The 100th Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist fires

The meeting room walls in the Dept of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health are lined with poster-sized photographs of people who died at work.

These public servants, who have no budget yet for this year and are operating under a continuing resolution from a dysfunctional Congress, are used as punching bags by a workforce which it has made to be one of the safest in the world; that is, when OSHA is allowed to police profiteers who use immigrants as disposable labor.

OSHA wall posters now can include the workers who were kidnapped, locked in, and sexually assaulted at the DeCoster egg farms over the past 25 years.

WaPo's Howard Meyerson discusses the horrific tragedy of the Triangle fires:

The seamstresses were just getting off work that Saturday, some of them singing a new popular song, “Every Little Movement (Has a Meaning of Its Own),” when they heard shouts from the eighth floor just below. They saw smoke outside the windows, and then fire. As David Von Drehle recounts the ensuing catastrophe, in his award-winning book “Triangle,” just a couple minutes later the ninth floor was fully ablaze.

* * * *

[M]any, facing the choice of death by fire or death by impact on the city streets, chose the latter and leapt. Down they came, some already engulfed in flame — first a few, then a torrent, before the horrified crowd that had gathered by the building, which was just off Washington Square in the heart of New York’s Greenwich Village.

When it was over, 146 people had either died by fire or jumped to their deaths. Most were young women, almost entirely Jewish or Italian immigrants, many still in their teens, one just 14.

Every little movement has a meaning of its own,
Every thought and feeling by some posture can be shown,
And every lovelight that comes a stealing
All your dreams must be revealing
All its sweetness in some appealing little gesture
All of its own.

Ever wanted a quick explanation of how health reform will benefit Maryland to share with friends and family?

Last year, more than 700,000 Marylanders lost their homes to foreclosure when health bills bankrupted them. Insurance companies did that to Marylanders.

See what health reform does for Marylanders here.

Insurance pays for gun owners

Gun owners increase their risk for injury and expense when they injure themselves and their families. No evidence indicates that it increases safety. Not only that, but more often than not, they don't have the money to pay for their health care from the injury! Government health care and your insurance premiums finance their carelessness. Ironic that self-declared libertarians depend on the welfare of government.

According to Medical experts:

Many people feel that having a gun provides greater safety for them and their family. Actually, having a firearm in the home escalates the risk for death or injury, while using it to shoot someone who endangers the household is much less common. The resultant injuries, deaths, emotional turmoil, and/or disabilities lead to greater utilization of health care and legal/police services. Payment for these expenses is provided by higher insurance premiums and tax rates. This financial aspect has become a part of our country's current political concern over firearm ownership rights, gun violence or regulation, health care costs, the economy, and taxes....

The article lists mind-numbing numbers of injuries and deaths caused by guns. Of course, gun rights advocates don;t bother to contest these numbers. They argue instead that it is a cost of having the right to "a well-regulated militia" a need which they offer to meet with unregulated, untrained, unregistered or liscenced citizen soldiers regardless of whether they can hit a target the size of a barn.

Taxpayers often bear a large percentage of these financial burdens; thus this matter is a hot political topic nationally. In Kentucky in 2008, 73% of gunshot victims were uninsured, 10% were covered by governmental plans, and 17% were insured.[18] Nationally, data reported in 2001 documented that government programs pay for about 49% of this amount, 18% is covered by private insurance, and 33% by all other sources.[19] Past medical bills are reflected in future insurance rates.[2]
Gun violence costs about 2.4 billion dollars annually to the criminal justice system in America, which is almost equal to all other crimes put together.[19] Each homicide results in approximately $244,000 of incarceration expenses for our taxpayers. Indirect costs are high as well; for example, local governments across our country spend up to $100 million each year just on bulletproof vests.[19] Most of these bills are then passed on to the taxpayers.

Guns, purchased for protection, paradoxically result in increased rates of injury or death to the owners and their families. Since firearm possession is related to a high occurrence of domestic violence, restriction of access is sometimes suggested as a prevention policy. That, however, remains politically sensitive despite public wishes to reduce the costs of medical care and insurance. Availability tends to increase crime rates and the presence of these dangerous weapons escalates rates of both morbidity and mortality. Shootings are often precipitated during the commission of other crimes.[9] Clearly, guns are easily available to the at-risk population; yet gun control remains generally unpopular. Firearm possession does not appear to yield safety. Documentation evidences that the presence of guns and injuries are correlated,[17] and are thus related to medical attention and disability costs.

