RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Daraprim 'Profiteering' Controversy Lifts Lid on Soaring Cost of Prescription Drugs Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31908"><span class="small">Suzanne McGee, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 September 2015 08:01

McGee writes: "Until this week most of us had never heard of Daraprim, a drug that fights toxoplasmosis. But after the decision of the drug's new owner, Turing Pharmaceuticals, to boost its cost per pill from $13.50 to a whopping $750, we're all unlikely to forget its name or the name of Turing's owner, 32-year-old Martin Shkreli."

Martin Shkreli is the founder and chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, which raised the price of the drug Daraprim to $750 a tablet from $13.50. (photo: Paul Taggart/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
Martin Shkreli is the founder and chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, which raised the price of the drug Daraprim to $750 a tablet from $13.50. (photo: Paul Taggart/Bloomberg/Getty Images)


Daraprim 'Profiteering' Controversy Lifts Lid on Soaring Cost of Prescription Drugs

By Suzanne McGee, Guardian UK

27 September 15

 

Beyond Martin Shkreli’s behavior, the price of medications pits the interests of patients against the profits of two big industries – pharmaceuticals and insurance

ntil this week most of us had never heard of Daraprim, a drug that fights toxoplasmosis. But after the decision of the drug’s new owner, Turing Pharmaceuticals, to boost its cost per pill from $13.50 to a whopping $750, we’re all unlikely to forget its name or the name of Turing’s owner, 32-year-old Martin Shkreli.

Shkreli became one of the most hated men in America last week, Hillary Clinton called for reforms in the drug market, social media tore him to shreds, a punk label he bankrolled severed ties with him and even Donald Trump weighed in, calling him a “spoiled brat”.

He’s now pledged to cut the price – he hasn’t said by how much or when – but the outrage over the astronomical hike in a life-saving drug has opened the doors to a fast-moving and furious debate about the soaring costs of prescription medications in the United States – one that is long overdue.

While from a scientific and business perspective, we may be in the midst of a new “golden age” for pharmaceutical innovation and research and development in the drug industry, the costs of these new wonder drugs may drive the system – and the individuals within it – to the brink.

Daraprim is a particularly egregious example of how broken the system is because it isn’t a new and complex wonder drug, but something that has been around since the 1940s. Logic suggests that drugs that have been around for a while should decline in price, in part because they are cheap and easy to make; in part because they face competition from generic manufacturers. It turns out that isn’t the case.

Part of the problem is that there are individuals like Shkreli scouring the market for drugs like Daraprim that don’t have effective generic rivals (perhaps that market is too small for a generic drug maker to view it is profitable; perhaps, as in Daraprim’s case, there are unique issues surrounding the requirements for regulatory testing) or other factors that give the drug a lot of effective pricing power. The profit-minded individual or company snaps up the patents, suddenly hikes the drug’s price and puts consumers – from insurance companies to individuals – in a position of either paying what is demanded or going without.

Late this summer, Rodelis Therapeutics boosted the cost of 30 tablets of cycloserine, a tuberculosis drug, from $500 to $10,800. When the Mayo Clinic made the price hike public, the company returned the rights to the medication to the Chao Center for Industrial Pharmacy & Contract Manufacturing, from which it had acquired them. Early in the year, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc boosted the prices of two heart drugs, Nitropress and Isuprel, by 525% and 212% on the same day that they acquired them. “Our duty is to shareholders and to maximize the value” of Valeant’s products, a company spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal at the time.

I’ve encountered this first hand. When I started freelancing in 2002, I began paying for my own medication to treat my chronic migraines: Fioricet with codeine. Back then, the cost to me of the brand (the only kind that Walgreen’s stocked – they claimed that no generic version existed) was $220 per month. By 2005, it was $350. By 2007, $450. In 2009, it was well north of $500. That was the year that I moved pharmacies and finally discovered a generic. But then the cost of the generic, too, began to climb – from $120 to $160 and then to north of $200 a month. Just because a drug is a generic doesn’t make it immune from big price increases, as industry mergers and decisions by manufacturers to stop producing some drugs have affected availability of some medications.

At least with insurance (although that insurance premium isn’t cheap), the medications I have to take are at least affordable, because my insurer will cover them. In the cases of some of the newest and most costly bleeding-edge drugs, the jury is out on whether that will happen.

