... I'm thrilled (and grateful) to say that I've finally reached a point in my ongoing evolution/enlightenment where I do not seek out nor need approval or confirmation from outside sources that I am OK or that what I believe is OK.
That being said...
I'm equally thrilled to have just found out that my own personal views on organized religion mirror those of Albert Einstein.
My early religious experience was similar to his. And, like Einstein, I began to question - at an early age - the biblical stories that I was being taught and which everyone around me seemed to swallow - hook, line and sinker - without question. At the time, I lived in 'The Bible Belt' and, on weekends, it was hard to find anything entertaining on TV amid all of the televangelists and 'healers' (who were passionate - and, to me, utterly ridiculous - about scamming the poor and gullible for money) and other from-the-pulpit church programs (Thank Gd for PBS!... Hee Hee.). I attended services at Jewish synagogues and Baptist churches. Even then, in my young mind, I couldn't understand why so many otherwise rational people believed these stories to be... well, 'the Gospel Truth', so to speak. Not only was the Bible full of contradictions... How could the same God that made the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill." be the same God that - at various times - told people to go into another land and kill every living thing there or the same God that killed countless numbers of people Himself all over the ancient world?
More recently, I've done a great deal of self-directed research into the development of conventional religions... and what I discovered only steeled my view of religion as irrational, uninformed and blind acceptance of what can only be described as - if you look from a neutral position deeper into its history - superstition.
I discovered that, during Christianity's early years, it was a very small group of powerful and educated white men who took it upon themselves to decide what and who's early accounts/stories would become part of the canon as well as what stories were considered 'heresy' and their authors/followers 'heretics'. The latter was to be sought out and destroyed and the proponents/followers of the heresies were to be killed.
Thankfully, more people are realizing that most of the traditions/holidays/stories that so many hold dear in conventional monotheistic, patriarchal religions have their origin in earlier and much older, pagan or pantheistic belief systems... This is because the early 'Convert or Die' Crew had figured out that it would be easier to indoctrinate conquered peoples into their New and Improved, Goddess-Free, Father-God Religion if it contained a numerous familiar aspects from their own, now-banned beliefs.
And, I'm not even going to go into conventional religion's history of utterly misogynistic views towards and treatment of women (perhaps it's fear/envy-based? I guess the early church fathers couldn't comprehend how it it could be that women alone, not men - had the God-like ability to bring Life into the World... and boy, were they mad about it.) or the centuries of Witch Burnings - whereby the church immediately confiscated all possessions of the as-good-as-condemned at the moment of accusation. There are modern-day examples of this misogyny... Although women won the right to vote last century and there's currently a viable female candidate for President of the U.S.... Women are still forbidden from attaining the position of Rabbi - in Judaism; of Priest - in Catholicism... and, in some interpretations of Islamic law, rather than insisting that men be respectful of women and to take responsiblity for their own behavior ... the women are ordered to cocoon themselves... I mean, my Gd!... in some communities... women and girls are routinely executed (given the misnomer 'honor-killing') for being raped!
Good People of Planet Earth... There is No God or Allah or All-Knowing/All-Powerful Creator in All That Is who would condone such cruel, vicious and abhorrent treatment of anyone, let alone innocent victims of violent crimes... But, ignorant, evil, little men who are afraid of losing their unjustified influence and control over women might tell themselves and each other that God/Allah/The Creator did.
I also agree with Einstein that no one group can seriously hold claim as 'The Chosen People'... at least not based solely upon their collective religious beliefs.
Honestly, if there are any "Chosen People", they are the people - both women and men - who consciously choose to do Good... Those who naturally and consistently do The Right Thing because it is The Right Thing To Do whenever the opportunity or need arises... and They do so with no thought about receiving any credit or reward... even if it necessitates them going a little out of their way or taking more time than they planned.
... But, I digress...
The existence of the letter was a surprise to most. It came from a private collection and is scheduled to be auctioned in London this week. Einstein had written the letter to the philosopher Eric Gutkind on January 3, 1954, after Gutkind had sent a copy of his book, Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt.