Breast Cancer screening: is it health care rationing?

Breast cancer screening has risks - risks of exposure to unnecessary procedures like biopsies, that have risks of their own. When healthy women get biopsied and the biopsy goes wrong - produces infection and scarring, for example - the risks outweigh the benefits. That is why asymptomatic healthy women with no risk factors for cancer who are under 50 might not need screening. Women who have family risks or notice a symptom should get screened regardless of age. That is ALL that Bush's panel on breast cancer screening said. Here it is from the professionals:

The American College of Physicians (ACP), representing 129,000 internal medicine physicians and medical student members, believes that it is essential that research on the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of different medical treatments not be influenced by political considerations.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on mammography, which were published in ACP's flagship journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine, have regrettably been used by some critics of the health reform bills being considered by Congress to make baseless charges that the bills would lead to rationing of care. Other critics have made unfair and unsubstantiated attacks on the expertise, motivations, and independence of the scientists and clinician experts on the USPSTF.

ACP believes that it is essential that clinicians and patients be able to make their own decisions on diagnosis and treatment informed by the best available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of different treatments and diagnostic interventions. The USPSTF is a highly regarded, credible and independent group of experts that performs this role, on a purely advisory basis, to the Department of Health and Human Services, as it relates to interventions to prevent or detect diseases. As is often the case with evidence-based reviews, the USPTF's recommendations will not always be consistent with the guidelines established by other experts in the field, by professional medical societies, and by patient advocacy groups. Such differences of opinion, expressed in a constructive and transparent manner so that patients and their clinicians can make their own best judgment, are important and welcome. It is not constructive to make ill-founded attacks on the integrity, credibility, motivations, and expertise of the clinicians and scientists on the USPSTF.

Some critics have erroneously charged that the USPSTF's recommendations were motivated by a desire to control costs. According to the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, "the USPSTF does not consider economic costs in making recommendations." The Agency continues, "it realizes that these costs are important in the decision to implement preventive services. Thus, in situations where there is likely to be some effectiveness of the service, the Task Force searches for evidence of the costs and cost-effectiveness of implementation, presenting this information separately from its recommendation" and the "recommendations are not modified to accommodate concerns about insurance coverage of preventive services, medicolegal liability, or legislation, but users of the recommendations may need to do so."

Under the bills being considered by Congress, the USPSTF will have an important role in making evidence-based recommendations on preventive services that insurers will be required to cover, but the bills do not give the Task Force - or the federal government itself - any authority to put limitations on coverage, ration care, or require that insurers deny coverage. Specifically, the House and Senate bills would require health plans to cover preventive services based in large part on the evidence-based reviews by the USPSTF, but no limits are placed on health plans' ability to offer additional preventive benefits, or in considering advice from sources other than the USPSTF in making such coverage determinations. Accordingly, patients will benefit by having a floor - not a limit - on essential preventive services that would be covered by all health insurers, usually with no out-of-pocket cost to them. Patients will also benefit from having independent research on the comparative effectiveness of different treatments, as proposed in the bills before Congress. The bills specifically prohibit use of comparative effectiveness research to limit coverage or deny care based on cost.

The controversy over the mammography guidelines illustrates the importance of communicating information on evidence-based reviews to the public in a way that facilitates an understanding of how such reviews are conducted and how they are intended to support, not supplant, individual decision-making by patients and their clinicians.

ACP urges Congress, the administration, and patient and physician advocacy groups to respect and support the importance of protecting evidence-based research by respected scientists and clinicians from being used to score political points that do not serve the public's interest.

Source: David Kinsman
American College of Physicians

Healthcare around the world

T.R. Reid explains healthcare in five capitalist economies.



PBS Frontline Sick Around the World by TR Reid.



In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures. (more »)

Parade of Liars selling junk: health care, tobacco, and auto billionaires

They get rich making junk cars, junk bonds and junk insurance policies

On April 14, 1994, the executives of America's seven largest tobacco companies came before Congress and each testified that tobacco was not addictive.

On November 18, 2008, auto executives flew to Washington on private jets to testify that they needed taxpayer bailouts. “We’re all slashing back” on non-essential expenses, they said, promising, “We’re going to be dramatically leaner.”