A case in point is the newest treatments for hepatitis C, sold by Gilead Science and AbbVie, which appear to cure more than 90% of those infected with the potentially fatal liver disease. More than three million Americans are estimated to have hep C, which can be spread, among other things by poorly sterilized medical instruments, as well as (in prior decades) blood transfusions, as well as sharing needles among drug addicts, and can result in cirrhosis, cancer and ultimately death. The new drugs, including Harvoni, can effect a complete cure in as little as three months, with few side-effects, and even prevent the scarring. The price tag, however, is astronomical: as much as $94,500.

Unsurprisingly, insurers are balking at footing the bill – even though it’s significantly cheaper than paying out $175,000 or so to cover a liver transplant a few years down the road. (Perhaps they’re reading the actuarial tables, and gambling that livers won’t become available in time for a transplant and that this actually is a better bet?) They insist that the newer drugs haven’t been tested in as many people as the typical drugs and so they are only approving treatments for those with advanced liver disease.

That’s prompting patients trying to avoid ending up with irreversible damage to their organs to sue their insurers. Insurers, for their part, point out that while these drugs represent a tiny fraction of prescriptions written for their members – perhaps 1% – they can make up as much of a quarter of all spending on drugs, as is the case at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.

Obamacare may have made basic healthcare – flu shots, a visit to the doctor’s office, and such basic expenses – accessible and affordable, to some extent and with varying degrees of success. (Yes, your favorite doctor may not participate in the plan that you can afford; yes, while some of us pay less, others may find themselves paying more every month in premiums.) But the cost of prescription medication is one area that remains largely unaddressed, and has the potential to be even more perilously complicated to try to resolve: it involves not one, but two sets of for-profit interests, the pharmaceutical companies who research and develop the increasingly sophisticated products to treat diseases that once had few effective medications, and the insurance companies that must find a way to collect enough premiums from you and me to pay for it all and still make money for their shareholders.

It’s no wonder that the Daraprim debacle has drawn the attention of political candidates on both sides of the aisle. Even Donald Trump, that promoter of free enterprise, appeared to draw the line at Shkreli’s attempt to profiteer, being quoted as calling him “a spoiled brat” and describing his actions as “disgusting”. For their part, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders took to the campaign trail to talk about the need to curb drug price increases. As a populist strategy, it’s got to be a winning one. But any attempt to craft new policies around the ideas they are discussing may unleash a battle with insurers and with the pharmaceutical industry that makes the struggle over Obamacare look like a pleasant afternoon stroll on the beach.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Boehner to Continue Repealing Obamacare After Leaving Congress Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 September 2015 13:56

Borowitz writes: "House Speaker John Boehner announced that he would resign as Speaker and leave Congress in October, but said that he would continue repealing Obamacare from his home in Ohio."

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


Boehner to Continue Repealing Obamacare After Leaving Congress

By Andy Borowitz , The New Yorker

26 September 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


ouse Speaker John Boehner announced that he would resign as Speaker and leave Congress in October, but said that he would continue repealing Obamacare from his home in Ohio.

Explaining his decision, Boehner told reporters, “A lot of the Speaker’s job is administrative, which is time-consuming and tiring. In retirement, I’ll have more time for what I really love: repealing Obamacare.”

Boehner said that he plans to begin every day with a good breakfast, some exercise, and a vote to repeal Obamacare before lunch.

“No one knows how much time one is allotted on this planet,” Boehner, striking a somber tone, said. “But if the Lord above grants me good health, I will repeal Obamacare thousands of times before my journey ends.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
In Record Breaking Year, US Special Ops Forces Deployed in 135 Nations Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7517"><span class="small">Nick Turse, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 September 2015 13:53

Turse writes: "This year, U.S. Special Operations forces have already deployed to 135 nations, according to Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command. That's roughly 70% of the countries on the planet."

A US Special Forces trainer supervises a military assault drill in Sudan in November 2013. (photo: Andreea Campeanu/Reuters)
A US Special Forces trainer supervises a military assault drill in Sudan in November 2013. (photo: Andreea Campeanu/Reuters)


In Record Breaking Year, US Special Ops Forces Deployed in 135 Nations

By Nick Turse, TomDispatch

26 September 15

 

ou can find them in dusty, sunbaked badlands, moist tropical forests, and the salty spray of third-world littorals. Standing in judgement, buffeted by the rotor wash of a helicopter or sweltering beneath the relentless desert sun, they instruct, yell, and cajole as skinnier men playact under their watchful eyes. In many places, more than their particular brand of camouflage, better boots, and designer gear sets them apart. Their days are scented by stale sweat and gunpowder; their nights are spent in rustic locales or third-world bars.

These men -- and they are mostly men -- belong to an exclusive military fraternity that traces its heritage back to the birth of the nation. Typically, they’ve spent the better part of a decade as more conventional soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen before making the cut. They’ve probably been deployed overseas four to 10 times. The officers are generally approaching their mid-thirties; the enlisted men, their late twenties. They’ve had more schooling than most in the military. They’re likely to be married with a couple of kids. And day after day, they carry out shadowy missions over much of the planet: sometimes covert raids, more often hush-hush training exercises from Chad to Uganda, Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, Albania to Romania, Bangladesh to Sri Lanka, Belize to Uruguay. They belong to the Special Operations forces (SOF), America’s most elite troops -- Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs, among others -- and odds are, if you throw a dart at a world map or stop a spinning globe with your index finger and don’t hit water, they’ve been there sometime in 2015.

The Wide World of Special Ops

This year, U.S. Special Operations forces have already deployed to 135 nations, according to Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command (SOCOM).  That’s roughly 70% of the countries on the planet.  Every day, in fact, America’s most elite troops are carrying out missions in 80 to 90 nations, practicing night raids or sometimes conducting them for real, engaging in sniper training or sometimes actually gunning down enemies from afar. As part of a global engagement strategy of endless hush-hush operations conducted on every continent but Antarctica, they have now eclipsed the number and range of special ops missions undertaken at the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

In the waning days of the Bush administration, Special Operations forces (SOF) were reportedly deployed in only about 60 nations around the world.  By 2010, according to the Washington Post, that number had swelled to 75.  Three years later, it had jumped to 134 nations, “slipping” to 133 last year, before reaching a new record of 135 this summer.  This 80% increase over the last five years is indicative of SOCOM’s exponential expansion which first shifted into high gear following the 9/11 attacks.

Special Operations Command’s funding, for example, has more than tripled from about $3 billion in 2001 to nearly $10 billion in 2014 “constant dollars,” according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  And this doesn’t include funding from the various service branches, which SOCOM estimates at around another $8 billion annually, or other undisclosed sums that the GAO was unable to track.  The average number of Special Operations forces deployed overseas has nearly tripled during these same years, while SOCOM more than doubled its personnel from about 33,000 in 2001 to nearly 70,000 now.

Each day, according to SOCOM commander General Joseph Votel, approximately 11,000 special operators are deployed or stationed outside the United States with many more on standby, ready to respond in the event of an overseas crisis. “I think a lot of our resources are focused in Iraq and in the Middle East, in Syria for right now. That's really where our head has been,” Votel told the Aspen Security Forum in July.  Still, he insisted his troops were not “doing anything on the ground in Syria” -- even if they had carried out a night raid there a couple of months before and it was later revealed that they are involved in a covert campaign of drone strikes in that country. 

“I think we are increasing our focus on Eastern Europe at this time,” he added. “At the same time we continue to provide some level of support on South America for Colombia and the other interests that we have down there. And then of course we're engaged out in the Pacific with a lot of our partners, reassuring them and working those relationships and maintaining our presence out there.”

In reality, the average percentage of Special Operations forces deployed to the Greater Middle East has decreased in recent years.  Back in 2006, 85% of special operators were deployed in support of Central Command or CENTCOM, the geographic combatant command (GCC) that oversees operations in the region.  By last year, that number had dropped to 69%, according to GAO figures.  Over that same span, Northern Command -- devoted to homeland defense -- held steady at 1%, European Command (EUCOM) doubled its percentage, from 3% to 6%, Pacific Command (PACOM) increased from 7% to 10%, and Southern Command, which overseas Central and South America as well as the Caribbean, inched up from 3% to 4%. The largest increase, however, was in a region conspicuously absent from Votel’s rundown of special ops deployments.  In 2006, just 1% of the special operators deployed abroad were sent to Africa Command’s area of operations.  Last year, it was 10%.

Globetrotting is SOCOM’s stock in trade and, not coincidentally, it’s divided into a collection of planet-girding “sub-unified commands”: the self-explanatory SOCAFRICA; SOCEUR, the European contingent; SOCCENT, the sub-unified command of CENTCOM; SOCKOR, which is devoted strictly to Korea; SOCPAC, which covers the rest of the Asia-Pacific region; SOCSOUTH, which conducts missions in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean; SOCNORTH, which is devoted to “homeland defense”; and the ever-itinerant Joint Special Operations Command or JSOC, a clandestine sub-command (formerly headed by Votel) made up of personnel from each service branch, including SEALs, Air Force special tactics airmen, and the Army's Delta Force that specializes in tracking and killing suspected terrorists.

The elite of the elite in the special ops community, JSOC takes on covert, clandestine, and low-visibility operations in the hottest of hot spots.  Some covert ops that have come to light in recent years include a host of Delta Force missions: among them, an operation in May in which members of the elite force killed an Islamic State commander known as Abu Sayyaf during a night raid in Syria; the 2014 release of long-time Taliban prisoner Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl; the capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspect in 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya; and the 2013 abduction of Anas al-Libi, an al-Qaeda militant, off a street in that same country.  Similarly, Navy SEALs have, among other operations, carried out successful hostage rescue missions in Afghanistan and Somalia in 2012; a disastrous one in Yemen in 2014; a 2013 kidnap raid in Somalia that went awry; and -- that same year -- a failed evacuation mission in South Sudan in which three SEALs were wounded when their aircraft was hit by small arms fire. 

SOCOM’s SOF Alphabet Soup

Most deployments have, however, been training missions designed to tutor proxies and forge stronger ties with allies. “Special Operations forces provide individual-level training, unit-level training, and formal classroom training,” explains SOCOM’s Ken McGraw.  “Individual training can be in subjects like basic rifle marksmanship, land navigation, airborne operations, and first aid.  They provide unit-level training in subjects like small unit tactics, counterterrorism operations and maritime operations. SOF can also provide formal classroom training in subjects like the military decision-making process or staff planning.”

From 2012 to 2014, for instance, Special Operations forces carried out 500 Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) missions in as many as 67 countries each year.  JCETs are officially devoted to training U.S. forces, but they nonetheless serve as a key facet of SOCOM’s global engagement strategy. The missions “foster key military partnerships with foreign militaries, enhance partner-nations' capability to provide for their own defense, and build interoperability between U.S. SOF and partner-nation forces,” according to SOCOM’s McGraw. 

And JCETs are just a fraction of the story.  SOCOM carries out many other multinational overseas training operations.   According to data from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), for example, Special Operations forces conducted 75 training exercises in 30 countries in 2014.  The numbers were projected to jump to 98 exercises in 34 countries by the end of this year.

“SOCOM places a premium on international partnerships and building their capacity.  Today, SOCOM has persistent partnerships with about 60 countries through our Special Operations Forces Liaison Elements and Joint Planning and Advisory Teams,” said SOCOM’s Votel at a conference earlier this year, drawing attention to two of the many types of shadowy Special Ops entities that operate overseas.  These SOFLEs and JPATs belong to a mind-bending alphabet soup of special ops entities operating around the globe, a jumble of opaque acronyms and stilted abbreviations masking a secret world of clandestine efforts often conducted in the shadows in impoverished lands ruled by problematic regimes.  The proliferation of this bewildering SOCOM shorthand -- SOJTFs and CJSOTFs, SOCCEs and SOLEs -- mirrors the relentless expansion of the command, with its signature brand of military speak or milspeak proving as indecipherable to most Americans as its missions are secret from them.

Around the world, you can find Special Operations Joint Task Forces (SOJTFs), Combined Joint Special Operations Task Forces (CJSOTFs), and Joint Special Operations Task Forces (JSOTFs), Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs), as well as Special Operations Command and Control Elements (SOCCEs) and Special Operations Liaison Elements (SOLEs).  And that list doesn’t even include Special Operations Command Forward (SOC FWD) elements -- small teams which, according to the military, “shape and coordinate special operations forces security cooperation and engagement in support of theater special operations command, geographic combatant command, and country team goals and objectives.” 

Special Operations Command will not divulge the locations or even a simple count of its SOC FWDs for “security reasons.”  When asked how releasing only the number could imperil security, SOCOM’s Ken McGraw was typically opaque.  “The information is classified,” he responded.  “I am not the classification authority for that information so I do not know the specifics of why the information is classified.”  Open source data suggests, however, that they are clustered in favored black ops stomping grounds, including SOC FWD Pakistan, SOC FWD Yemen, and SOC FWD Lebanon, as well as SOC FWD East Africa, SOC FWD Central Africa, and SOC FWD West Africa

What’s clear is that SOCOM prefers to operate in the shadows while its personnel and missions expand globally to little notice or attention.  “The key thing that SOCOM brings to the table is that we are -- we think of ourselves -- as a global force. We support the geographic combatant commanders, but we are not bound by the artificial boundaries that normally define the regional areas in which they operate. So what we try to do is we try to operate across those boundaries,” SOCOM’s Votel told the Aspen Security Forum.

In one particular blurring of boundaries, Special Operations liaison officers (SOLOs) are embedded in at least 14 key U.S. embassies to assist in advising the special forces of various allied nations.  Already operating in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, El Salvador, France, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Poland, Peru, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, the SOLO program is poised, according to Votel, to expand to 40 countries by 2019.  The command, and especially JSOC, has also forged close ties with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency, among other outfits, through the use of liaison officers and Special Operations Support Teams (SOSTs). 

“In today’s environment, our effectiveness is directly tied to our ability to operate with domestic and international partners. We, as a joint force, must continue to institutionalize interoperability, integration, and interdependence between conventional forces and special operations forces through doctrine, training, and operational deployments,” Votel told the Senate Armed Services Committee this spring.  “From working with indigenous forces and local governments to improve local security, to high-risk counterterrorism operations -- SOF are in vital roles performing essential tasks.”

SOCOM will not name the 135 countries in which America’s most elite forces were deployed this year, let alone disclose the nature of those operations.  Most were, undoubtedly, training efforts.  Documents obtained from the Pentagon via the Freedom of Information Act outlining Joint Combined Exchange Training in 2013 offer an indication of what Special Operations forces do on a daily basis and also what skills are deemed necessary for their real-world missions: combat marksmanship, patrolling, weapons training, small unit tactics, special operations in urban terrain, close quarters combat, advanced marksmanship, sniper employment, long-range shooting, deliberate attack, and heavy weapons employment, in addition to combat casualty care, human rights awareness, land navigation, and mission planning, among others. 

From Joint Special Operations Task Force-Juniper Shield, which operates in Africa’s Trans-Sahara region, and Special Operations Command and Control Element-Horn of Africa, to Army Special Operations Forces Liaison Element-Korea and Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula, the global growth of SOF missions has been breathtaking.  SEALs or Green Berets, Delta Force operators or Air Commandos, they are constantly taking on what Votel likes to call the “nation’s most complex, demanding, and high-risk challenges.” 

These forces carry out operations almost entirely unknown to the American taxpayers who fund them, operations conducted far from the scrutiny of the media or meaningful outside oversight of any kind.  Everyday, in around 80 or more countries that Special Operations Command will not name, they undertake missions the command refuses to talk about.  They exist in a secret world of obtuse acronyms and shadowy efforts, of mystery missions kept secret from the American public, not to mention most of the citizens of the 135 nations where they’ve been deployed this year.

This summer, when Votel commented that more special ops troops are deployed to more locations and are conducting more operations than at the height of the Afghan and Iraq wars, he drew attention to two conflicts in which those forces played major roles that have not turned out well for the United States.  Consider that symbolic of what the bulking up of his command has meant in these years.

“Ultimately, the best indicator of our success will be the success of the [geographic combatant commands],” says the special ops chief, but with U.S. setbacks in Africa Command’s area of operations from Mali and Nigeria to Burkina Faso and Cameroon; in Central Command’s bailiwick from Iraq and Afghanistan to Yemen and Syria; in the PACOM region vis-à-vis China; and perhaps even in the EUCOM area of operations due to Russia, it’s far from clear what successes can be attributed to the ever-expanding secret operations of America’s secret military.  The special ops commander seems resigned to the very real limitations of what his secretive but much-ballyhooed, highly-trained, well-funded, heavily-armed operators can do. 

“We can buy space, we can buy time,” says Votel, stressing that SOCOM can “play a very, very key role” in countering “violent extremism,” but only up to a point -- and that point seems to fall strikingly short of anything resembling victory or even significant foreign policy success.  “Ultimately, you know, problems like we see in Iraq and Syria,” he says, “aren't going to be resolved by us.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Are FBI Agents Trammeling the Rights of Antiwar Activists? Print
Saturday, 26 September 2015 13:50

Eddington writes: "Five years ago this week, FBI agents raided the homes of six political activists of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization in Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin, as well as the office of the nonprofit Anti-War Committee. Those activists are still waiting to learn when, or even if, they will be charged or cleared."

FBI agents are seen outside a home in Watertown, Massachusetts, on May 13, 2010, which they raided earlier in the day. (photo: Adam Hunger/Reuters)
FBI agents are seen outside a home in Watertown, Massachusetts, on May 13, 2010, which they raided earlier in the day. (photo: Adam Hunger/Reuters)


Why Are FBI Agents Trammeling the Rights of Antiwar Activists?

By Patrick G. Eddington, Newsweek

26 September 15

 

ive years ago this week, FBI agents raided the homes of six political activists of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) in Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin, as well as the office of the nonprofit Anti-War Committee. Those activists are still waiting to learn when, or even if, they will be charged or cleared.

As the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported on the day of the raid, “An FBI spokesman said agents were ‘seeking evidence related to an ongoing Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation into activities concerning the material support of terrorism. There is no imminent threat to the community, and we're not planning any arrests at this time,’ said FBI Special Agent Steve Warfield of the Minneapolis office.”

A series of FBI documents left behind at Mick Kelly’s Minneapolis home shed more light on the FBI’s activities prior to the raid. But what is especially illuminating is the mindset the documents reveal, particularly some of the questions FBI agents were instructed to ask those being served with the search warrants, such as “What did you do with the proceeds from the Revolutionary Lemonade Stand?” and “Did you ever recruit anyone to go to Israel, the West Bank or Gaza?”

Only in February 2014, as a result of further legal action, would the search warrants for the raids be unsealed and the FBI’s use of surveillance and undercover operatives to penetrate the Anti-War Committee and the FRSO come to light.

According to the unsealed search warrants and supporting documents, the FBI began surveilling the FRSO shortly after the protests at the 2008 GOP convention, using a confidential informant. Whether the FBI had employed wiretaps obtained under the material support provision of the Patriot Act (as amended in 2006) is unclear. The FBI’s assertion about the group and the Anti-War Committee is that both acted as fronts for the funneling of money and other forms of support to Colombian and Palestinian groups labeled as foreign terrorist organizations by the State Department.

Kelly and the other political activists targeted by the FBI have long histories in the antiwar movement and related causes on the extreme political left. In 2011, Kelly settled a suit with the local police department over an excessive use of force incident during his protest outside the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Despite the FBI’s collection of over a hundred hours of recordings and its multiyear penetration of the two extreme leftist organizations, to date none of the activists have been charged with any crime.

It’s certainly not the first time the FBI has engaged in the harassment of political dissidents. Indeed, the FBI’s surveillance of antiwar activists dates back to at least World War I, to include surveillance of Nobel Peace Prize winner Jane Addams. The bureau has been an equal opportunity abuser of the rights of antiwar activists, whether on the left (like Addams and the FRSO) or on the libertarian side of the spectrum.

These incidents, while separated in time by nearly 100 years, also share another feature. No FBI agent or manager has ever been fired or prosecuted for violating the constitutional rights of those individuals or groups wrongly surveilled, harassed or charged.

Just four days prior to the FBI raids against the Anti-War Committee and the FRSO, the Department of Justice Inspector General [IG] released the results of an investigation into post-9/11 surveillance of peace groups and other domestic dissidents up through 2006.

As Andrew Cohen wrote in The Atlantic at the time, the IG investigation found that the bureau “engaged in tactics and strategies toward those groups and their members that were inappropriate, misleading and in some cases counterproductive. Moreover, the OIG accused FBI witnesses of continuing to the present day to thwart a full and complete investigation into the matter by offering ‘incomplete and inconsistent accounts of events.’”

A similar oversight investigation of the FBI’s raids against the Anti-War Committee and the FRSO—whether done by the IG or Congress—is long overdue. So is real accountability for government agencies whose employees flagrantly and repeatedly violate the rights of the citizens who pay their salaries.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Skyrocketing Drug Prices Expose the Need for Publicly Funded Pharmaceutical Research Print
Saturday, 26 September 2015 13:48

Spoer writes: "Last weekend Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli raised the price of the malaria and toxoplasmosis drug Daraprim, an action that outraged people nationwide and made them question why pharmaceutical companies have unilateral power to raise prices on the drugs on which so many of us depend."

Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli. (photo: Paul Taggart/Getty)
Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli. (photo: Paul Taggart/Getty)


Skyrocketing Drug Prices Expose the Need for Publicly Funded Pharmaceutical Research

By Benjamin Spoer, Al Jazeera America

26 September 15

 

Thank Martin Shkreli for demonstrating that we can’t depend on the market to deliver the drugs we need

ver the weekend Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli raised the price of the malaria and toxoplasmosis drug Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill, an action that outraged people nationwide and made them question why pharmaceutical companies have unilateral power to raise prices on the drugs on which so many of us depend.

Shkreli initially defended this bald-faced price gouging, saying the company would use the increased revenue to develop a “better, safer, more effective version” of Daraprim. The outrageousness of his position became apparent when even PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the very profitable pharmaceutical industry, tweeted that Turing “does not represent the values” of PhRMA’s members.

Shkreli backed down from the price increase (how much remains to be seen), but he sparked an overdue debate about the outrageous cost of life-saving medicines. Although Shkreli’s greed and insensitivity to suffering has rightly been condemned, he may have unintentionally made an argument for an increase in public funding for pharmaceutical research.

The problem with our drug-development system is that it puts a price tag on human suffering. Currently, big pharmaceutical companies are highly motivated to develop drugs for people who can pay for them. For people who cannot afford to pay, the drug that would cure their diseases or ease their suffering may never materialize. By examining drug development through the lens of return on investment, biotech firms are evaluating human suffering in terms of its dollar value. Shkreli implied this when he said his company makes Daraprim in such small quantities that we should not worry about the suffering his price increase will cause, because only a few people would be affected.

The callousness of this thought process is chilling, and places us onto very slippery moral and ethical grounds. The United Nations considers health a human right, but when the firms that produce and control the drugs that keep people healthy view health as a moneymaking opportunity, situations like this are bound to arise.

However, money does not always trump human suffering. Take for example Mectizan, a drug developed in the 1970s and ’80s by Merck to treat Onchocerciasis, also known as River Blindness, a parasitic infection that makes people go blind. The majority of people suffering from River Blindness live in Sub-Saharan Africa, and cannot afford to buy Mectizan. Merck decided to donate as much Mectizan as necessary to eliminate River Blindness, a commitment they maintain to this day. Mectizan shows how a pharmaceutical company concerned with the public’s well-being benefits everyone.

Publicly funded research could develop an alternative to Daraprim without having to raise the price of the drug it intends to replace, because its funding would not depend on market forces. Such research could also develop drugs to treat the so-called Neglected Tropical Diseases that create such immense suffering in the developing world, but which hold no interest for for-profit biotech companies. If it seems strange that the U.S. would invest this much time and money into diseases that are primarily associated with distant countries, keep in mind that Neglected Tropical Diseases, including Chagas disease and toxoplasmosis, are endemic in the United States as well. We just haven’t funded programs to address them.

The U.S. government does spend some money on drug development. In 2015 the National Institutes of Health spent $657 million on collaborations with private pharmaceutical firms, but this effort was not to develop new drugs. Using our current grant-funded medical research model, the Centers for Disease Control or NIH could offer grants to research drugs that are vital for the public’s health yet do not interest for-profit companies. The government would own the patents on these drugs, the same way it owns data from the research it funds, protecting them from price gouging by greedy biotech firms. The government could subcontract the manufacturing and distribute the drugs through public hospitals, ensuring that avarice is kept out of the pricing process.

In an ironic twist, we can thank Shkreli for illuminating the disconnect between public health’s humane motives and biotech firms’ profit motives. Leaving drug development up to the market puts us at risk of prioritizing the health of people who can afford healthcare over the health of people who cannot. While a few politicians have called for regulations on drug prices, this would be treating the symptoms of the problem instead of the cause.

An increase in public funding for pharmaceutical research would address the cause of these problems. It would ensure that even unprofitable drugs might be developed. And while this would be an expensive undertaking — researchers estimates that each new compound the Food and Drug Administration approves costs $2.6 billion to develop — publically funded pharmaceutical research would ensure that people’s suffering is not judged by their net worth. And it could stop the Martin Shkrelis of the world from harming people’s lives by meddling with their medications.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 Next > End >>

Page 2324 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN