]]>
]]>I watched this documentary on BYU Television on the 4th, as I do every year at this time. It is such a great movie, go buy it for your family library!
You can watch it live on BYU tv on July 11th, or watch it streamed from the internet.
]]>Drug Companies paying doctors?
]]>
The political platform of Ron Paul is the ONLY constitutionally based ideology that will save America's future for our children and grandchildren. May his presidential campaign be a beacon for us Freedom Lovers for decades to come.
]]>"Some say complacency in the industry about the threat the Internet posed is to blame for the current quagmire."
Sniff, sniff.....
Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford have failed to disclose millions in payments from Big Pharma, an Iowa senator charges
"Grassley serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. In early June, he released information alleging a group of Harvard psychiatrists received more than $4 million from drug companies that they didn't report to the university. On June 23, he singled out another prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Alan Schatzberg of Stanford, saying the university should have demanded more stringent disclosure from its faculty member.
The senator alleged in the Congressional Record that Schatzberg failed to report to Stanford some payments from 2000 to 2006 from Eli Lilly (LLY) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) for consulting and other services. Grassley also chastised Schatzberg for not fully informing the university about the value of his personal stake in a drug development company he co-founded—although the psychiatrist appears to have followed Stanford's disclosure rules.
"I am concerned that Stanford might not have been able to adequately monitor the degree of Dr. Schatzberg's conflicts of interest," Grassley said in a June 23 letter to Stanford President John Hennessy that was published in the Congressional Record. The senator suggested the university reexamine its disclosure policies.
Concerned about the influence of drug industry money on patient care, Grassley began investigating physicians at research universities across the country last year. The senator believes his findings will help generate support for a bill he is co-sponsoring that would require drug and medical device companies to report any payment to a physician exceeding $500. Doctors' names and details about the payments would be posted on a Web site. "The public relies on the advice of doctors and leading researchers," Grassley said in an e-mail to BusinessWeek. "The public has a right to know about financial relationships between those doctors and the drug companies who make the pharmaceuticals prescribed by doctors."
Amen and Amen.
Controversy over a Pfizer antismoking drug is fueling debate about whether patients should be told of corporate ties
QUOTE:
"In January and then again in May 2008, Pfizer added warnings to Chantix's label saying patients should be watched for unusual psychiatric symptoms such as suicidal thoughts. The company says in an e-mail that it sought to give doctors "more direct guidance" on using the drug.
On May 21, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit group in Horsham, Pa., released a paper based on 3,063 reports of "adverse events" submitted to the FDA by people taking Chantix. Among the findings: 227 had suicidal thoughts or behaviors, and 525 said they had acted with hostility or aggression. Pfizer has sent a Chantix team on the road to speak to financial analysts and journalists. Still, some Wall Street analysts fear that the FDA will require Pfizer to add a "black box"—one of the strictest warnings that can appear on a label—to draw more attention to side effects.
Steinberg says he might revert to prescribing more patches and gum if Chantix acquires a black box. But for now he adds: "If someone is doing well for six months, and they say, 'I think if I stop [taking Chantix] I might relapse to smoking,' I would feel comfortable continuing that medication."
Yet another drug with psychiatric side effects.
Bleech!!
]]>
"Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are "anti-choice."
For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats' "energy" policies.
Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles.
...Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska's barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!
We'd be gushing oil now -- except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.
Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR's 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil.
The other party -- plus John McCain -- ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!
They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices."
Really good insights....
]]>Here is a replay of a montage I made for my mother.
]]>
Paul told me they had a blast!
Good Morning America posted the video and story that ran on sunday morning on their web site. Go check out this link to see the story. And the Comments.
Here is the comment I left on the site:
"PS: I don't have time to respond to any more comments by Dr. Tuteur."
It is my humble opinion that party pooper Dr. Amy Tutor, the bloggin' doc with a personality disorder and ax to grind against home birth, is a paid hack for pharmacuetical companies. As a blogging doctor she advocates a 39 week c-section as the best birth choice for babes and mothers. Anyone with half a brain knows that major surgery is far more risky for mom and babe than a natural vaginal birth.
And hey, she has the Big Pharma funded study to back up her claim - so you nasty, wasty home birthers just shut up, because nothing you will ever say will ever ever ever change her mind or get her to accept that family centered birth has anything at all, ever, to offer to a husband and wife relationship or help bond the family with the new child.
Only thing to do with someone like her is to blow her a big fat raspberry as you orgasmically push your baby out into his/her fathers hands. She is the killjoy of the homebirth movement. I debated her all last summer. But Dr. Crappen pulled the debate hosted on his blog.
The Salon debate was fun and my personal favorite, the unassisted childbirth debate hosted at the Washington Post.
What rockin good times we had last summer! She just magically appears any time someone mentions home birth on the internet.....What a busy beaver!
Check out this thread to see more about Dr. Amy!
Posted by:
JennyMHatch 8:25 PM
Lately Ben and I have been playing alot of Monopoly. He loves it and we have both enjoyed the leisure hours spent playing this fun Capitalistic board game.
These past few days I have been pondering the recent document TMZ published from the American Medical Association.
The OB's currently enjoy a near monopoly with birth in America. And the usual suspects are claiming that AMA resolution 205 on Home Deliveries statement is NOT a step towards criminalizing home birth. It says:
"RESOLVED, That our AMA develop model legislation in support of the concept that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital, or a birthing center within a hospital complex, that meets standards jointly outlined by the AAP and ACOG, or in a freestanding birthing center that meets the standards of the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, or the American Association of Birth Centers."
Now, I don't know what all of you think "model legislation" implys, but to me it leans towards outlawing or banning/criminalizing homebirth and homebirthing mothers.
Or making the rules of engagement so tightly conformed that only a woman between the ages of 34 and 35 who has already sucessfully given birth to four children vaginally in the hospital, who only gains 23 pounds during her pregnancy, who has an ambulance waiting in the driveway, who goes into labor at midnight at week 39 of gestation, and lives within four minutes of a NICU (with pre paid doctor standing by), and who pays out of pocket four thousand dollars to the MEDwife who has been trained, credentialed, and sanitized by the AMA, will be allowed to give birth at home.
So for the twelve women in America who meet the criteria outlined.....You Go GIRLS!!! Have your babies at home. The American Medical Association says you can if, and only IF you meet their "model legislation" rules of engagement.
The rest of us, who have previous c-section scars, who have bled out after a birth, who have been troubled with post partum emotional illness, and/or who dare to go past our due dates with a ten month gestator well, sorry Mama, you are NOT WORTHY to give birth at home, because we have RISKED YOU OUT!! Too bad...so sad. Now conform to our rules or we will take your baby away, lock you up in jail, and rip your family apart...because hey, we are the Gods of Modern Medicine and we know what is best for you and your family!!!
Barf!! Gag, Gag...
More bloggers weigh in on this topic:
]]>
To help class members understand the meaning of the sacrament and to encourage them to partake of the sacrament worthily.
Homeschoolers' fate hangs on hearing results
Court's earlier opinion said parents don't have right to teach children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 20, 2008
6:11 pm Eastern
"The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in the Rachel L. case, the startling ruling released in February in which the judges concluded there was no constitutional or statutory provision for parents to homeschool their children.
The case immediately sparked nationwide outrage, up to the White House and Congress, which approved a resolution calling for a rehearing, and the court panel's judges eventually scheduled new arguments in the dispute, effectively overturning their own earlier ruling.
Kevin Snider, chief counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, is to argue the legality of homeschooling under both state law and constitutional law as a representative of the private Christian school that provided the overarching program in which the family participated.
An estimated 166,000 children are being homeschooled in California, and their future also will be argued by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who represents the father in the case, along with the Alliance Defense Fund.]]>
QUOTE:
"Well, well, well. Look who’s censoring the Internet. It’s Andrew Cuomo, attorney general of the Empire State. On June 11, Cuomo announced an agreement with three of the nation’s largest Internet service providers — Sprint, Time Warner, and Verizon — to block access to child pornography and eliminate such content from their networks wherever possible. Negotiations are ongoing with two other, as yet unnamed, service providers.
....Culture has consequences. Kristol was right when he argued that “Bearbaiting and cockfighting are prohibited only in part out of compassion for the animals; the main reason is that such spectacles were felt to debase and brutalize the citizenry who flocked to witness them.” We do, as Kristol held, have a proper concern with the way people entertain themselves in public. I would go further and suggest that viewing child porn — even in private — should be as difficult as we can make it. Censor away Mr. Attorney General — and broaden your net."
I could not agree more....only thing left to do with these child porn smut merchants is to castrate, lock em up, and throw away the key....
"On the heels of shocking revelations that top psychiatric researcher Dr. Joseph Biederman secretly took $1.6 million from drug companies while conducting psychotropic drug experiments on children, it has been learned that Dr. Biederman is now one of the key collaborators behind the latest efforts to discredit St. John's Wort. In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and widely reported in the mainstream media, Dr. Biederman and fellow cohorts "concluded" that the St. John's Wort herb is useless in treating ADHD in children.
What's astonishing about this study, as you'll learn in this article, is that all the children used in the study were given inactive forms of the St. John's Wort herb where the active ingredients had been oxidized and rendered useless! In other words, this clinical trial, which was widely reported in the mainstream media with headlines like "St. John's Wort Found Useless!" didn't test the herb's active ingredients at all! It sort of makes you wonder about the agenda of the people running the study, doesn't it?"
Why am I NOT surprised???
