would have allowed the government to offer its own coverage in competition with those sold by private companies. The industry successfully argued that the government's clout would mess up prices and stifle innovation.

Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri benefited from $900,000 in ads this year touting his role in the prescription-drug benefit, according to a tally by Americans United for Change, a liberal advocacy group with close ties to congressional Democrats. Mr. Talent made a similar pitch in two TV ads as well as in a recent debate with his Democratic challenger, Claire McCaskill.

Ms. McCaskill attacked the drug companies _ and by extension Mr. Talent, in a recent ad, saying, "it's a senator's job to always put our seniors before big drug companies and Washington special interests."

In previous years, PhRMA, the industry's trade group, has come under fire for its political activities. In 2002, it was criticized for funding TV ad campaigns run by relatively small and little-known nonprofit groups.

PhRMA's president, former Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin, says he wants the group to become less confrontational to increase its effectiveness. This year, the industry is working through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The chamber's TV ads cost about $10 million, according to chamber officials. While the drug industry hasn't disclosed its share, Mr. Tauzin says it has contributed to the effort. The chamber's last-minute get-out-the-vote effort, which will include emails, fliers and phone banks, will focus on the drug benefit, among other issues, and will cost another $10 million or so.

Pennsylvania is one of the biggest battlegrounds in this year's political drug wars. It has a large concentration of seniors, second only to Florida, so Medicare could play an outsized role in the state's campaigns. Seniors are also the most reliable voters and carry extra clout. While people 65 years and older make up 16 percent of the state's population, they cast more than a quarter of the ballots in 2002.

Pennsylvania is home to a number of pivotal races for both houses of Congress. Democrats need 15 seats to take control of the House and four of their most promising pickups are in Pennsylvania. In late July and early August, drug companies helped pay for the Chamber of Commerce's TV ads on behalf of the four endangered Republicans, thanking them for supporting the Medicare drug bill, even though one, Mike Fitzpatrick, wasn't serving when Congress passed the benefit.

In the Senate, a swing of six seats would tip the balance of who's in charge. Strategists from both parties consider Mr. Santorum one of the Democrats' best targets.

In the campaign, both Mr. Santorum and his opponent are playing up the senator's central role in crafting the Medicare drug benefit. He's the biggest recipient of pharmaceutical money, according to CRP, up from 15th last time he ran in 2000.

"We support folks who agree with us on the issues, and he's been a strong and good supporter," PhRMA's Mr. Tauzin says of Mr. Santorum.

Mr. Casey and his backers have tried hard to use that against Mr. Santorum in the race. Speaking on the sunny front porch of a Clarion, Pa., bed-and-breakfast in August, Mr. Casey lashed out at one of the benefit's most-criticized features, the "donut hole." The basic plan requires people whose drug costs reach $2,250 to start paying their own bills for the year, until they've spent a total of $3,600, although in practice many of the private-sector insurers providing the benefit have reduced or eliminated the donut hole.

continued here..
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleA...rselection.php

[Nicobie]

but i don't read long cut and paste posts.

[JackSpratts]

i do lol.

Robert N. Jenkins of the St. Petersburg Times to declare that Simms, in reality, "didn't need his spleen." In an article called "Humans have body parts to spare," Jenkins went on to pronounce that we also do not need our appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, esophagus, stomach, and adrenal glands because those organs, according to conventional wisdom, are "vestigial."

if mr. jenkins cares to leave his organs at the door i guess that's up to him but he may find his quality of life so reduced as to be a different kind of living. can it be done? sure. with the proper regimen of drugs (with side effects) and lots of luck he'll be a be able to exist for a while but it won't be easy and often not comfortable. losing just a spleen means increased vulnerability to future infections and diseases. even run of the mill things like colds can become crises while more serious bugs like flus are often fatal. it's true that we can exist after surgeries that would've killed our grandparents but the tone of that paragraph suggests these organs are somehow outdated and unnecessary, like pelvic bones in whales. not so.

- js.

[Malk-a-mite]

1. Outragous premise - check.
2. Silly outcome - check.
3. Tie it to a group you dislike - check.
4. Fill to top with random causes/events you dislike - check.

Mmmmmm - Flame War Pie, my favorite.

[Mazer]

I'm afraid righties are just as gullible as lefties when it comes to these things. Politics and science don't mix.