You're kidding, right...?
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Edward R Weick wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> >
>