May 30, 1996 Linda Peeno testified that third party payors/insurance companies pay hugh bonuses to people who, without ever seeing a patient, deny the coverage for the care that saves their lives and allows them to keep their homes. You know, the reason why we buy health insurance in the first place.



In the 1960s, stories of elderly people being forced from their homes and eating cans of dog food were not unusual. Now the elderly are safe from that fate. It's time to give the same safety to school children and younger adults. Marcia Angell, editor of NEJM agrees we need Medicare for all.

Public Option: your premium goes to salaries and golden parachutes.

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Jesus was a public option

Jesus apparently took some convincing that he should cast his pearls before swine, or in this case, his bread to the dogs, to make health care accessible.

“But Lord,” said the lowly Canaanite woman. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

Jesus was pleased by her understanding. “Woman, you have great faith!” he said, astonishing the disciples. The disciples watched closely, and would later record this triumphant moment in the Holy Book. The Canaanites were the “dogs” of Israel, but this one—this “dog,” a far cry from one of the chosen—had great faith? Jesus told the woman that her request had been granted. And indeed from that very hour, the woman’s daughter was freed of her demon.

Likewise among the lepers, the outcast Samaritan - the immigrant - proved worthy of health care. Luke 17:11-19:

Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. He prostrated himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus asked, "Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" Then he said to him, "Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well."

Jesus raised the dead and cured the sick, and took care of outcasts from outside his church and immediate community. How did the established interests respond? With a death sentence, which is probably a pre-existing condition.

Insurance company profiteers make US sick

Obama at College Park on Health care reform.

Industry: "Regulatory Incentives languish" for safety and efficacy

The gold standard in the regulated product industry, The Gold Sheet (Vol 43, No 1) has some advice for Regulatory and Quality staff. (RAQA are those staffers who told Peanut Corp of America that it would be illegal and dangerous to sell deadly contaminated peanut butter. ) Last month's Gold Sheet says death and jail is not enough to stop criminal profiteers - RAQA now has to show how complying with the law saves money. Why? because "regulatory incentives languish."

That means for the last 8 years, FDA has not been allowed to do its job. And regulated companies know it.

"FDA officials encourage industry to concentrate on the business benefits of [Quality by Design or] QbD. [Controlling manufacturing or] CMC pilot [program]s raised questions about cost effectiveness."

Peanut Butter and Salmonella, explained

When a product tests out of its specification, the product must be quarantined. That is why specifications exist.

The peanut butter made by the Peanut Butter Corporation of America tested positive for salmonella. It should have been quarantined.

• That doesn't mean it can never be used. The manufacturer can investigate the cause under a plan.
• The manufacturer can find out what was the root cause of the problem.
• The manufacturer can fix the root cause, and may even recondition the food if the plan will eliminate the contamination.

What the manufacturer cannot do, is simply retest to see if another result will be produced. This has been prohibited by law for at least the past 15 years. But that's exactly what PCA did.
How many manufacturers simply retest? Under the current system there is no way to know. FDA, and the public health, depend on employees of the manufacturers themselves to stand up to marketing, sales, and even Presidents and CEOs, to prevent the shipment of contaminated foods, drugs, and devices. Some employees report to corrupt companies in corrupt countries far away. In this US facility, emails from PCA employees disclose a battered staff trying hard to get their company heads to follow the law. These employees are just a paycheck away from not working. This is a one of several gaping holes in the safety net.

FDA has no authority to recall many products without company approval.

FDA needs investigators now.

More FDA Changes: New Acting Commissioner, more allegations

WSJ: The new Acting Commissioner is Food and Drug Administration Chief Scientist Frank Torti.

Dr. Frank Torti, the FDA's science chief, is set to become its acting commissioner. President-elect Barack Obama and his transition team could announce a permanent
appointee to lead the FDA in the next three weeks, sources said. Wall Street Journal, (subscription required) (01/12)

William Gimson III, chief operating officer at the CDC, will serve as acting director after Dr. Julie Gerberding leaves the agency Jan. 20.

Torti will have his hands full right away - nine device scientists report being pressured to approve unsafe and ineffective products. In the letter, the scientists described an agency where President Bush's FDA managers "ordered, intimidated and coerced scientists to manipulate their research results in violation of federal law."

Sydney Wolf joins FDA

WSJ: Now the outsider [from Ralph Nader's Health Research Group] is going inside, mirroring a larger shift in the Washington pendulum toward tougher company regulation. To the consternation of the drug industry, Dr. Wolfe has been appointed to a four-year term on the FDA's Drug Safety and Risk Management Committee, which plays a key role in telling the agency which drugs are safe.

What's more, he has the ear of several health leaders and members of Congress expected to influence FDA policy in the Obama administration. Joshua Sharfstein, a former aide to liberal Rep. Henry Waxman, who is leading the Obama transition team assessing the FDA, worked for Dr. Wolfe years ago.

Qualify your vendors: Heparin from China

FDA has user fees to review drug applications but this administration has forced budget cuts that have decimated it's ability to inspect manufacturing plants not just for drugs, but for devices, biological products, food, and veterinary medicine. FDA inspectors wait until the agency can bundle up foreign establishment inspections, and then only give FDA inspectors a few days in each site to spot-check records.

That means facilities must police themselves.

Instead, the Heparin contamination is just another example of how US companies have downsized their operations and their Quality units to please shareholders, and now these companies obtain many of their components from the third world where corruption is common, contamination from dirty water and unhygienic practices is unavoidable, and subcontractors think nothing of exchanging expensive ingredients and equipment with unacceptable replacements. US companies don't know their vendors, they don't adequately audit them, and they don't know where their vendors get their supplies, either. This despite the fact that the idea of qualifying vendors has been around since 1951.

WSJ writes without much new insight that "The recent problems with heparin from China highlight the difficulty of monitoring the often diffuse and poorly regulated supply chains there -- for both Chinese drug makers and the multinational pharmaceutical companies that buy from them."

Like many regulated companies, this one falls into the trap of bragging that it built a new "GMP facility;" then fails to make sure the people and products brought into its new walls are free from contamination.

WaPo quotes William Hubbard, a former FDA official, who says it is not surprising that tainted drugs supplied though agency-approved channels are showing up from abroad. "The history of some of these developing countries in terms of substituting or counterfeiting concerns is a long and well-documented one," he said. "And at this point, the FDA doesn't have the resources or system in place to make sure some of these bad drugs don't get through to the public."

In the meantime, FDA budget is still a fraction of NIH's, and increases for FY09 are barely enough to cover cost of living adjustments, and certainly won'y allow improvements in inspections. Even industry wants to give FDA more money.

The John Edwards Effect on Clinton, Obama and the DNC

According to the NY Times, John Edwards' policies are running for President. Ironically, Universal Health Care may be more his legacy than Obama's or even Clinton's.

As the architect of these policies, Edwards deserves a place to bring them to reality. He has the ability and courage to do this.

To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.

At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit. It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.

* * * *

Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.

One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.

* * * *

If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, ... polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.

Compare the Candidates: Edwards, Clinton, Obama

Any two of these candidates will make a winning Prez-VP ticket, but for those who want to chose their favorite, the NYT election guide 2008 stacks their positions side by side to make a comparison easier than before. Here are the highlights for Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. The NYT analysis includes all the candidates from both parties.

Before we get to that, here's a humorous observation from the ultra-conservative Wall Street Journal: The "major domestic ambition this campaign season is the government takeover of the healthcare industry," according to an editorial in WSJ. They neglected to point out what a lousy job the healthcare industry is doing at protecting public health. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ Subscription Required)

Health care:

• Edwards: Would require health insurance for all. Require employers to provide insurance or contribute to cost, with subsidies for low-income people. Create regional nonprofit pools that offer private plans and at least one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program to serve adults below the poverty line and children and parents below 250 percent of the line.
  
• Obama: Would not require health insurance for all. Would provide subsidies for low-income people. Create purchasing pool with choice of competing private plans and one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program.


• Clinton: Would require health insurance for all. Require large employers to provide insurance or contribute to the cost. Provide tax credits to small businesses and subsidies for low-income people. Create a pool of private plans similar to the program for federal workers and one public plan similar to Medicare. Plans are portable from job to job. Expand Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Reproductive rights:

• Edwards actively opposed John Roberts's nomination, partly based on his abortion views.
  
• All three candidates say they support Roe v. Wade that ruled childbearing decisions including decisions to terminate pregnancy were protected from government interference unless there was a compelling state interest. All three candidates criticized Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions.

Climate Change:

• Edwards and Obama state the U.S. must lead global efforts to reduce emission; would set targets for capping greenhouse pollution.
  
• All three candidates support a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Immigration:

• Edwards: Supports only a limited border fence. Clinton and Obama: Voted for the boondoggle fence along Mexican border.


• All three candidates support a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.

Iran:

• Edwards: Engage in low-level diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; military option not off the table; has said a non-aggression pact is a possibility down the road.


• Obama: Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; would meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions; military option not off the table.


• Clinton: Direct diplomacy without preconditions; use economic sanctions; would not meet with the Iranian president; military option not off the table, but would not consider without congressional approval.

Iraq: [see Senate Joint Resolution 45 below]

• Edwards: Voted in 2002 for the Resolution, now opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops immediately and all troops within nine to 10 months.


• Clinton: Voted in 2002 for the Resolution, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013.


• Obama: Not a Senator at the time, but opposed the invasion from the beginning [although did not necessarily oppose the Resolution and seemed conflicted for much of the war’s first years]; opposed troop increase; withdraw one or two brigades a month to finish within 16 months.

The Resolution states that military intervention in Iraq is authorized in certain circumstances, including if the President determines that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Stem Cell research and cures 20 years behind: millions suffer

Stem cell research relied on a few donations from fertility clinics that would otherwise be incinerated. Couples undergoing in vitro fertilization have an option when their treatment is finished to donate their embryos to other couples, and many do. But some just can't face the prospect of a genetic child of their own "out there," and yet still want to help others, for example, by making a contribution to cures.

Since Reagan stopped federal funding for stem cell research in 1987, scientists in the US were prohibited even from using the microscope in a lab that received a Federal grant to view stem cells. They had to waste time and money to create duplicate labs while patients died. Their colleagues left to research outside the US, slowing collaborations, while patients died. Research in countries like South Korea with weaker oversight infrastructure produced work frought with fraud while patients died.

While patients and their families suffered for 20 years, political opportunists conjured harangues and tales of woe, of embryos created merely for destruction.

Denying the existence of the same American ingenuity,
encouraged by government funding, that invented the Internet, built a trans-Continental railroad, and salvaged our environment from pollution, financed how to make penicillin, vaccines and other "wonder drugs" widely available, they somehow got away with draping themselves in the American flag.

Now scientists can make stem cells from skin. These cells can't yet do everything that stem cells can do, but the discovery is a breakthrough. Now that we are 20 years behind studying and understanding how these cells behave, grow, and contribute to curing terrible diseases.

Rick Weiss: The big next step is to find better ways of turning on the right genes to get cells to become embryonic -- ways that don't involve retroviruses. Many scientists are talking about using "small molecules" that can get to a cell's DNA and affect which genes are turned on or off. Also important: What other gene combinations can accomplish that (the two teams used four genes each, but two are different between them and other combinations with other genes may work, too). The thinking right now is that different genes in different doses might result in stem cells that have slightly different potentials to become different kinds of tissues. Then of course there will be years of safety testing, first in animals, then in people. And then, at least, some efforts to treat diseases. Meanwhile they will be used by many scientists to study diseases in lab dishes.

From WaPo editorial:

Congress should continue to consider legislation easing restrictions on the use of discarded embryos for research. After all, this breakthrough could not have been possible without research on embryonic stem cells. The potential gains from this science are so great that all avenues should be pursued until the new technology is proven.

Taxes used to fund STDs for your kids

Are Administration scientists the only ones who aren't reading the data?

Talking to your kids about anything is a great idea, and talking to them about sex is an even better idea. However, telling them to wait until marriage may not only get them to roll their eyes and tune out, but studies show those who pledge to wait till marriage merely exchange vaginal intercourse for more risky behavior. Nevertheless, in another occasion of thumbing his nose at science, the Bush administration yes-men at the Department of Health and Human Services are wasting your tax dollars on a TV advertisement for just this kind of behavior.

"[T]eenagers who take "virginity pledges" ... are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active..."

The study, which began producing results as long ago as 2004, shows these pledgers are sexually active but don't understand the continuum of risk among sexual behaviors including oral and anal sex and sex with professional sex workers.