Albert Einstein, pictured in 1953. Photograph: Ruth Orkin/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Einstein is My Co-Pilot.
Peace.
L.
From: www.guardian.co.uk/.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.
A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.
Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.
One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.
Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.
His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.
In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.
His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.
"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
Amusing and Informative, Your Lil' Sister Loves to Get the 'Scoop' on the Mainstream Media and To Present a Variety of Obscure, Under-Reported and Decidedly-More Newsworthy Items From Around The Globe; You'll Also Be Privy To Pieces of My Own Personal Paranormal Phenomena; and Frequently Hear of Things Your Parents, Clergy, Society and Uncle Sam didn't bother to tell you. But, I will... In Other Words: The Way This Grrrl Sees It!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Prescription for Addiction: Tens of $Milllions in Advertising, Test Results Approved By Spin Doctors and 2 Lobbyists Per Congressperson.
"Spare any Change?"...
Utter those three, innocuous, little words - here in San Francisco, anyway - and you risk getting written up by the local beat cops for what is called "Aggressive Panhandling".
"Buds?"...
Of course, offering to sell people street drugs might get you three hots and a cot with a view of the cell facing yours.
But, if you happen to be aggressively selling pharmaceutical drugs...
Well, then there's quite a different outcome...
If you're an American pharmaceutical company, you need never fear being sent to prison for spending millions of dollars enticing citizens of all ages - via an endless barrage of flashy tv commercials and magazine ads - to take drugs that they not only do not need... but to pay exorbitant prices for and to take drugs that may not work... or, if they do have effects... some turn out to be much worse than the initial issue that they are taking the drug for.
Did you know that it's only in America and New Zealand that drug companies are allowed to do DTC advertising ("Direct-To-Consumer").
I used to get annoyed at the endless barrage of car commercials...
But, they were for cars... and I skateboard, the S.F. Bay Area has an extensive public transit system and tooting your horn about your cars getting a whopping 30mpg is not impressive nor toot-worthy... it's tragic and disappointing.
I haven't done a scientific survey...
But, I'm pretty sure that those glossy, smiling, happy, warm-fuzzy, drug-dealing, big Pharma ads are aiming to outnumber car ads 2-to-1.
Listening to the dialogue being uttered in them, I want to scream. I find them sneaky and misleading. What is actually said in the ads and what it sounds like they are saying are very different things. It also bothers me that they give out a grocery list of symptoms, so that you are now well-informed and can go report these symptoms to your doctor and possibly get a Rx written whether or not you really have them. Then, there's the laundry list of possible side-effects, which is as long as the rest of the commercial, but is squeezed into and speed-read in less than four seconds.
There's one that is utterly mind-boggling to me and, apparently, not many others since it's still on the air. It's for a product called "Humira", I believe. Something marketed as being used to affect symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. Anyway, one of the many possible and horrible side-effects associated with this medication is lymphoma...
That's LYMPHOMA, people... Cancer of the Lymph Glands!... A "possible Side-Effect"?
I don't know about you... but I'd rather deal with sore joints and take Advil or get Acupuncture... than deal with CANCER.
I often have said... and still stand behind my statement that, "The FDA is NOT Your Friend." And, sadly, Congress is, thus far, too well-lobbied to take action to make measureable changes in how Big Pharma does its drug-testing and dealing.
Thankfully, there are Real People who are looking out for your health and mine... and they aren't dressed in white lab coats and wearing stethoscopes...
Former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen has written a thoughtful, well-researched and very timely book on the subject: Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books).
I recommend it. Some of what she reveals might make you angry, but, at least you'll be better informed... and that alone is empowering.
Peace.
And Here's to Your Informed, Good Health.
L.
(From: www.huffingtonpost.com/.)
Our Daily Meds: Navigating the Polypharmacy
Derek Beres
Posted April 17, 2008 | 12:21 AM (EST)
In the 1970s, Professor J. Scott Armstrong put forth a conundrum to close to 2,000 business school students and executive trainees. Intrigued by the corporatizing of the pharmaceutical industry, he created a scenario (based on an actual 1969 incident) in which a company has a new drug with a projected $20 million profit. The catch: For each million the company nets, there is one death from side effects. The first twenty million meant twenty deaths, and so on thereafter.
