|
Drug companies profiting from mental
depression
By Lauren Carroll Harris
June 2— “It’s not fair. That’s how I feel:
that a person in America could go to the doctor, get a prescription,
take Effexor, and all of a sudden be unable to quit.” These comments
were posted on Mar. 23 by “Sean9” on the message boards of
the British Social Audit website.
Continuing, Sean9 wrote: “[It’s not fair] that the doctor
didn’t tell that person how difficult it would be to quit before
they started medication; that the manufacturer didn’t fully disclose
the degree of physical pain an average user will experience when discontinuing
Effexor; that neither the doctor or the manufacturer acknowledge how
serious the withdrawal symptoms are and therefore, offer no advice on
treating the symptoms.”
A medical health problem is reaching epidemic proportions in the First
World — depression, and other associated mental health problems
such as generalized anxiety disorder.
Venlafaxine (VFX, marked under the brand name Effexor), a bicyclic antidepressant,
is used in the treatment of mood disorders, including depression and
anxiety. Sean9’s experiences are not unique: Effexor is the most
commonly prescribed drug by doctors in the treatment of depression —
at least 8.5 million people are prescribed Effexor every year.
When a patient ceases taking the drug, he or she will most likely suffer
from what are commonly known as “discontinuation symptoms.”
Physical symptoms include nausea, vomiting, intense fatigue, dizziness,
chills, sensory disturbances, and persistent insomnia. Psychological
symptoms include anxiety, agitation, crying spells, and irritability.
More rare symptoms include paranoid delusions and hallucination.
These symptoms can last anywhere from a few days to many weeks.
Symptoms often subside upon reintroduction of the drug, which can prompt
a roller coaster-like attempt to quit the drug, as patients find other
ways to treat their symptoms. Many patients, after coming off Effexor,
confuse their symptoms with the common cold or the flu, go to their
general practicioner and are prescribed a course of antibiotics. Some
are prescribed strong pain-killers, increasing their incapacitation.
In October 2003, Sharon McDill, a medical student from Glasgow University,
reported withdrawal symptoms of vertigo and headaches on the Rapid Response
page of the British Medical Journal website: “My doctors refused
to acknowledge that venlafaxine (or lack of it) was causing this and
preferred to put my symptoms down to a “mystery virus.” It
was decided that I should restart an antidepressant as I was feeling
rather down (perhaps not surprisingly) and I was commenced on sertraline
[a different anti-depressant]. Within a day of starting it, my headache
and dizziness stopped. My doctors’ explanation of this was that
my virus must have run its course or that it was actually stress causing
my headache all along, or sertraline was acting as a placebo!”
Social Audit reports a series of case studies in 1996. “Three cases
are reported of VFX [venlafaxine] withdrawal, following both abrupt
... and very gradual cessation. Main symptoms were dizziness and ...
distress, but one patient also experienced auditory hallucinations and
bizarre dreams. It took her ten weeks from the initial attempt at withdrawal
to discontinue VFX. Neither of the two other patients was reported to
have achieved withdrawal.”
Another study revealed that “four out of nine patients involved
in an open 12-week trial of VFX... ‘developed a troublesome withdrawal
syndrome,’ despite gradual withdrawal of medication over four days
to two weeks.”
In other words, even patients who quit slowly by “tapering off”
the dosage seem to experience the same withdrawal symptoms.
Perhaps the most disturbing report was conducted by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,
Effexor’s manufacturer. The study, conducted in 1997, studied “withdrawal
reactions in 127 patients treated with VFX but did not report them.”
Why were these results not published?
The study also followed patients whose “medications were tapered
over a period of up to two weeks. The report states that patients were
evaluated four to ten days after medication was discontinued, but results
are not reported.”
A later Wyeth-sponsored study reported that four patients’ withdrawal
symptoms were so severe, medical treatment was required. One episode
of hypomania was reported.
The possibility of a withdrawal reaction is mentioned briefly in the
manufacturer’s data sheet, which states: “Discontinuation
effects are well known to occur with antidepressants.” However,
it implies that such reactions are observed with doses of 150mg daily
and above (the minimum dosage is 37.5mg, while the maximum is 225mg).
It does not mention that venlafaxine withdrawal reactions have been
reported after missing just a single dose.
Current medical trends confuse the matter even more. The American Medical
Association (AMA) estimates that only 22 percent of those who suffer
from depression receive proper medical treatment, but those who do probably
aren’t receiving the right kind of treatment. The average consultation
time between a US doctor and patient is seven to eight minutes, which
poses the question: Can a frank and informed diagnosis really be made
in that space of time, let alone a reliable assessment of the most appropriate
method of treatment? More and more patients are walking out of their
doctor’s office with a perscription in hand, no closer to finding
a solution to their problem. More importantly, this approach is putting
the mental health of countless millions on the line.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that more and more patients are receiving
their first course of anti-depressants in the form of samples of drugs
given by drug companies to doctors. Once on the drug, common practice
dictates that the patient’s intake is slowly increased until the
maximum dosage is reached, to determine whether the drug is appropriate.
If the drug is inappropriate or simply not working, it is ceased completely
or tapered off, and discontinuation symptoms ensue. This entire process
can take up to six months.
In other words, corporations like Wyeth are using the tactic of getting
in early to prevent patients from using other drugs from different companies.
The New York Times reported in September 2001 that the AMA “recently
launched a campaign to remind its members about the AMA’s ethical
guidelines” and discourage them from accepting freebies and samples.
“The campaign budget of $750,000 comes mostly from the pharmaceutical
business,” the Times reported.
On the other side of this $750,000 budget is the estimated $16 billion
the US pharmaceutical industry spent on giving freebies and samples
to doctors. These “gifts” are clearly compromising doctors’
decision-making abilities and their patients’ health. Further,
healthcare should not be treated as an “industry” and money-making
market influenced by profit-driven corporations like Wyeth and Pfizer.
While Wyeth reported its annual earnings as just over $2 billion for
last year (up from $1.67 billion in 2002), the gap between the rate
of depression and its treatment remains vast. (Wyeth’s total profit
last year would have been closer to $3.2 billion, had it not been ordered
to pay $1 billion in a case arising from the death of Texas woman caused
by one of its diet drugs.)
Source: Green Left Weekly
Starbucks workers strive for union
By John Lapp
June 1 (AGR) — On May 18 a group of barristas from a Manhattan,
New York City Starbucks delivered a petition to the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) asking that they be allowed to have an election to determine
whether their shop would be represented by the Industrial Workers of
the World (IWW) in a workers union. The NLRB has since accepted their
petition and the next step for the barristas is to go before the board
and argue their case for why they need a union and when the election
would take place. If the election passes, the Starbucks barristas will
be the first to unionize at any store in theStarbucks international
chain.
According to a Fact Sheet for Guests put out by the barristas, they
need to be unionized for a variety of reasons. They have said that many
workers suffer from stress-related injuries. The sheet also states that
“in order to save money, management refuses to schedule enough
workers to do the required work safely.” Others complain about
the low wages they receive, saying that making $7.75 an hour in New
York is well below a living wage. Another complaint is that no barristas
are given full-time status, allowing management to change their hours
every week, and making it difficult to afford housing and food. The
workers do say that they are given 401(k) plans, but that these plans
take so much out of their paychecks that they have little left over
after wards.
“Some times I bring home something like $180 a week after taxes,
which is nothing in New York,” Daniel Gross, a pro-union barrista,
told the AGR. Gross said that working at a Starbucks is far closer to
working at a McDonald’s -- in the sense that they serve huge crowds
everyday -- than the nice coffee shop that it is portrayed as.
“Starbucks talks about ‘Creating Warmth’ but the only
warmth I feel is the heat pad at the end of the day,” claims Anthony
Polanco, another pro-union barrista.
Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz made more than $17 million in profits last
year alone.
The barristas have faced much resistance from the management of the
Starbucks, who have hired the Akins Gump law firm to oppose the workers’
bid for unionization. The firm claims that the unionization would be
illegal, since it would only represent one store unit in the chain.
But according to the law, there is nothing that says a single store
in a chain cannot form a union.
Another tactic that Starbucks management has tried to use to avoid the
union is to expand the number of people who are working at the store.
According to the petition that the barristas originally submitted there
are 13 members of the unit, since the petition was filed the number
of barristas has increased to 21.
Also more managers and shift supervisors have been hired.
Starbucks management has apparently been using some tactics that are
clearly illegal, including threatening to cut health benefits for employees
who vote for the union. Some employees claim that the management has
also offered to make them into shift supervisors if they reject the
union. Senior Starbucks executives have been frequenting the shop in
question ever since the announcement for unionization was made public,
and many employees feel that this is a form of intimidation.
“All of this breaks the myth that Starbucks is a different kind
of corporation, a company that supposedly cares about their employees,
“commented David Gross. He also went on to describe CEO Howard
Shultz as, “a lot closer to a sweatshop kingpin than the image
of a smart businessman that he has.”
Gross was referring to the strenuous working conditions and low pay
barristas receive.
Gross also told the AGR that the barristas at his Starbucks feel solidarity
for the coffee growers that supply the chain with it’s coffee.
The IWW, the union that the barristas have chosen to become affiliated
with, was formed in 1905 as an alternative to the conservative American
Federation of Labor (AFL). The IWW originally sought to organize all
industrial workers, despite color, sex, or skill-level. They made a
point of making clearly anti-capitalist statements and showed solidarity
for all workers around the world, having locals in the US, Australia,
and the United Kingdom. In recent times the IWW has been relatively
small and obscure. When asked why they chose the IWW, Gross replied
that, “We want to make our own decisions. We didn’t want to
have union bosses replace our old bosses.”
GAO report reveals data-surveillance
programs
New York, New York, May 27— A new report
on “data mining” by the General Accounting Office reveals
at least four programs that may be accessing and analyzing private-sector
databases in ways that approach the “data surveillance”
of ordinary citizens, the American Civil Liberties Union said May
27.
“We always knew that the Pentagon’s ‘Total Information
Awareness’ program was not the only data-surveillance program
out there, but it now appears possible that such activities are even
more widespread than we imagined,” said Barry Steinhardt, Director
of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program. “We need to
find out right away whether these programs are indeed threatening,
or whether their use of information is benign. We can only tell so
much from the program descriptions in the GAO report.”
The GAO’s investigation uncovered 199 government uses of the
statistical analysis techniques known as data mining, 54 of which
use private-sector data. Such information could include any data held
in corporate or other private hands, including credit-card records
and internet logs.
In an appendix to its report, the investigators listed those programs,
providing a brief description of each and indicating its purpose and
whether it contained personal information, or made use of private-sector
data and data from other government agencies.
“This troubling report illustrates the need for Congress to enact
legislation like Senator Wyden’s Citizens Protection in Federal
Databases Act to address the privacy implications of government data
mining,” said Gregory T. Nojeim, Associate Director of the ACLU
Washington Legislative Office. “Government use of private-sector
databases should not become an end-run around the intent of the Privacy
Act,” Nojeim added.
The programs flagged by the ACLU were:
• Verity K2 Enterprise - Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Mines
data “to identify foreign terrorists or US citizens connected
to foreign terrorism activities.” (Page 30 of GAO report)
• Analyst Notebook I2 - Department of Homeland Security. “Correlates
events and people to specific information.” (p. 44)
• PATHFINDER - DIA. “Can compare and search multiple large
databases quickly” and “analyze government and private sector
databases.” (p. 30)
• Case Management Data Mart - DHS. “Assists in managing
law enforcement cases” Using private-sector data. (p. 44)
According to the GAO descriptions, all four programs draw on private-sector
databases, contain personally identifiable information, and appear
to constitute dragnets on the general population in efforts to detect
wrongdoing.
The ACLU also noted that many other programs listed by the GAO also
raise questions about how they are using information, including private-sector
information -- and that the GAO’s list did not include programs
run by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency,
which did not respond to the GAO’s requests for information.
“Statistical analysis itself is of course not the problem,”
Steinhardt said. “It is the construction of systems that systematically
aggregate information about the private activities of innocent individuals
on a mass scale, and the computerized scrutiny of those activities
for allegedly suspicious patterns that is at issue.”
The ACLU, together with the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
and the Center for Democracy and Technology, sent a joint letter May
27to Senator Akaka praising his efforts and the report.
“The GAO and Senator Daniel Akaka, who requested this report,
have performed a very valuable service in bringing us this report,”
said Nojeim, of the ACLU Legislative Office. “Whatever your ultimate
views on these programs, it can only help our nation to place these
practices before the public so they can be honestly evaluated and
discussed.”
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
|
