Jacob, Genene, and Sid, Paul, Joan, Jorge, and other PIEN list members...

This message is a composite reply:  a little simple economic theory, a
little scientific method, etc. etc.  I hope it is helpful in pulling
together some of the pieces of a subject with the potential to cause people
to feel powerless.  Instead, may the following help to empower you.  If what
I write seems simplistic and self-evident to some of you, please forgive me
[and hit that delete key pronto!].  I'm betting there are some for whom this
will be relevant.

I'm with Jacob in that I have no love for pharmaceutical companies, or
chemical industry "affiliate" companies in general...  I have experienced
the intransigence of an interlocking industrial corporation, that is part of
this overall segment of Capitalism, in a most personal way.  Namely, an
acute exposure to 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, the most common of
broadleaf herbicides and most definitely a toxin to humans when received in
sufficient dose).  I am "positive", in an anecdotal sense, that this is a
major contributing factor to "my" "idiopathic" PD.  Suffice it to say that
those responsible for the contamination event cared not a whit about my
future oncologic or neurologic disposition...

Having spent some serious time in the pesticide reform issue at the start of
the effort (20-24 years ago, following my acute contamination) I know that
the overall "chemical industry" has it's hands in both the pesticide and the
pharmaceutical industries.  Katie just mentioned DuPont re an orphan drug
that helps her and others.  A perfect example.  In my reform work I had the
honor of meeting many courageous people who had also been treated at best
poorly, at worst, maliciously by the chemical industry.  That Jacob smells a
rat is not surprising...  there are rats out there, and they STINK!

A rat, however, does not a conspiracy make.  Still, the skepticism and red
flag that Jacob throws up is worth noting.  Trusting absolutely
corporations, whose bottom line is money, is a risky position to take if you
(and that means US) are dependent on their forthrightness.  Having the
competitive "edge" and only putting forth products that improve the value of
your stock is most definitely what Capitalism is all about.  It is the
economic system we subscribe to, as a society.  It is not the philosophical
system I agree with.  It lacks the human element and does not have within
it's vocabulary the remotest concept of what "altruism" means, although
there are altruists operating "within the ranks".  There may be occasional
apparently generous acts, such as that mentioned by Katie, but
these are more likely the consequence of an overall corporate PR decision
that a "random act of kindness" would help the company profile, and hence
the value of the stock.  You can be certain that, if this program (for which
even I am grateful... keep 'em coming guys!) were cutting into profit
margins in any significant way...  well, it would be long gone!

Jorge gave some excellent attention to the incredible profits being made by
the pharmaceutical industry.  Thank you Jorge!

Then comes Paul, with an elegant and convincing angle on motivation ala
Capitalism...  good stuff!  I'll have to agree with his logic!  It's
certainly plausible.  And then there was that "Big Word"  eleemosynary...
that one sent me to the encyclopedic unabridged Webster's...  I like it!
And Jorge, again, confirmed Paul's logic.

Still, logic and all, there is "something" about corporations whose
existence is predicated upon making profits on the issues of concern to
people with health problems.  Especially when the corporations in question
are making MEGAprofits!!!   Lines of reasoning, logic, motives, profits, the
pain and suffering of the medication-dependent...  it can get murky.  It is
important to respect that for some of Us the murkiness is very real indeed.
Therefore, if you are among these ranks, I wholeheartedly support the
following:

Maxim #1 for July 29, 2001:    QUESTION AUTHORITY!

We Baby Boomers like to think this is part of our '60's incubation period...
maybe, maybe not.  Seems timeless to me.  It keeps "Them" on their toes,
whoever "They" might be;  corporate honcho or political lackey, it matters
not.  If however, "They" think "We" are slacking off...  "They" will try to
get away with murder.   Example of repute:  the tobacco industry.  I rest my
case.

Moving on to Phase II of this composite email, the Voice of Reason in the
form of Genene spoke up quite clearly.  Jacob had read the results of the
study to be "ineffective".  I'm sure that's how "they" reported it.  Note
the lower case "t" in "they".  These are the workers in the trenches, not
the honchos for whom the "T" is reserved...  Scientists, whose ranks I
joined a while ago precisely because of my experience with the pesticide
reform movement, are very conservative.  That is the nature of the job
description.  If you claim too much from too little you will be TOAST
professionally!  You stick closely to the predictions you stated in your
hypotheses, and if you don't meet them you reject a particular hypothesis.
In this particular study (a warmer, fuzzier term for "experiment") the
apparent lack of adequately significant results necessarily requires "them"
(small "t" again...) to thus label the experiment as "failed".  That's
called the Scientific Method, no ifs ands or buts!  A press release for a
failed drug trail would interpret "failed" into language for the general
public, and a reasonable term to use would be "ineffective".

Genene then proceeded to explain what the next experiment (okay, "study", if
it feels better to you!) intends to address.  There's that Scientific Method
again!  Take the results of experiment #1 and devise a second experiment.
Actually, in Science (capital "S" denotes the "larger system"...  hope
you're getting my "pattern"...), "failed" experiments are often far more
"useful" than ones that are "successful".  Why?  Because, IF you get it
right the first time, THEN that means you already know the answer (that is
to say, your predicted results, which are based on your hypothesis, tell you
that you know how things are working already).  So, it is good to "fail", in
the scientific sense.  It means "they", the scientists, among whom there are
MANY Altruists, are doing their Jobs;  looking for effective therapies.
Example science Altruist of the 1990's:  the Brown and Williamson whistle
blower who had the courage to come forward, not realizing that in so doing
his life would forever be radically altered in every conceivable way.  [this
is not an example of good hypothesis testing, but I thought that one would
take up too much space...  believe me, there are LOTS of Altruist Scientists
out there, and even a few Scientist Altruists...]

This is NOT to reduce the importance of Jacob's skepticism.  The Rats are
still running in packs (I believe...).

However, the press agent and the scientists have got to do a better job of
explaining to people what is REALLY happening!  If "they" don't tell Us
about the next phase then how the heck are We supposed to Know?  Thankfully,
We have Genene!

Thank you Genene!

Joan offered an important insight:  the inappropriate "bedding" of
University Research by Corporate America.  Having been there (for a
while...) I can tell you that "This IS True"!  In probably all scientific
disciplines, even the ones that don't have a corporate link, like ecology.
One of the associated problems is that few smaller institutions can compete
with the larger universities for major equipment and other infrastructure
grants, which are essential for doing the really high-tech stuff.  A top
notch post-doc who wants to make an exciting career for herself would go
where the equipment and the money are.  Purely practical reasoning.  Small
institutions with megabuck alumni can sometimes compensate, but it is
difficult for these institutions to provide the diversity of high caliber
researchers needed in today's interdisciplinary research programs.  Science
isn't unidisciplinary anymore.  Most of the cutting edge stuff integrates 2,
3, maybe 4, even 5 disciplines.  For example, one aspect of global climate
change is the contribution of biogeochemical processes to atmospheric
chemistry and physics.  Count 'em:  (1) bio, (2) geo, (3) chemistry, (4)
atmospheric chemistry, (5) atmospheric physics.  And this is just one little
piece of the studies/experiments on why the atmosphere is warming (a
physical parameter) in response to, for example, tropical deforestation (a
biological parameter).  It's a jungle out there [pun intended!]

So, yes, get involved in keeping the funding by the Feds fair for the
future!  But don't be surprised if you can only make a small dent...  the
Problem
is very deeply seated.

Thus, maxim #2 for July 29, 2001 is 2 quotes:

"Science is always simple and profound.  It is only the half truths that are
dangerous."  George Bernard Shaw

"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday
thinking."  Albert Einstein

Onward and Upward!  Upon the Scene Cometh Sid, bearing tidings of Good
Will...  and a constructive place for energy to be put to good use!  Way to
go Perry and Company!  One of the truly wonderful things about Democracy is
the freedom to congregate.  We also get to Question the Authority of our
Government, and of Corporations...  I definitely hope that PWP's effort is
useful and successful.  I'll be checking-in with them to learn more and see
if I can contribute.

Thank you Sid!

Efforts like this need worker bees (this is a good thing to be, no slight
[or pun!] intended!) AND they NEED constructive skeptics!  Like Jacob!!
[Ahhh, the circularity of Existence...]  A little Critical Thinking by an
aware and constructive Skeptic can go a loooooong way towards uncovering the
vestiges of Rat behavior, while concurrently teaching the Skeptic some new
"tricks", like How-to-Tell-an-Altruist-from-a-Rat....  and...  the work gets
done!  Let Sid's email be a Call to Action for those who were angered by the
thought of conspiracy, or felt powerless, or have skills to offer.  That
should cover about 20% of Us...  maybe more...  2000 x 20% = 400 !!  Heck,
this project will be completed in no time!

Having said it before...  Sid's constructivism doesn't eliminate the need
for better communication from Science to the Public, not does it negate
Jacob's reasonable skepticism...

Maxim #3:  a quote from the Chilean progressive movement of the late 1970's
which culminated in the assassination of (president ?  president-elect ?)
Salvador Allende by the coup d'etat lead by Augusto Pinochet and funded by
our very own CIA...

"El Pueblo unido jamas sera vencido!"
"The People united will never be defeated!"

Sounds like Thomas Jefferson, to me...

[Spanish speaking list members, PLEASE send me [and only me...] the correct
spelling if this is wrong.  Thanks!]

Thanks for Reading my Reasoning...

Yours Respectfully,

Marla

Marla L. Gillham
PO Box 343
Yachats, OR   97498-0343
541.547.4090
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Jacob M. Drollinger <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 11:16 AM
Subject: Shot down again


> Dear friends,
>
> The pharmacueicals industry and the medical establishment has once again
shot
> down a potentially promising treatment by labeling it "ineffective."
NIL-A,
> the first (and probably last) neuroimmunophilin drug has, it seems, gone
the
> same route as GDNF and fetal tissue implants. "No conclusive evidence to
say
> it improves P.D. symptoms" is what they say. When the truth of the matter
is,
> the people responsible for the findings, i.e. the medical and drug
community,
> have too much at stake.
> Think about it for a minute: why would an industry, supported by over a
> million people (the numbers as you know are growing daily), all of a
sudden
> offer them a cure, thereby cutting off their means of income, which is
pretty
> substancial.
> Stem cells will be next, I am sure. If there is no possible way to prove
them
> ineffective, I am sure that research and possible treatment will be
outlawed.
> Call me a pessimist, but do you like apples?
> I call it a conspiracy.
> How do you like them apples?
>
> Jacob
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn