I'm not sure of where this is going. In an earlier posting, Judi Kessler
described herself and stated her views in in the following terms:
"I am simply a sociologist who, before returning to school, practicing
nursing for almost 20 years and observed, first hand, the devastating
effects of mental illness. I do not doubt that SSRIs are over-prescribed,
as are antibiotics, allergy remedies, and, most recently, Viagra. This does
not, however, negate their effectiveness for folks who suffer from major
clinical depression."
>From Mr. Plinge's response to something else Ms. Kessler must have said, it
would seem that she greatly understated her qualifications. In addition to
being a sociologist with long time nursing experience, she is responsible
for the time Americans (and, I might add, Canadians) spend in their doctors'
and dentists' waiting rooms, for the array of prescription drugs Americans
(and Canadians) take, for the linkages between drug science and corporate
capitalism, and for the inactions of the American Medical Association.
Shame on you Ms. Kessler. Do your duty! Fix up the world!
Ed Weick
(613) 728-4630
Visit my website: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636
----- Original Message -----
From: J. Walter Plinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Lerner, Sally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Kessler, Judi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 1:58 AM
Subject: Prozac and the Blind
>
> Dear Judi
>
> Thank you for your concern about . . . uuuum - whatever it is that you are
> concerned about. I'm just wondering. I wrote a satyrical article about
Prozac
> and you made some vague objections. When I explained my article, you
responded
> with two additional letters, neither of which addressed any specific ideas
in my
> response or my original article.
>
> Are you feeling alright?
>
> As you said, my two years involvement in the medical field is "anecdotal"
while
> your 20 years qualifies you as an expert. I have little doubt that you are
good
> at what you do. My personal experience has been that it is difficult to
find a
> dumb nurse. On the other hand it is easy to find a naive nurse. While you
were
> cloistered for 20 years in your clinic I crossed the US four times,
studying and
> writing about the whole spectrum of the American Condition in real life.
I'll
> wager that I have dealt with more mentally unbalanced or clinically insane
> people than you; after all, you only see the ones who come to your office.
>
> Actually you did give a passing nod, to my objection that American
medicine
> treats only Symptoms and not Causes with, "Treating the causes is, in
itself,
> not enough...." implying that the Causes are being fully addressed and
only when
> necessary are the drugs handed out. Judi, get serious. Prescription drugs
today
> are a hot item in clinics as well as on the stock market. They are the
first
> line of defense in hospitals. According to BBC radio and the Seattle
Times, the
> 5th biggest cause of death in US hospitals is prescription drugs - they
are
> handed out virtually at random and, what is more disturbing, nobody is
testing
> the consequences of combining two or more of the 10,000 new chemicals
produced
> each year.
>
> I know that you as an individual don't have a large voice in national
matters
> but you could get out a bit more and inform yourself. Read a good book,
like,
> "When Corporatiions Rule the World," by David Korten... or "No Thanks
Uncle
> Sam," by Noel Mamere. Mamere's book is in French so if you can't find a
> translation, maybe I can help you out.
>
> And remember, you belong to an organization that has considerable clout:
the
> AMA. How active is the AMA in promoting research on multiple-chemical
effects?
>
> Last I heard, some 10% of the US population was on Prozac. Whether that
figure
> is actually 8% or 20% is not the point; whatever the figure is, it is a
LOT. And
> it excludes all the other behavior modifying drugs. The suggestion that
humans
> suffer from a genetic deficiency of Prozac in their bloodstreams is just
nutty.
> Some years ago Harper's magazine cited an executive of a pill making
corporation
> as predicting that by 2020, 80% of the US population would be on
"corrective"
> drug treatment like Prozac. It may be dificult to underestimate the
gullibility
> of the American public but some people are going to extremes to put that
to
> the test.
> How does the AMA stand on the subject of mind altering drugs for everyone?
>
> My local grocery store's (Shopi, in France) tv guide advises parents "Too
much
> time in front of the tv can provoke sleeping disorders and increased
agression."
> Sweden does not permit any advertizing aimed at children (on tv or
anywhere,
> and that includes the Saturday and Sunday morning cartoon/infomercials).
The
> harmful effects of tv are well known in many countries, but in the US,
where
> some 20 corporations control 80% of the media - that's radio, tv,
magazines, and
> newspapers - the story goes unreported. What is the AMA stand on unlimited
tv
> for kids? What is the AMA's stand on censorship of health issues?
>
> When I visit my dentist for an appointment I routinely find the waiting
room
> empty. That is because the person who is scheduled for an appointment, is
> already in the chair. Can it be that the French have mastered the waiting
> room technology? Or is it a comment on the American lack of self respect
> that they will put up with 2-3 hour waits. Does the AMA view long
> waits as a productive and beneficial part of health care?
>
> According to Molly Ivins, the US federal government recently launched a
> regimen of paying med schools for NOT training doctors. Does having
> fewer doctors have any impact on the time patients spend in waiting
> rooms? Will this help uninsured people get access to less costly medical
> care? How does the AMA feel about reduced costs for poor people such as
> permitting Africans to produce their own generic AIDS drugs and paying
> a reduced fee to patent holders? How would Hippocrates feel about the
> richest country in the world witholding medicine from the poor?
>
> In 1999, the British Parliament banned the sale of vitamine B-6 in doses
over
> 10mg (later overturned to avoid a riot in the health-food sector) as part
of an
> on-going attempt by drug manufacturers to make the sale of vitimins and
dietary
> suppliments prescription only, and to close down their competitors, the
natural
> food outlets. How does the AMA support the natural foods industry? I
understand
> that there is only one med school in the US, in Texas, that teaches
nutrition;
> it has a single four hour course. What is the view of the AMA on the value
of a
> good diet and what activities are they involved in to promote healthy
food?
>
> MK-Ultra, the 1960s CIA operation, focused on mind control through drugs;
what
> were their findings? Which drugs did they find were most effective? How
does the
> AMA stand on mind control issues? What specific social programs and
community
> activities are your patients who take Prozac involved in? Does Prozac help
> patients take part in making changes in their lives and in the society
around
> them or does it simply erase the desire for change?
>
> The US has the most expensive health care in the world, and, while
European,
> Cuban, South American, Canadian and Asian universal health care plans
prove
> less costly, Americans lead the world in obesity and consumption of
behavior
> modifying drugs. How does the AMA feel about universal health care?
>
> In the US, marijuana is classified as a 'Class A' drug along with heroin,
and
> while it has not caused a single death it is deemed to be dangerous enough
to
> jail some 250,000 people for using it. Meanwhile melanoma sufferers go
without.
> How many patients would not need Prozac if marijuana was available? How is
the
> AMA combatting this anomaly?
>
> My experience is that, in all of the above questions, the AMA's stance is
> foresquare in support of a vital and vigourous corporate bottom line. The
AMA
> gives not a damn for its patients. While you spend all your time with your
> professional work and your patients, and presumably spend your liesure
> time with your broker, you cannot see, or will not see
> (none so blind as those . . .) the rest of the world.
>
> Of course, this "science for profit" as Robert Bowd put it, is the same
> enterprise that replaced opium with heroin because heroin was "not
addictive."
> Then when heroin addiction was unveiled, they gave us morphine because
morphine
> is "not addictive." Another lie, but not to worry because soon they
invented
> Methdone which was "not addictive." We fell for it again; it appears
that
> nobody really tested Methdone because it has been found to be addictive.
Now the
> miracle of modern science has given us ABT594, a pain killer cobbed from a
> frog in Ecuador, ''200 times stronger than morphine'' and guess what; it's
"not
> addictive." Why am I skeptical.
>
> Please, if you cannot address the specific concerns listed above, don't
bother
> responding.
>
> JWP
>
>