Here's a pix below from the video, and the ad is available here:




According to Medical News Today,

The gap between pledgers and nonpledgers for high-risk behavior was statistically significant, with 2% of virgins who did not pledge reporting engaging in anal or oral sex, compared with 13% of those who did pledge [a 650% increase] (Washington Post, 3/19). According to [study scientist Hannah] Bruckner, the pledgers' increased likelihood of substituting oral or anal sex for vaginal intercourse puts them at risk of contracting STDs, according to Bruckner. Among virgins, boys who had pledged abstinence were four times as likely to have engaged in anal sex as those who did not pledge, and pledgers overall were six times as likely to have engaged in oral sex as teens who were virgins but did not take a pledge, the study found. In addition, teens who made virginity pledges were less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience and were less likely to get tested for STDs, the study found.

Peter Bearman, the chair of Columbia University's Department of Sociology, who co-authored the study with Hannah Bruckner of Yale, told CBSNews.com: "The point is, substantively, that if you knew someone who pledged, and you knew someone who didn't pledge, you had no basis for thinking that one of them would have an STD over the other," said .

"It's a tragedy if we withhold from these kids information about how not to get STDs or not to get pregnant," said Dorothy Mann, executive director of the Family Planning Council, an organization dedicated to reproductive health services.

This is another shot across the bow from the administration to our nation's once-mighty scientific community to serve an ideology. The casualties in the well-documented War on Science include global warming to prevent deadly climate change, stem cell research to prevent debilitating disease, and Plan B pharmaceuticals to prevent abortion even while the FDA Commissioner buys up regulated company stock.

"Our national policies will not be revoked or modified even for scientists. If the dismissal of ... scientists means the annihilation of contemporary ... science, then we shall do without science for a few years."

Adolf Hitler to Max Planck about the exodus of scientists from the country.

FDA in danger of being FEMA-ized

Burton J. Howard, chief of the Bureau of Chemistry's (now FDA) microchemical laboratory, is shown in the right foreground in this photo from the 1920s. Howard developed a quantitative method to detect mold in ketchup that proved to be indispensable in establishing food adulteration in court.

Grover Norquist was realizing his dream to "drown government in a bathtub" when he lobbied Congress to shrink agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Administration. FEMA had been riding high after being turned around by Republican appointee Frank Young, whose career hit its stride at FEMA. Other countries sent experts to the US to copy FEMA's efforts.

Then FEMA was underfunded, outsourced, ignored and effectively dismantled in time for Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Now another public service agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is in danger of the same fate: the Administration plans to close labs and outsource jobs.

Despite a glaring need for more resources, made apparent by dangers from contaminated imports like contaminated drugs fromChina, toothpaste made with anti-freeze, and pet food contaminated with melamine, the local county's school system in Montgomery County has more staff and a bigger budget than all the nation's food, drug, blood and device inspectors. Compare the NIH budget for 2007 of $28.6 Billion, with FDA's budget: FDA gets 1/20th of that, at under $1.5 billion.

When Congress refused to fully fund the Agency for decades, first drug manufacturers then device makers banded together to agree to pay fees to hire reviewers. Still, the funding law prohibits using those fees for compliance and inspection actions, and AIDS and bioterrorism initiatives continue to funnel resources away from the Agency's core functions.

Bush and his team have already forgotten the still-raw lessons from Katrina and the administration is making stealth progress on an initiative to reduce staff, close laboratories, and contract out the Agency's work.

FDA plans were - and still are - to close seven of its 13 laboratories. The politicians say fewer labs would be more efficient. However, Energy and Commerce investigators disagree with FDA's justification for the reorganization. The Tan Sheet, which covers OTC drugs, said it best:

"Despite repeated requests from the committee, FDA has failed to provide any analysis justifying this radical reorganization," Senior Investigator David Nelson, Investigative Counsel Kevin Barstow and Investigator Richard Wilfong say in written testimony.

"Since FDA has not provided an analysis demonstrating any cost-savings associated with the lab closures, their rationale implies that synergies exist in mega-labs; however, no documents have been produced by FDA to support that suggestion," the investigators say.

Additionally, they cite a Government Accountability Office report determining midsize labs are more efficient than mega-labs.

"FDA has failed to provide us with any independent cost-benefit analysis for their proposal," they say. "On the surface the proposed closings appear to be counterproductive and may needlessly increase taxpayers' costs."