Students and trainees were given five options, ranging from immediately pulling the drug from shelves--regulators stated cheaper, more effective pills without such grave side effects exist--to downplaying risks and promoting the drug heavily, creating a media-driven whitewash in which consumers could not discern problems, and therefore readily open their pockets.
The results? Zero took the first option; 79% chose the latter. As former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen writes in her new book, Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books), "For these students and trainees, who were playing the roles of the executives they would soon become, profits took precedence over patients."
As one can imagine by the book's subtitle, the above is not an isolated case study. In fact, it shows how the drive to maximize profits at any expense is built into the educational system by which students become executives. Petersen spends the majority of her book citing such examples, moving from hard facts and statistical data to personal interviews with people who have fallen victim to the marketing of pharmaceutical companies or, worse, have lost loved ones during the same process.
The varied and often disguised layers of pharmaceutical marketing and maneuvering begin at the outset, when Petersen reminds us that Americans spent $250 billion in 2005 on prescription drugs -- twice as much as we paid for higher education or new cars. This total is also greater than the population of "Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina combined." Sadly, this is due in part because our federal government is the only office in the developed world that does not control prescription drug prices. It leaves that to the companies themselves, a process that belittles the integrity of the medical profession--which is supposed to be about healing--by sticking to the idea that "the few the options, the higher the price; the greater the desperation, the greater the suffering, the higher the price."
Even more depressing are corporate payouts to doctors, the men and women who are supposed to represent the pinnacle of the healthcare profession. Petersen cites numerous examples of doctors receiving payola for prescribing certain drugs, like Dr. B.J. Wilder, who received a $401,350 check from Warner-Lambert to send himself and 125 medical residents to a luxury resort in Florida, or Dr. Ilo Leppik, who received a stipend of $303,600 to publish his book on epilepsy. Both were awarded those sums for the support they gave to Neurontin -- a drug that Pfizer (which came to own Warner-Lambert) had to pay $430 million in court fees for illegally marketing. An estimated 90% of prescriptions of the drug were for uses that the drug was not approved to treat, including attention deficit disorder and sexual dysfunction. Originally developed to combat epilepsy (and even then, not very well), it became a hit for the company for a variety of other "illnesses" which it did nothing for.
Again, this is not an isolated case by any means. Buying off doctors to promote prescriptions -- a practice which takes numerous forms, including "scientific" reports written by marketing companies and signed off by supposedly respected professionals, as well as partnering with them to help create diseases that don't necessarily exist--affects the majority of the industry. As Petersen often reminds us, paying off DJs to play music was regulated thanks to governmental intervention. When dealing with substances that can, and are, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans (the healthcare industry is the third biggest killer in the country, behind heart failure and cancer), however, the government and FDA remain mute.
I found myself getting angry at each page I turned. Yet it was an empowering rage, one based in knowledge. The book is like lifting the veil of ignorance that hangs over a country inundated with bright, colorful advertisements with perky stuffed animals and light violet skies promising us peace, equanimity and fun. The reality is anything but. In 2003, an executive from GlaxoSmithKline said that more than 90% of drugs "only work in 30 or 50 percent of the people," and their own tests found that certain drugs were only 25% effective. To maximize profits, though, they've encouraged the creation of a polypharmacy, where a person is on multiple prescriptions.
Often people are given one drug to battle one problem, and then another to counter the side effects of the first pill, and so on. This is bad enough when pushed on seniors, who rely on their doctors to help them enjoy their later years in as good of health as possible (and who, by the way, Petersen points out, are rarely if ever tested clinically when companies are trying out new drugs; these tests are almost always on young and healthy men and women). When our children became the focus of such marketing--between 2000-2004, prescriptions for sleeping pills in children age 10-19 increased 85% -- it is inexcusable.
