Of Cancer and the Cold War.

Susan Chambre at Monthly Review takes a look at Ellen Leopold's new book, Under the Radar: Cancer and the Cold War. I'm beside myself with anticipation of this book's arrival here. To me, it's a new lens through which to view the subjugation of patients' rights for the sake of medical and technological advancement. By looking at cancer and the cold war, Leopold, according to Chambre, writes that it's a:

a provocative thesis about the forces that shaped cancer research and care in the United States. She points out that

Many of the features of our response to cancer today can….[b]e traced back to the aspirations of the Cold War. From the 1950’s through the 1980’s, the disease was uniquely intertwined with the characteristic undertakings and covert operations of the period. Almost every aspect of the current approach to the disease bears the imprint of this Cold War entanglement. The special terror and guilt that cancer evokes, the prominence of radiation therapies in the treatment arsenal, the current bias toward individual rather than corporate responsibility for rising incidence rates, toward research that promotes treatment rather than prevention, toward treatments that can be patented and marketed — all reflect a largely hidden history shaped by

the Cold War.

Chambre notes some of the weaknesses in the thesis, however:

Leopold provides an interesting and carefully researched analysis of the ways that political and economic interests shaped our response to cancer. The idea that the domestic side of the Cold War conditioned our response to disease is an intriguing one. It is, however, an incomplete explanation. The book overlooks some of the significant historical and cultural forces predating the Cold War that played and still play an important role. The secrecy and lack of concern for human rights characterizing the Cold War era have a long history when it comes to medical care and experimentation, as David Rothman carefully documented in Strangers at the Bedside.

Challenges to physician authority and the emergence of patients’ rights began in the 1960s, at a time when the Cold War continued to shape domestic policy. But the willingness of patients to undergo risky experiments in hopes of being cured predated the Cold War era — and is by no means only the result of patients acceding to medical authority or unknowingly participating in risky experiments, as Renee Fox describes in Experiment Perilous. Indeed, this willingness to challenge medical authority represents an important strand in U.S. life and culture, dating back to the early nineteenth century when Americans began to take charge of their health and “battle” or “fight” disease. Further, the book overlooks the important role of cancer advocates and organizations, such as the Laskers and the American Cancer Society (ACS), in shaping the emphasis on treatment to the detriment of prevention, and the ways that corporate funding to organizations, such as the ACS, have contributed to a limited interest in environmental and occupational hazards in cancer diagnoses.

Krauthammer, Global Warming, and "The New Socialism."

I usually stay away from Charles Krauthammer's columns, finding them often the skilled work of a spoiled child who wants more chocolate and has refused the fact that the colorful box is empty - because he's eaten them all.

But his December 11 column make unfounded claims that can't be ignored; his display of willful ignorance regarding international politics, empty phrases like "socialism," denial of global warming, and blatant adherence to disproven policies (and historical analysis) is an enormous disservice, via syndication, to a nation that is once again trying to find its way in the world with conscience.

Before I get to the krapola he asserts, I think it's worth noting that Krauthammer is from another era, like the sweet old lady who still uses the word "gay" to mean happy and romanticizes, for instance, a time when society was moral and just. The world has gone to heck, he asserts. People just aren't good and honest - like Thatcher and Reagan - any more. No matter than they never were; no matter that ideologies the individual adheres to have been disproven by time and history.

Krauthammer represents the Cato Institute ideologues of the 1980s and 90s. Though they still spew out their dated concepts in a contrived "fresh" fashion, their simplistic positions are obsolete, disproven and meaningless in a world that has proven to be more complicated than the one they want(ed) it to be. Quoting Ayn Rand is not even quaint any more; it is self-deceptive, and destructive at that.

Because Krauthammer is, in this latest blinder, discussing what one could call world entitlements, let me quote a hideous article from the Cato in 1998 by David Kelley. I think it demonstrates what I'm getting at:

...human beings have only recently, in certain parts of the world, taken definite actions to create wealth. Against the backdrop of millennia of human history, it is wealth that stands out and calls for explanation. Poverty is simply the absence of wealth. It is the natural human condition, which persists in the absence of efforts to overcome it.

Kelley asserts that the West has essentially won the wealth race because those in the developing world have been lazy, coddled, become accustomed to hand outs. And like others on the deluded Right, unwilling to acknowledge the privilege from which he makes this observation. Now hear Krauthammer:

The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early '80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

That environmentalism is a ruse (a religion) to suck as much wealth out of the West as possible, "the new Socialism," is a new Right saw. It denies the existence of damaging climate change and ignores why that change has come about. It demonizes non-Western countries for being subject to Western excess - essentially blaming the victims. Statistically, the West continues to suck resources out of undeveloped countries (uh, that was the purpose of colonialism, constructed by empires and now maintained by corporations) and gives back pollution, paternalistic dictates, guns for more violence, and ignorance.

"Third world kleptocracies" indeed have worked to capitalize on Western aid - and why not? Often non-relief aid is offered in ways that are benign and meaningless to populations ravaged by war, corrupt governments, and monopolization. What incentive does a dictator have to educate his population, to manage incoming aid, to develop "wealth-creating" industry, or to distribute wealth (beyond the vote-culling goat now and then) when money flows in and keeps him fat?

And because of the corrupting effects of capitalism, his subjected people admire the accumulated wealth at their expense. Oh he has two Mercedes Benz, he has been so smart to get so much from the West. He's a big, rich man who deserves his wealth.

The West has pursued and instated dictators for its own purposes - easy control, access of industry, even "insurance" against the spread of communism, markets for second rate products and other regulated items like weapons - with little consideration for the rights of citizens. Instead of blaming foreign policy for the poverty and lack of development in these countries, Krauthammer ignores their modern history and the West's role in it.

He's an egregious mouth-piece for the excesses, privilege, and discriminatory paternalism that have guided Western foreign policy for more than two centuries. Arguing that some cultures contribute more to world society - nee, our Western society - is to see the world from a shoe box, having never moved out into it. Unfortunately, Krauthammer speaks to an audience that as well is susceptible to such rantings. As the national economic crisis squeezes more Americans and encourages them to look for a bogeyman, "the other" has always been a good target. Isolationism has been proven a disaster, but it continues to rebound. The "free-market" has delivered none of it's promises and, without necessary regulation, has proven a perpetrator on individual freedom and wealth both here and abroad, yet some still scream for deregulation. And socialism, as Krauthammer uses the term, stands for communism; yes a failed system but as performed, never socialistic in any way.

I'm actually surprised that he continues to get leverage for the Socialism claims any more. As he uses the term, it never existed. As the EU enacts the term, it has proven a superior form of raising quality of life for even "the least of" citizens. Application of the term to both Communism and, say, Medicaid, is a stretch beyond understanding. But socialism is an old straw man for the myopic Right, bound to get a rise out of those who don't know better.

In short, the governing structures that Krauthammer hangs the flaccid skin of his rant on are hollow definitions, emotionally disturbing to those who don't know better and are under economic constraints, looking for a source of blame.

This column is an excessive example of irresponsibility. Ignore the horrors and damaging legacies of colonialism (by both empire and industry); deny the watershed of facts about global change that will, of course, destroy first those living unprotected in developing countries; pretend that those dirty little countries have no influence on the global environment nor economy; forget the discriminatory role the West has played in installing and supporting corrupt governments around the world; and prey on the insecurities of challenged Americans.

It's a win, win, win, win argument, unless you wish to exert a proper and honest analysis of Western foreign policy and science. And that's, well, beyond Krauthammer's reinforced and small-minded objective. He's got a column to write and emotions to stir, facts be damned.

Mental Health Advocates or Big Pharma Groups?

From The Truth About Prone Restraint, another example of how "patients' rights" groups are often fronts for big pharma interests.

Makes you ask yet again where oversight of the medical profession is, no? The government has historically given undue authority to the medical industry at the expense of patients' rights. If they wish to treat health care as a human right, the government will have to undo the creep of free license and abuse the industry is accustomed to, with the collusion of doctors organizations (who do not want to be regulated) and the Conservative right which fears "socialism" or any government regulation of free markets.

According to the Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights Internation (CCHRI) – A Mental Health Watchdog group. According to CCHRI, Mental Health Advocacy Groups the following MH organizations are paid front men for the pharmaceutical companies. All the companies in favor of banning a person’s right to defend themselves or others. Their solution — dope them up.

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP)

Anxiety Disorders Association of America (ADAA)

Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADDA)

Center for the Advancement of Children’s Mental Health (CACMH)

Children and Adults with ADD (CHADD)

Herbert Pardes: Creating The Front Group Pipe Line

Mental Health America (Formerly National Mental Health Association)

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)

National Association for Research on Schizophrenia And Depression (NARSAD)

Screening for Mental Health, Inc

Signs of Suicide (SOS)

Suicide Prevention Action Network USA (SPAN)

TeenScreen National Center for Mental Health Checkups

The Jed Foundation

These are groups operating under the guise of advocates for the “mentally ill,” which in reality are heavily funded pharmaceutical front groups.

HOW IT ALL STARTED:

In the late 1970s and 1980s, prominent American Psychiatric Association (APA) psychiatrists, directors and researchers with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) were in need of more government funding, and devised a plan to create a “growth of consumer and advocacy organizations” with the intention of getting these groups to help lobby Congress for increased funding for psychiatric research.[i] Several groups emerged first on the scene during that period: The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Anxiety Disorders Association of America (ADDA), National Depression & Manic Depressive Association (NDMDA, now called Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, DBSA) and National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD).

In an incestuous relationship, many of these groups were formed by the directors or researchers from NIMH-the very organization that needed mental health advocacy groups to make demands on Congress for increased funding. All of them had board or advisory board members with financial ties to Pharma and the majority of them were heavily funded by Pharma. So this was a brilliant marketing/lobbying strategy – Set up patients rights groups to lobby for the funding needed for psychiatry and big Pharma while claiming to be “advocates” for the mentally ill.

Understanding Health Care Reform Requires Compassion and A Clear Look at the Facts.

Here's a typical complaint about health care reform from A Conservative Teacher. The writer begs to understand how anyone would support health care reform, yet refuses to give credence to any supporter's views because they counter his own. Oh, and he fails to listen to the facts. If he were truly interested in understanding why others support the health care bill, don't you think he would have a comments section on his blog??

The healthcare debate frustrates me and confuses me because I simply don't understand why certain groups are supporting the drive for nationalized healthcare. The AARP is urging its dwindling members to back a proposal that will cut from Medicare, provide funds for assisted suicide and death panels, and encourage the system to start rationing healthcare. Why would the AARP support this agenda? Why are you still a member of the AARP?

AARP has lost about 60,000 members since the summer but that's a drop in the bucket when you consider their overall membership is about 38 million members and growing thanks to boomers. Sadly, those seniors who left AARP were vulnerable; the "death panel" and rationing lies scared them away from a good program. The rationing of care is a myth, so too is the funding of assisted suicide and death panels.

Where aid in dying is a legal service, yes, that legal service will be noted in literature and covered by insurance, as all legal necessary services should be. The "cuts" in Medicare and "rationing" are simply proposed regulations that will prevent insurance companies from dropping patients when they feel like it and will prevent the medical industry from continuing to over-treat, over-medicate, and over-test Americans.

Why does the UAW support the healthcare plan by the Democrats? If I'm GM or Chrysler or Ford and I have two options of paying for healthcare for my employees or shoving them on the government plan and saving all that money, I'm shoving them on the government plan. The UAW is supporting a plan that would trade the quality coverage it has already bargained for with the government plan.

Although perhaps UAW understands that the fix is in- the government plan will a better plan than whatever the UAW has, because it will be funded on the backs of taxpayers to the cost of trillions of dollars over ten years, and trillions more over the next 10 years, if the United States lasts that long as a nation with that kind of spending and debt.

The Conservative Teacher failed to catch the fact that the health care bill is budget neutral. In fact, it will save American taxpayers in the long run by creating greater competition in the system and bringing down medical prices. Currently, we're the only country that doesn't barter drug prices with big pharmaceuticals, for instance. Cutting the fat, the UAW knows, will take some of the burden off businesses, will standardize care, and will bring in those citizens on the margins who don't have care now. There's no shoving going on here.

I don't understand the debate at all- there is no money for this program, it will raise costs, it will cause millions to be dropped from current plans, it will destroy the private insurance industry and lead to a loss in all of those tax dollars that industry provides, and it has many controversial and polarizing provisions in it like money for abortions (cut out of House version but in Senate version), money for assisted suicide, money for death panels, and many other controversial provisions.

Again, The Conservative Teacher is buying the opponents' line that this will cost more. And he's got an impractical soft spot for insurance industry. Those in the public plan will pay premiums for their insurance that are much lower than standard rates. And the plan will primarily be supported by those premiums. The only polarization of abortion is contrived; the plan (without the draconian Stupak-Pitts) will maintain the same standard of funding as before, mandated by the Hyde amendment. In other words, if you want to end abortion, work at it in other ways, not via the health care plan. Get your own bill.

The way this bill is being sold is by having people each share their sob story- that's anecdotal evidence that is nice, but should not be determining whether the bill is passed or not. Senator Debbie Stabenow is running a special interest lobbying group on her official Senate webpage (is that legal?) called Health Care People's Lobby (people's lobby... paging Soviet Russia...) where she encourages people to email her their sob stories about dealing with the insurance industry. Almost 10,000 people have emailed her various stories of how they where not able to take more advantage of an insurance system and how they were not able to get someone else to pay for their health-related procedures. This is the kind of 'evidence' that is being pushed as a reason to nationalize healthcare? I just don't understand why people are falling for this garbage argument.

Oh god the Soviet accusations are so tired. If you have no bit of compassion in you, like The Conservative Teacher, you don't give two shits about the 45 million uninsured Americans, not the 25,000 who die each year because they are uninsured. If you understand how the insurance industry works, for profit, and why it exists, to cover catastrophic issues that no single person could ever pay for themselves, you will scoff his callousness as missing the "but for the grace of god" stuff.

Health care should be a basic human right. And that alone makes "this garbage argument" a sad example of how snowed some Americans are regarding health care.