Hi, Charlotte --
Your letter is good, although I have some misgivings about exposing the general public to the idea of homeo-prophylaxis, primarily because of apprehension that it may bring the AMA and "quackbuster" friends out of the woodwork.
As a practical matter, I have a hard time believing there's going to be insistence on getting vaccinated. I'm more upset about the way Bush shielded the drug companies from liability: injured parties will have to sue the Federal Government for compensation. Surely it would have been simpler and more cost-effective to set up a fund to cover vaccine-related injuries. But that, of course, presumes the current administration gives a damn about its own people.
It's beginning increasingly to resemble Germany in the 1930s.
Peace,
Dale
-
Sara Klein Ridgley PhD
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:48 pm
Re:
DMH wrote:
Dale, Charlotte and everyone,
As much as we'd like to believe that the 'federal government' will take
care of the compensation, maybe reading this article that came out in
the NY Times (especially the last two paragraphs that spell it out....)
will wake us all up....
I agree that in this climate, we should lay low, as there are definitely
forces at work right now that will not like the fact that there are
Homeopaths out there who are capable of curing both the disease and the
sequale of the vaccination...
And Dale, I agree that it is beginning to resemble Germany of the
1930's. Others also feel like that, and there is a wild website that
shows the parallels to a scarey level. Here is the URL (but for only
those who are so inclined...)
http://www.hermes-press.com/nazification_step3.htm
And now, to the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/politics/21DRUG.html
Election Gives Drug Industry New Influence in Congress By ROBERT PEAR
and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - Having spent more than $30 million to help elect
their allies to Congress, the major drug companies are devising ways to
capitalize on their electoral success by securing favorable new
legislation and countering the pressure that lawmakers in both parties
feel to lower the cost of prescription drugs, industry officials say.
The industry's hand appears stronger now than at any other time in
recent years, a result of its large donations to political parties and
candidates and millions of dollars spent on television advertising by
industry-financed groups. The money was spent overwhelmingly on behalf
of Republicans, who now control both houses of Congress.
Executives of the major drug manufacturers met last week at the
Westfield International Conference Center, near Dulles International
Airport in Northern Virginia, to plan ways to turn that influence into
legislative victories.
The executives included Robert Essner, president of Wyeth; Peter R.
Dolan, chairman of Bristol-Myers Squibb; Sidney Taurel, chairman of Eli
Lilly; and Raymond V. Gilmartin, chairman of Merck. They discussed
specific ways to leverage their investment in this year's elections to
advance their agenda on Capitol Hill, participants said.
The meeting was described by an industry lobbyist as a "strategic
planning retreat" and "deep philosophical conversations about our
message for 2003." A pervasive theme was how to block proposals that
could erode profits by limiting drug prices or making it easier for
people to buy low-cost generic versions of brand-name medicines.
Drug industry executives who attended the conference, put on by the
industry's main lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America, said they were delighted with the election
results, yet cautious and apprehensive, given the pressure that
Republicans as well as Democrats face from voters demanding lower drug
prices.
"Sure, we will have more access," one executive said. "Our hand is
stronger because of the election results, but who knows how much
stronger it really is."
Already, industry executives have been encouraged by a recent move to
insert a provision in the domestic security bill limiting the legal
liability of vaccine manufacturers like Eli Lilly. On Tuesday, several
senators from both parties said Republican leaders had promised to alter
the provision next year, so it would apply only to vaccines made in the
future.
But today, aides to Representative Tom DeLay, the incoming House
majority leader, said Mr. DeLay had agreed only to consider such
proposals. Aides to several Republican senators troubled by the
provision said they were confident that the deal would stand.
Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, a frequent drug
company critic, said: "With the election, they certainly have more
friends in Congress. They should be feeling their oats these days."
The pharmaceutical industry topped the Fortune 500 list of the most
profitable industries, providing investors with an 18.5 percent return
on revenues last year. But many drug companies report sagging profits
in 2002.
The industry's No. 1 goal is to shape legislation that both parties
advocate to provide prescription benefits to the 40 million elderly and
disabled people in the Medicare program. What the industry fears most
is price controls or any federal effort to establish a list of preferred
drugs that leaves out other medications.
Democrats want to give the government a large role in managing Medicare
drug benefits, while Republicans would rely more on competing private
health plans, insurance companies and pharmaceutical benefits managers.
The industry is also fighting legislation that would speed the approval
and marketing of generic drugs. The Senate passed such a bill in July,
with support from 49 Democrats and 28 Republicans, but it died in the House.
So far, most Republicans have backed the brand-name drug industry in its
battle with generic drug makers. But brand-name drug makers worry that
the pressure to limit drug spending, and the cost of Medicare drug
benefits, will lead more Republicans to promote the use of generic drugs.