Tragically, a drug often works no better than a sugar pill, yet the pharmaceutical industry is driving -- let's make that dominating -- our economy. Petersen projects that by 2015 one in every five dollars we earn will be feed back into healthcare. This might be justifiable if it meant that our health was getting better. To the contrary, we're actually declining in health as a nation, as our life expectancy rates have fallen far from the top of the list of "developed" worlds. How developed a nation can be when a small percentage of business executives is knowingly and purposefully promoting drugs that are killing fellow humans remains a question that Petersen does not, and cannot, answer. Thankfully, with this elucidating book, we can take that question into our own hands, and decide for ourselves how hooked on their tether we remain.
Utter those three, innocuous, little words - here in San Francisco, anyway - and you risk getting written up by the local beat cops for what is called "Aggressive Panhandling".
"Buds?"...
Of course, offering to sell people street drugs might get you three hots and a cot with a view of the cell facing yours.
But, if you happen to be aggressively selling pharmaceutical drugs...
Well, then there's quite a different outcome...
If you're an American pharmaceutical company, you need never fear being sent to prison for spending millions of dollars enticing citizens of all ages - via an endless barrage of flashy tv commercials and magazine ads - to take drugs that they not only do not need... but to pay exorbitant prices for and to take drugs that may not work... or, if they do have effects... some turn out to be much worse than the initial issue that they are taking the drug for.
Did you know that it's only in America and New Zealand that drug companies are allowed to do DTC advertising ("Direct-To-Consumer").
I used to get annoyed at the endless barrage of car commercials...
But, they were for cars... and I skateboard, the S.F. Bay Area has an extensive public transit system and tooting your horn about your cars getting a whopping 30mpg is not impressive nor toot-worthy... it's tragic and disappointing.
I haven't done a scientific survey...
But, I'm pretty sure that those glossy, smiling, happy, warm-fuzzy, drug-dealing, big Pharma ads are aiming to outnumber car ads 2-to-1.
Listening to the dialogue being uttered in them, I want to scream. I find them sneaky and misleading. What is actually said in the ads and what it sounds like they are saying are very different things. It also bothers me that they give out a grocery list of symptoms, so that you are now well-informed and can go report these symptoms to your doctor and possibly get a Rx written whether or not you really have them. Then, there's the laundry list of possible side-effects, which is as long as the rest of the commercial, but is squeezed into and speed-read in less than four seconds.
There's one that is utterly mind-boggling to me and, apparently, not many others since it's still on the air. It's for a product called "Humira", I believe. Something marketed as being used to affect symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. Anyway, one of the many possible and horrible side-effects associated with this medication is lymphoma...
That's LYMPHOMA, people... Cancer of the Lymph Glands!... A "possible Side-Effect"?
I don't know about you... but I'd rather deal with sore joints and take Advil or get Acupuncture... than deal with CANCER.
I often have said... and still stand behind my statement that, "The FDA is NOT Your Friend." And, sadly, Congress is, thus far, too well-lobbied to take action to make measureable changes in how Big Pharma does its drug-testing and dealing.
Thankfully, there are Real People who are looking out for your health and mine... and they aren't dressed in white lab coats and wearing stethoscopes...
Former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen has written a thoughtful, well-researched and very timely book on the subject: Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books).
I recommend it. Some of what she reveals might make you angry, but, at least you'll be better informed... and that alone is empowering.
Peace.
And Here's to Your Informed, Good Health.
L.
(From: www.huffingtonpost.com/.)
Our Daily Meds: Navigating the Polypharmacy
Derek Beres
Posted April 17, 2008 | 12:21 AM (EST)
In the 1970s, Professor J. Scott Armstrong put forth a conundrum to close to 2,000 business school students and executive trainees. Intrigued by the corporatizing of the pharmaceutical industry, he created a scenario (based on an actual 1969 incident) in which a company has a new drug with a projected $20 million profit. The catch: For each million the company nets, there is one death from side effects. The first twenty million meant twenty deaths, and so on thereafter.
Students and trainees were given five options, ranging from immediately pulling the drug from shelves--regulators stated cheaper, more effective pills without such grave side effects exist--to downplaying risks and promoting the drug heavily, creating a media-driven whitewash in which consumers could not discern problems, and therefore readily open their pockets.
The results? Zero took the first option; 79% chose the latter. As former NY Times journalist Melody Petersen writes in her new book, Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs (Sarah Chrichton Books), "For these students and trainees, who were playing the roles of the executives they would soon become, profits took precedence over patients."
As one can imagine by the book's subtitle, the above is not an isolated case study. In fact, it shows how the drive to maximize profits at any expense is built into the educational system by which students become executives. Petersen spends the majority of her book citing such examples, moving from hard facts and statistical data to personal interviews with people who have fallen victim to the marketing of pharmaceutical companies or, worse, have lost loved ones during the same process.
The varied and often disguised layers of pharmaceutical marketing and maneuvering begin at the outset, when Petersen reminds us that Americans spent $250 billion in 2005 on prescription drugs -- twice as much as we paid for higher education or new cars. This total is also greater than the population of "Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina combined." Sadly, this is due in part because our federal government is the only office in the developed world that does not control prescription drug prices. It leaves that to the companies themselves, a process that belittles the integrity of the medical profession--which is supposed to be about healing--by sticking to the idea that "the few the options, the higher the price; the greater the desperation, the greater the suffering, the higher the price."
Even more depressing are corporate payouts to doctors, the men and women who are supposed to represent the pinnacle of the healthcare profession. Petersen cites numerous examples of doctors receiving payola for prescribing certain drugs, like Dr. B.J. Wilder, who received a $401,350 check from Warner-Lambert to send himself and 125 medical residents to a luxury resort in Florida, or Dr. Ilo Leppik, who received a stipend of $303,600 to publish his book on epilepsy. Both were awarded those sums for the support they gave to Neurontin -- a drug that Pfizer (which came to own Warner-Lambert) had to pay $430 million in court fees for illegally marketing. An estimated 90% of prescriptions of the drug were for uses that the drug was not approved to treat, including attention deficit disorder and sexual dysfunction. Originally developed to combat epilepsy (and even then, not very well), it became a hit for the company for a variety of other "illnesses" which it did nothing for.
Again, this is not an isolated case by any means. Buying off doctors to promote prescriptions -- a practice which takes numerous forms, including "scientific" reports written by marketing companies and signed off by supposedly respected professionals, as well as partnering with them to help create diseases that don't necessarily exist--affects the majority of the industry. As Petersen often reminds us, paying off DJs to play music was regulated thanks to governmental intervention. When dealing with substances that can, and are, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans (the healthcare industry is the third biggest killer in the country, behind heart failure and cancer), however, the government and FDA remain mute.
I found myself getting angry at each page I turned. Yet it was an empowering rage, one based in knowledge. The book is like lifting the veil of ignorance that hangs over a country inundated with bright, colorful advertisements with perky stuffed animals and light violet skies promising us peace, equanimity and fun. The reality is anything but. In 2003, an executive from GlaxoSmithKline said that more than 90% of drugs "only work in 30 or 50 percent of the people," and their own tests found that certain drugs were only 25% effective. To maximize profits, though, they've encouraged the creation of a polypharmacy, where a person is on multiple prescriptions.
Often people are given one drug to battle one problem, and then another to counter the side effects of the first pill, and so on. This is bad enough when pushed on seniors, who rely on their doctors to help them enjoy their later years in as good of health as possible (and who, by the way, Petersen points out, are rarely if ever tested clinically when companies are trying out new drugs; these tests are almost always on young and healthy men and women). When our children became the focus of such marketing--between 2000-2004, prescriptions for sleeping pills in children age 10-19 increased 85% -- it is inexcusable.
Tragically, a drug often works no better than a sugar pill, yet the pharmaceutical industry is driving -- let's make that dominating -- our economy. Petersen projects that by 2015 one in every five dollars we earn will be feed back into healthcare. This might be justifiable if it meant that our health was getting better. To the contrary, we're actually declining in health as a nation, as our life expectancy rates have fallen far from the top of the list of "developed" worlds. How developed a nation can be when a small percentage of business executives is knowingly and purposefully promoting drugs that are killing fellow humans remains a question that Petersen does not, and cannot, answer. Thankfully, with this elucidating book, we can take that question into our own hands, and decide for ourselves how hooked on their tether we remain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)