When FDA refused to cooperate with Congressional questions, Congress threatened to prohibit use of any funds to implement the transfer. Margaret Glavin, associate commissioner for regulatory affairs at FDA, wrote in a letter to Office of Regulatory Affairs employees that she is "canceling plans for the rollout of all changes to our organizational structure." According to WaPo, "Two House members from Michigan, Reps. John D. Dingell (D) and Bart Stupak (D), hailed the e-mail as an indication of FDA's decision to "abandon" its reorganization. But agency spokeswoman Julie Zawisza denied that the agency had canceled its plans." WaPo: "FDA spokeswoman Julie Zawisza said in an e-mail that Friday's announcement left open the possibility of future changes."

In addition to the closures, FDA has added an initiative to outsource the jobs in the field offices. These offices are often the place where industry comes face-to-face with Agencies in the FDA districts and where laboratory tests to confirm preliminary results are performed. According to Forbes:

The government's chief health regulatory agency is reviewing more than 300 positions in more than 20 cities to determine whether they could be performed cheaper and better by the private sector. A decision is expected next month, according to FDA documents.

An initial list of positions under review included lab technicians and field office workers who work at FDA facilities where food and medical products are inspected for safety.

The vast majority of FDA experts, in a survey that includes experts inside and outside the FDA, agree the FDA does not have the strong leadership it needs. FDA needs a leader who will demand full funding for FDA.

GovExec 08/20/2007
Federal Times 08/20/2007
DailyKos Diary

Mother's Day: Birth Control is Healthy for Mom and Baby

Standing tall for Pregnant Women: Against Gag rules and Guns.

I had learned through work that bleeding is a common cause of death in pregnancy. It is endemic in the third world, such as Afghanistan. It is a problem that may get worse depending on the youth of the mother. In poor countries, the loss of small amounts of blood are especially dangerous due to the high rate of malaria and anemia that already weakens the moms. The lack of refrigeration makes blood transfusions almost impossible. The AIDS rate means a transfusion cure can be worse than the disease, anyway.

Without birth control and health care, these moms may die, sometimes during their fourth or fifth pregnancy, malnourished and exhausted from multiple, closely-spaced births. Often they are still nursing the previous child. This means most moms that die in childbirth leave orphans behind. If only they could space their pregnancies, they would have more strength, a better chance at life and at mothering their existing children. In cultures where men are not active in child rearing, these children are often left to suffer, starve, and die.

In the US, prior to the prevalence of handwashing and other aseptic techniques, rates of deaths from abortions and pregnancies were about the same. Midwives had better survivial rates, probably because doctors increasingly performed their work in dirty cities. As doctors tried to corner the market on obstetrics, in 1951 they formed the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, and to reduce the influence of midwives they successfully lobbied to outlaw abortions, which till then had been undistrurbed in most states.

More recently, in the US, sepsis is not so much a problem any more. Bleeding death rates have also reduced. Curious of what pregnancy-associated issue may have taken its place, some scientists have followed pregnant women for a year to see what their health issues are today.

The most common cause of death was injury. The most common cause of injury was homicide. The most common cause of homicide was guns. The moms were shot, usually by the father of her baby.

In North Carolina 1992-94. In New York City 1987-1991.

In Chicago 1986-89. In young mothers

Back to the third world, I see a story on NOVA tonight with another cautionary tale about the effect of the lack of birth control. It involved a Turkish woman who had 19 children. The first 7 children were born within 5 years. As a young mother, overcome with the burden of raising them all, she never had time to teach the children to walk upright. They still walk on all fours, stuck in a baby's crawl. The daughters dispair of never dancing, never being able to marry. Their sons are angry they can never support a family or work. Their bone structure now may never be able to support them to walk upright.

Hiding behind "pro-family" rhetoric, neo-conservatives continue their deathly policies. With inadequate background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases, pregnancy can be a death sentence in the US. In poor countries, refusing to acknowlege the desperate need for birth control is ending lives of women and their children.

Maternal mortality remains the leading cause of death for women of childbearing age—an estimated 500,000 women die each year from pregnancy related causes, with 78,000 deaths resulting from unsafe abortion. Having access to safe, appropriate family planning methods and safe abortion when needed, can make the difference in women’s lives. It can prevent dangers from pregnancies ...

Save lives with your vote. Check out the politicians on these issues at the portal at Planned Parenthood.