The industry's agenda also includes these items:
¶Drug companies adamantly oppose legislation making it easier for
consumers, pharmacists and wholesalers to import drugs from Canada,
where prices are usually lower. Such imports could endanger public
health, they say.
¶Drug makers oppose Congressional efforts to limit or discourage drug
advertising on television and in newspapers and magazines. Drug makers
say such advertisements convey useful information, but critics say they
contribute to explosive growth in drug spending.
¶Many pharmaceutical companies want to limit damages in lawsuits filed
by people who say they have been injured by the use of certain drugs.
Many drug makers have been named as defendants in class action suits.
Representative Rob Portman of Ohio, part of the House Republican
leadership team, said, "There is a consensus now in Washington, not just
in the House but in the Senate and at the White House, that we need to
provide seniors with a prescription drug benefit under Medicare."
On Oct. 21, President Bush proposed a regulation to get generic drugs
to the market faster. Mr. Portman said, "It's possible we could see
legislation there as well," to codify the president's proposal, or
something like it.
Over all, the pharmaceutical and health products industry gave about $20
million this year to House and Senate campaigns and national political
parties, with three-fourths of the money going to Republican candidates
and party committees, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive
Politics. Top donors included Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer
and GlaxoSmithKline.
While those contributions put the industry among the largest donors, the
totals actually understate its influence in Washington. In the last six
years, according to Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader,
the industry has spent close to $500 million on lobbying, including 600
lobbyists that includes about two dozen former members of Congress.
The industry has directed much of its largess to lawmakers who control
the fate of legislation affecting prescription drugs. The chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, received
$114,000 in contributions from executives of drug companies and
manufacturers of health care products and from industry political action
committees through Oct. 21, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics. The panel's senior Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley
of Iowa, who is soon to be chairman, took in about $100,000.
In the House, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Representative Billy Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana, received about
$100,000. Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, the panel's
senior Democrat, received a similar amount.
Through Oct. 21, the largest recipient of direct contributions from the
pharmaceuticals and health products industry - close to $200,000 - was
Representative Nancy L. Johnson, the Connecticut Republican who is
chairwoman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health.
Mrs. Johnson, who won re-election by defeating Representative Jim
Maloney, a Democrat, also benefited from almost $700,000 that United
Seniors spent on television advertisements in Hartford in the last two
months of the campaign, according to the Wisconsin Advertising Project
of the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
Dale, Charlotte and everyone,
As much as we'd like to believe that the 'federal government' will take
care of the compensation, maybe reading this article that came out in
the NY Times (especially the last two paragraphs that spell it out....)
will wake us all up....
I agree that in this climate, we should lay low, as there are definitely
forces at work right now that will not like the fact that there are
Homeopaths out there who are capable of curing both the disease and the
sequale of the vaccination...
And Dale, I agree that it is beginning to resemble Germany of the
1930's. Others also feel like that, and there is a wild website that
shows the parallels to a scarey level. Here is the URL (but for only
those who are so inclined...)
http://www.hermes-press.com/nazification_step3.htm
And now, to the NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/politics/21DRUG.html
Election Gives Drug Industry New Influence in Congress By ROBERT PEAR
and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - Having spent more than $30 million to help elect
their allies to Congress, the major drug companies are devising ways to
capitalize on their electoral success by securing favorable new
legislation and countering the pressure that lawmakers in both parties
feel to lower the cost of prescription drugs, industry officials say.
The industry's hand appears stronger now than at any other time in
recent years, a result of its large donations to political parties and
candidates and millions of dollars spent on television advertising by
industry-financed groups. The money was spent overwhelmingly on behalf
of Republicans, who now control both houses of Congress.
Executives of the major drug manufacturers met last week at the
Westfield International Conference Center, near Dulles International
Airport in Northern Virginia, to plan ways to turn that influence into
legislative victories.
The executives included Robert Essner, president of Wyeth; Peter R.
Dolan, chairman of Bristol-Myers Squibb; Sidney Taurel, chairman of Eli
Lilly; and Raymond V. Gilmartin, chairman of Merck. They discussed
specific ways to leverage their investment in this year's elections to
advance their agenda on Capitol Hill, participants said.
The meeting was described by an industry lobbyist as a "strategic
planning retreat" and "deep philosophical conversations about our
message for 2003." A pervasive theme was how to block proposals that
could erode profits by limiting drug prices or making it easier for
people to buy low-cost generic versions of brand-name medicines.
Drug industry executives who attended the conference, put on by the
industry's main lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America, said they were delighted with the election
results, yet cautious and apprehensive, given the pressure that
Republicans as well as Democrats face from voters demanding lower drug
prices.
"Sure, we will have more access," one executive said. "Our hand is
stronger because of the election results, but who knows how much
stronger it really is."
Already, industry executives have been encouraged by a recent move to
insert a provision in the domestic security bill limiting the legal
liability of vaccine manufacturers like Eli Lilly. On Tuesday, several
senators from both parties said Republican leaders had promised to alter
the provision next year, so it would apply only to vaccines made in the
future.
But today, aides to Representative Tom DeLay, the incoming House
majority leader, said Mr. DeLay had agreed only to consider such
proposals. Aides to several Republican senators troubled by the
provision said they were confident that the deal would stand.
Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, a frequent drug
company critic, said: "With the election, they certainly have more
friends in Congress. They should be feeling their oats these days."
The pharmaceutical industry topped the Fortune 500 list of the most
profitable industries, providing investors with an 18.5 percent return
on revenues last year. But many drug companies report sagging profits
in 2002.
The industry's No. 1 goal is to shape legislation that both parties
advocate to provide prescription benefits to the 40 million elderly and
disabled people in the Medicare program. What the industry fears most
is price controls or any federal effort to establish a list of preferred
drugs that leaves out other medications.
Democrats want to give the government a large role in managing Medicare
drug benefits, while Republicans would rely more on competing private
health plans, insurance companies and pharmaceutical benefits managers.
The industry is also fighting legislation that would speed the approval
and marketing of generic drugs. The Senate passed such a bill in July,
with support from 49 Democrats and 28 Republicans, but it died in the House.
So far, most Republicans have backed the brand-name drug industry in its
battle with generic drug makers. But brand-name drug makers worry that
the pressure to limit drug spending, and the cost of Medicare drug
benefits, will lead more Republicans to promote the use of generic drugs.
The industry's agenda also includes these items:
¶Drug companies adamantly oppose legislation making it easier for
consumers, pharmacists and wholesalers to import drugs from Canada,
where prices are usually lower. Such imports could endanger public
health, they say.
¶Drug makers oppose Congressional efforts to limit or discourage drug
advertising on television and in newspapers and magazines. Drug makers
say such advertisements convey useful information, but critics say they
contribute to explosive growth in drug spending.
¶Many pharmaceutical companies want to limit damages in lawsuits filed
by people who say they have been injured by the use of certain drugs.
Many drug makers have been named as defendants in class action suits.
Representative Rob Portman of Ohio, part of the House Republican
leadership team, said, "There is a consensus now in Washington, not just
in the House but in the Senate and at the White House, that we need to
provide seniors with a prescription drug benefit under Medicare."
On Oct. 21, President Bush proposed a regulation to get generic drugs
to the market faster. Mr. Portman said, "It's possible we could see
legislation there as well," to codify the president's proposal, or
something like it.
Over all, the pharmaceutical and health products industry gave about $20
million this year to House and Senate campaigns and national political
parties, with three-fourths of the money going to Republican candidates
and party committees, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive
Politics. Top donors included Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer
and GlaxoSmithKline.
While those contributions put the industry among the largest donors, the
totals actually understate its influence in Washington. In the last six
years, according to Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader,
the industry has spent close to $500 million on lobbying, including 600
lobbyists that includes about two dozen former members of Congress.
The industry has directed much of its largess to lawmakers who control
the fate of legislation affecting prescription drugs. The chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, received
$114,000 in contributions from executives of drug companies and
manufacturers of health care products and from industry political action
committees through Oct. 21, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics. The panel's senior Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley
of Iowa, who is soon to be chairman, took in about $100,000.
In the House, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Representative Billy Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana, received about
$100,000. Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, the panel's
senior Democrat, received a similar amount.
Through Oct. 21, the largest recipient of direct contributions from the
pharmaceuticals and health products industry - close to $200,000 - was
Representative Nancy L. Johnson, the Connecticut Republican who is
chairwoman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health.
Mrs. Johnson, who won re-election by defeating Representative Jim
Maloney, a Democrat, also benefited from almost $700,000 that United
Seniors spent on television advertisements in Hartford in the last two
months of the campaign, according to the Wisconsin Advertising Project
of the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
-
Sara Klein Ridgley PhD
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:48 pm
Re:
Sara Klein Ridgley PhD wrote:
Sorry, this remark did not belong to the article I posted. It belongs
to the following Reuter's report... See the last two paragraphs.
US Senate keeps vaccine language in homeland bill
Last Updated: 2002-11-20 10:00:16 -0400 (Reuters Health)
By Julie Rovner WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - The US Senate on Tuesday
turned back efforts to eliminate provisions from the homeland security
bill that Democrats said benefited special interests. One such
provision would apparently block lawsuits against the drugmaker Eli
Lilly concerning a vaccine preservative.
The 52-47 vote to defeat the amendment to remove the contentious
provisions came only after House and Senate Republican leaders promised
to revisit the vaccine provision and two other provisions immediately
after Congress returns in January.
Maine Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins flatly refused
to vote down the amendment--which would have struck a half dozen
different sections of the bill--until they received that assurance not
only from their own leaders, but also from House Speaker Dennis Hastert
(R-IL), who was finally reached by phone while traveling in Turkey.
The House last week completed its work and tentatively adjourned for the
year. House leaders had said that if the Senate changed the homeland
security bill, House members would not be able to return to consider the
changes until December. The Senate approved the bill, which creates a
new Department of Homeland Security, by a vote of 90-9 on Tuesday.
A spokesman for Snowe said his boss was assured that when Congress
considers an omnibus spending bill in early January, the vaccine
language will be changed to clarify that it would not block lawsuits
already filed against Lilly charging that the mercury-based preservative
Thimerosal caused autism in some children.
"I was deeply concerned about the egregious, eleventh-hour addition of
special interest provisions to the Homeland Security legislation, and
spoke against inclusion of these provisions during a meeting of Senators
before the vote, because I didn't believe we could afford to let them
stand," said Snowe.
Added Collins, "I am pleased that my Senate colleagues and I were able
to ensure that a bill creating the department will reach the president's
desk this year (and) at the same time, that three troubling provisions
hastily added to the bill without the benefit of debate or committee
review will be corrected as soon as possible."
The language in question redefines "vaccine" to include any ingredient
listed on the label approved by the US Food and Drug Administration,
thus apparently requiring families of children allegedly injured by
Thimerosal to submit claims through the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Trust Fund.
But aides to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said
the language in the bill would actually preclude families from
collecting compensation from that fund, because it does not change the
Internal Revenue Code to allow the fund to pay for such injuries.
"It appears that the effect of the provision is to preclude court
lawsuits over vaccine ingredients or components, but it also precludes
compensation from the Fund, because the bill does not change the
disbursement purposes for the Fund," the aides wrote in a memo.
Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.
Sorry, this remark did not belong to the article I posted. It belongs
to the following Reuter's report... See the last two paragraphs.
US Senate keeps vaccine language in homeland bill
Last Updated: 2002-11-20 10:00:16 -0400 (Reuters Health)
By Julie Rovner WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - The US Senate on Tuesday
turned back efforts to eliminate provisions from the homeland security
bill that Democrats said benefited special interests. One such
provision would apparently block lawsuits against the drugmaker Eli
Lilly concerning a vaccine preservative.
The 52-47 vote to defeat the amendment to remove the contentious
provisions came only after House and Senate Republican leaders promised
to revisit the vaccine provision and two other provisions immediately
after Congress returns in January.
Maine Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins flatly refused
to vote down the amendment--which would have struck a half dozen
different sections of the bill--until they received that assurance not
only from their own leaders, but also from House Speaker Dennis Hastert
(R-IL), who was finally reached by phone while traveling in Turkey.
The House last week completed its work and tentatively adjourned for the
year. House leaders had said that if the Senate changed the homeland
security bill, House members would not be able to return to consider the
changes until December. The Senate approved the bill, which creates a
new Department of Homeland Security, by a vote of 90-9 on Tuesday.
A spokesman for Snowe said his boss was assured that when Congress
considers an omnibus spending bill in early January, the vaccine
language will be changed to clarify that it would not block lawsuits
already filed against Lilly charging that the mercury-based preservative
Thimerosal caused autism in some children.
"I was deeply concerned about the egregious, eleventh-hour addition of
special interest provisions to the Homeland Security legislation, and
spoke against inclusion of these provisions during a meeting of Senators
before the vote, because I didn't believe we could afford to let them
stand," said Snowe.
Added Collins, "I am pleased that my Senate colleagues and I were able
to ensure that a bill creating the department will reach the president's
desk this year (and) at the same time, that three troubling provisions
hastily added to the bill without the benefit of debate or committee
review will be corrected as soon as possible."
The language in question redefines "vaccine" to include any ingredient
listed on the label approved by the US Food and Drug Administration,
thus apparently requiring families of children allegedly injured by
Thimerosal to submit claims through the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Trust Fund.
But aides to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said
the language in the bill would actually preclude families from
collecting compensation from that fund, because it does not change the
Internal Revenue Code to allow the fund to pay for such injuries.
"It appears that the effect of the provision is to preclude court
lawsuits over vaccine ingredients or components, but it also precludes
compensation from the Fund, because the bill does not change the
disbursement purposes for the Fund," the aides wrote in a memo.
Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.