 |
 |
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