Today is the summer solstice, the longest day of the year. Midsummer’s night eve. Enjoy it, because now the days will start to get shorter!

I guess it really doesn’t signal the start of summer vacation anymore for kids, because it seems that schools are letting out earlier and earlier. Some of them end in mid-May, from what I hear. I remember that we went to school up until June 30. Sitting in those stifling hot, foul smelling, un-airconditioned classrooms….

Anyway, happy solstice. I guess today is a good day to visit Stonehenge.

What comes to mind if you see the names Walt Whitman, Louisa May Alcott, or Amelia Earhart? Do you think “nurse?” Probably not.

Okay, here’s another question. If you see the name Clara Barton, what comes to mind? Do you think “nurse?” Probably yes.

Now I am about to destroy a deeply embedded mythology about Clara Barton. If you don’t consider Whitman, Alcott, or Earhart to be nurses, then neither was Barton.

There was an interesting little article, written by Representative Paul Casey, in the Stoneham Sun, about an effort in Massachusetts to protect nurse staffing levels in the Commonwealth. Among the initiatives is the “Patient Safety Act”, which requires that hospitals maintain adequate nurse complements.

Sounds good. Sounds like some real action is being taken for both patients and nurses. But then they have to ruin it…

The Patient Safety Act also takes important steps to attract more nurses to Massachusetts hospitals. This bill creates the “Clara Barton Nursing Excellence” program, which includes mentoring and hospital/state partnership grants, scholarships and loan repayment services. By providing more support to potential nurses, the dearth of health providers and their educators that currently exists will hopefully be effectively addressed and reversed. The measure also streamlines the hiring procedures for nurses and centralizes all staffing data within the nurse-run Massachusetts Center for Nursing.

Why oh why is the program being named after Clara Barton? It seems that when anyone needs to conjure up a nurse, they call on either Florence Nightingale or Clara Barton. At least, Nightingale wanted to be a nurse and had an interest in it. But Barton was not a nurse, she was not trained as a nurse, nor did she serve in the Civil War out of a deep desire to do nursing. And it really is tiring to hear of Barton being called the “American Forence Nightingale,” or being referred to in encyclopedias and history books as “American nurse.”

Will the Real Clara Barton Stand up and Take a Bow?

Barton was born on Christmas day in 1821 in Oxford, MA. Okay, so she is a Massachusetts native but still no reason to name a nursing program after her. Let’s move along with her life. Her first career was as a schoolteacher, and her most notable antebellum achievement was the establishment of a free public school in Bordentown, N.J.

In 1861 Barton was living in Washington, D.C., working at the U.S. Patent Office, and had the distinction of being the first female patent clerk. When the 6th Massachusetts Regiment arrived in the city after the Baltimore Riots, she organized a relief program for the soldiers, beginning a lifetime of philanthropy. Now here is where the “nursing” comes in. When Barton learned that many of the wounded from First Bull Run had suffered, not from want of attention but from need of medical supplies, she advertised for donations and began an independent organization to distribute goods. The relief operation was successful, and the following year she was granted her a general pass to travel with army ambulances “for the purpose of distributing comforts for the sick and wounded, and nursing them.”

So for the next three years, Barton was active in getting supplies to the front lines and helping to care for the wounded. She also expanded her concept of soldier aid, organizing a program for locating men listed as missing in action. Through interviews with Union soldiers returning from Southern prisons, she was often able to determine the status of some of the missing and notify families.

When the war ended, so did her nursing career. It lasted three years out of a lifetime which lasted 91 years. Following the war, she continued working with the federal government in locating missing soldiers. And then for her most famous job–in 1881, she founded the American Red Cross, in conjunction with the International Red Cross. She remained as head of the Red Cross almost until the day she died, on April 12, 1912.

Barton was a schoolteacher, patent clerk, nurse, philanthropist, and your basic organizer. Why this woman is consistantly pinned with the title of nurse, a role which she had for barely 3 years and which was combined with a lot of other activity, is beyond me. Nursing is simply part of the mix of this woman’s varied life, just one brief moment in a lifetime filled with many many memorable moments.

Now, getting back to the names listed above. Walt Whitman and Louisa May Alcott both volunteered as nurses during the Civil War. Do we think of them as nurses today? Amelia Earhart volunteered during WW I, as did English writer Vera Brittain, who wrote an astounding memoir about her experience. Do we consider them nurses? Do people talk about the “nurse” Amelia Earhart who was lost during her flight around the world? Do we talk about the books that the “nurse” Walt Whitman wrote?

So why this label on Barton, who was no more a nurse than any other volunteer? If anything, Barton’s label should be philanthropist, because that is what she spent the bulk of her life doing, even during her school teaching years.

Now, getting back to the nursing initiative in Massachusetts. It is that difficult for them to find the name of a real nurse in Mass, and hopefully a more contemporary one, to name the program after? Surely there must be some nurse who has gone above and beyond the call of duty and warrents being singled out. I find it hard to believe that there is not one nurse in the entire state, or even in New England, who is worthy of having an initiative named after her (or him). How about a real nurse who actually trained as one, who wanted to work in nursing, and did so–rather than a fleeting volunteer during wartime.

Now isn’t this a novel concept. Imagine honoring a real nurse, rather than our tried and true mythological ones. And selecting the name of a lesser known personality not only better honors the profession, but also is a chance to teach a little nursing history.

I am thankful in that all of the years that I worked as a nurse, I never wore white. Only scrub clothes. Whoever came up with the idea of white for a nurse (no, it wasn’t Florence Nightingale), had to have their head examined. Can there be a more inappropriate color for such a messy job?

But I suppose that white was seen as the color of cleanliness, and also virginity and purity–so patients would assume that these fair ladies caring for them were clean, untainted and trustworthy. White has not always been the color of nursing, and there’s no reason to return to the them good ‘ol days of starched dresses and perky caps. Yeech.

The reason for this attempt to bring back the sordid whites is because patients are “confused.” Well, don’t torture your nursing staff just because the patient expects the nurse to be in white with a little cap. Patients also still expect doctors to be men, and nurses to be all women. Should we change that as well?

On nurse wrote that RNs in her facility have to wear white with the designated unit color. The CNA’s wear solid green. Does that help patient confusion? No, because the patients still think anyone in a set of scrubs is a nurse. They still think any male worker is the doctor.

t’s unclear exactly how many hospitals have returned to uniforms. Nursing officers say there’s no doubt it’s happening, even though it hasn’t been easy.

To begin with, most nurses don’t want to wear uniforms. In a 2003 online survey by the Fabric Workshop and Museum in Philadelphia, 21 percent of more than 1,000 nurses said they preferred wearing a uniform, compared with 64 percent of those who wanted to wear scrubs.

So why not make doctors wear uniforms, just to help the confusion. Many docs wear street clothes, have no identifying badge or ID, and you haven’t a clue who they are. A woman dressed in a skirt and heels can be a doctor, work in medical records, be a social worker, a visitor, etc. So what about adressing that part of patient confusion? Why force nurses back into the 1950s, and into a uniform that most of them loathe?

And on that note, then everyone should be banned from wearing scrubs except those who work in the operating room, or in another area where a certain degree of cleanliness is required. And that includes doctors who don’t fit the above decriptions.

Anyway, here’s an article about it. You’d think that there are enough problems in healthcare and in nursing, than for hospitals to be worrying about bringing about the angels in white.

Amgen, the biotech giant, has pulled the rug out from under the feet of desperate patients with Parkinson’s disease. They have halted trials of an experimental drug and said “Sorry, no can do,” to the patients involved. And from the viewpoint of the patient, for no apparent reason.

To even get this drug was no small matter. Patients had to undergo surgery to have it infused into their brains. What is also sad is that a judge has ruled with Amgen, who it says doesn’t have to supply the drug if they dont’ want to.

The drug, glial cell line- derived neurotropic factor, was in clinical trials when the manufacturer, Amgen, halted testing last August. Two patients sued, and in a decision dated June 6, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan ruled against them.

“We suspended access of GDNF after long and careful consideration to the clinical and safety data. We agree with the decision the judge reached,” said Amgen spokeswoman Andrea Rothschild. “We have a huge amount of respect for the patients, but given the potential safety risks and the unproven benefit, we believe we made the right decision.”

Robert Suthers of Greenlawn, the only patient from Long Island who was part of the trial, initiated the federal suit with another patient, Niwana Martin of Harpers Ferry, W.Va., after the company refused to offer the medicine under a federal “compassionate use” program, which allows experimental treatment for patients with no other medical options. In January, five study investigators and Amgen officials met with the Food and Drug Administration to talk about the drug’s safety and efficacy. Although researchers on the study said that no harmful side effects were noted in patients on the pump, Amgen officials pointed to studies in monkeys that found the drug may contribute to brain damage. They also said that some study patients developed immune antibodies to the drug.

Well you know, I could see if this was an acne drug and they were afraid of potential side effects. Or something to treat another non-life threatening disease. But Parkinson’s is a dreadful disease, that causes progressive degeneration and disability. Treatments are not very effective in the long run, and these patients were willing to take the risk. Afterall, what were their choices? Become wheelchair bound and be unable to even swallow?

Doctors involved in the trials said they have seen no harmful signs among the patients, many of whom, like Suthers, reported dramatic improvement, including the ability to walk without stumbling. FDA officials gave the green light for compassionate use, but Amgen had the final decision.

So why won’t Amgen continue to offer it? Under compassionate use, they have no real liability. Only 48 patients were being treated, so how could it be money? Amgen is a zillion dollar company. What gives, Amgen? This drug has been very effective in those using it, so you can’t say it doesn’t work.

“It is sad,” said Don Gash, a professor and chairman of anatomy and neurobiology at the University of Kentucky and one of the study investigators. “I think it would have been much more difficult for Amgen to make this inhumane decision if they were looking the patients in the eye.”

Yes it is sad. How quick would they have been to deny the drug if one of the top execs at Amgen suddenly came down with Parkinson’s disease?

The patient’s said they will appeal the decision.

Read the story on Newsday

I am absolutely snowed under with work, thus the lack of my usual frequent postings. And I’ve also been contemplating making a major move across the continent, heading for the East Coast. So as a result, instead of working on my ghosted articles about COX-2 inhibitors or overactive bladder, I’ve been looking at real estate online. Amazing how fast time flies when you gaze upon lovely homes on wooded lots…oh, how I want my own organic garden.

Anyway, hope to be back with more exciting posts. And the spammers are keeping me busy. In the past few days, I’ve deleted more than 50 comments, ie, spam, from my website. May the earth open up and swallow all spammers alive!

If you thought used car salesmen were bad now, just wait until they can entice you with “trust in a bottle.” Anybody looking for a nice piece of swamp land?

Scientists put trust in a bottle

How do you know whether to trust someone else? Yes, your sound judgment helps. But according to a team of Swiss-led researchers, your feelings of trust could be deepened if you were exposed to artificial levels of a hormone known as oxytocin.

“It lures you in with images of wonderful landscapes or sex, and it probably works in exactly the same way,” Damasio told Nature.com.

Poor Wal-Mart, trying so hard to preserve the health and well-being of their employees. We all know what a great employer Wal-Mart is (say the word “union” and you’ll be impaled and crucified upside down). According to Wal-Mart, it is bad for the health of employees to date eachother, give one another suggestive glances, or to laugh at “suggestive” humor. What constitutes suggestive is anyone’s guess, but maybe if you mention the word underwear or breast–even if you’re discussing feeding your infant–that can get you canned.

But unfortunately for Wal-Mart, they seem to forget that they are not king of the road outside of the U.S. Other countries have laws which they just can’t break at their will. And other countries, especially in Europe, are a little more protective of workers.

In a great victory for the world at large, a German labor court ruled on Wednesday that Wal-Mart cannot ban inter-office dating among employees at its German stores.

The court, in the western city of Wupperthal, found that parts of Wal-Mart’s 28-page employee “code of conduct” are illegal under German labor law.

Workers’ representatives from Wal-Mart’s 91 German stores had brought suit against retailer claiming that management did not consult them before the code was distributed to employees in February.

The court agreed and struck down rules that regulated employees’ love lives as well as those that prohibited “salacious glances and suggestive humor.”

An “ethics hotline” that employees were encouraged to call to report colleagues’ violations was also ordered shut down, the dpa news agency reported. Can you believe that, a hotline for employees to tattle on eachother? That certainly makes for a healthy and productive work environment.

A statement from the powerful ver.di services union said the Wal-Mart code promoted a “culture of backbiting” and said it represented a “grave attack on privacy rights.”

Under German labor laws, workers’ councils have broad powers to veto changes to working conditions, from hiring and firing to the quality of the food offered in company cafeterias.

Wal-Mart, which says that the “common sense” guidelines were intended to create a safe and healthy working environment, has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling.

Is Wal-Mart pathetic or what? Common sense guidelines? And whose health are they promoting by encouraging employees to rat on eachother for making “salicious” glances?

Just one more reason not to shop at Wal-Mart. Preserve your own health and that of the planet by staying away from this despicable company.

Ban it, and illicit sex will cease. So thinks the tiny minds of state officials in Wisconsin, who approved a ban on the so-called morning-after pill on state college campuses.

Are the Republicans really this dumb? I mean, haven’t we been there, done that? Aren’t there studies up the wazoo which show that having access to both birth control and emergency contraception do not increase sexual behavior?

The vote in the lower chamber late Thursday sends the bill to the state Senate; both are controlled by Republicans. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle said he will veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

The legislation would prohibit University of Wisconsin System health centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception — drugs that can block a pregnancy in the days after sex. The state university system has 161,000 students on 26 campuses.

Thank God for the sanity of the governor.

Now here are the ultra-intelligent words of one of the brain-challenged Republicans, Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, the dork who introduced the bill.

“Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW student? No,” LeMahieu said. “But we can tell the university that you are not going to condone it, you are not going to participate in it, and you are not going to use our tax dollars to do it.”

So hey, big boy, you seem to forget that parents and kids pay for their education at UW. They pay for the health service. And it is their tax dollars that help subsidize the university, so maybe you might try asking the public at large what they think of it? Not all of them may be as moronic in their thinking as you, and they may think this is a good thing to have available. Better than their daughter dumping a baby on them nine months from now, and a helluva lot better option than the same woman have to get an abortion two months later.

The dork makes it sound like this is a welfare system, or that narrow minded Republicans such as himself are the only ones supporting the universities.

I know that all Republicans don’t feel this way, and that many of them do use birth control, have abortions, engage in premarital sex, cheat on their spouses, get prescriptions filled for emergency contraceptives, beat their kids, cheat on their taxes, don’t go to church and even despise Bush. In other words, they all have vices and are not holier than thou. But apparently, the Repubs who voted for this in Wisconsin are heading towards massive cellular death in the central nervous system, and are having active brain cells replaced by the George Bush variety.

Or perhaps it is the attack of the giant hemmorrhoid, which has crept from their asshole upstairs into the cerebellum?

Either way, it seems that ever growing pockets of our nation are trying to take us back to those dark days of when contraception was a crime, women who had sex out of marriage were stoned (notice I say women), and the antidote to sexual drive was to glue your thighs together.

Read the article in the Seattle Times

If you thought that former press secretary Ari Fleischer was a moron, well, he was nothing compared to Scott McClellan. What the two of them never seemed to grasp is that ignoring and evading questions not only makes them appear more stupid then they actually are, but even makes the President appear dumber than he is (if that is at all possible).

This is part of White House Daily Press Briefing — May 26, 2005 — 2:17
p.m.

Press question: There are news reports this morning that
parents and children who were guests of the President, when they visited
Congress, wore stickers with the wording, “I was an embryo.” And my question is, since all of us were once embryos, and all of us were once part sperm and egg, is the President also opposed to contraception, which stops this union and kills both sperm and egg?

Scott McClellan: – and if you want to ask those questions, that’s fine. I’m just not going to dignify them with a response.

Can you tell us yes or no, Scott? Are either of those two words too complex for you to grasp the meaning of?

And what to make of his final response? That it’s okay for the press to ask relatively simple questions, but he’s “not going to dignify them with a response.” Is that doubletalk for 1) I don’t know the answer 2) The president really doesn’t what contraception is, or sex for that matter–the stork delivered his twins 3) Bush is spearheading a campaign to ban birth control but he’s afraid that his wife and daughters will castrate him if he publicly announces it?

Scott McClellan is supposed to be the mouthpiece for the White House, and yet he just trips over his own dick and can’t speak on a very important topic. This exchange is just really sickening, but I commend the reporter for at least having the balls to ask and persist. The press does seem to be getting a little more aggressive it seems, in trying to pry some answers out of the top secret Bush regime.

Depending on how you look at it, today marks either a grand new era in nursing, or the beginning of a rather demeaning era. The first “real” training program, and I emphasize the word “real” because it was the first one that was set up to incorporate both classroom and clinical training, for nurses began on this date in 1860.

An agreement was made with St. Thomas’ Hospital in London, and under the auspices of Florence Nightingale, 15 students students entered the first class of the hospital’s Nightingale Training School for Nurses. The Nightingale system emphasized strict discipline, camaraderie and devotion to nursing, which Nightingale considered a calling rather than a profession.

The good part is that Florence Nightingale’s school finally was going to actually give nurses more of an education than had ever been done in the past. Because of its strict discipline, it also was elevating the status of nurses, and making it “respectable.” On the downside, Nightingale’s school system set the tone of nursing for the next 100 years or so, for the worse. Men were excluded, and nursing quickly turned into “women’s work,” and all that goes with it–long hours, low pay, low status, no respect. Hospitals quickly caught wind of this new fangled idea, and began to open training schools, which served a dual purpose of staffing their hospitals with what was basically slave labor. When students completed their training, they were booted out to do private duty work, and a whole new crew of student nurses took their place.

Amazing as it may seem, except for a matron and a few instructors, hospitals remained largely staffed by students (who were usually given room and board and a piddly stipend for their troubles) until the 1930s in the U.S.

Anyway, it is an exciting date in nursing history, that the first real training school opened. It is equally sad that nursing training took the turn that it did.

Just when we thought the streets of California were becoming safe again, here comes Arnold once again. Back on the warpath, dreaming of glory days when he was once the real terminator. In his last movie, the new updated terminator woman gives Ahnold run for his money. He is an obsolete model, outdated, a piece of crap.

Which is what basically describes his governorship.

Arnold is now poised to destroy labor unions across the state, which he deems as the source of all evil. The horrendous special interest groups that are sucking money from the people, and doing all sorts of damage. And it’s true. Just think how much money could be going into the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats such as Arnold, if state workers likes teachers, firefighters, prison guards, etc, could be relegated to minimum wage. Have no health benefits. No pensions.

Damn those unions for trying to give common folks a decent life. Shame on them.

And the nurses, now that’s Arnold’s special baby. Oh, them good old days when nurses worked 80 hour weeks for less pay than a factory worker or secretary. And if a nurse could handle 30 patients circa 1952, what are they bitching about now? Just think of the zillions that hospitals could save. And put those lazy nurses back to work doing laundry, scrubbing floors and preparing meals.

Damn those unions, for helping to change the status quo.

Arnold now wants to spend millions on a special election in November, to push through “reforms” that are largely designed to destroy the state’s Democratic base, unions, and most everyone else who lives in the state. Unless you are a mega-industry and have painted Arnold’s palm with gold. Indeed, the man is so delusional that he thinks he is once again, trying to hunt down the evil John Connor.

The challenge for Schwarzenegger is one that has tripped him up so far: how to separate the unions from the people they represent.

From the San Jose Mercury:

In trying to cast unions as powerful special interests controlling Sacramento, Schwarzenegger has roused the thousands of union members, from nurses and police officers to teachers and firefighters, who see the governor’s assault as a personal attack. Should the governor endorse the union dues measure, it could have a similar boomerang effect and end up galvanizing the very forces Schwarzenegger is trying to defeat.

“In his mind, he sees this as some mythic battle between a superhero and the forces of evil,” said Republican strategist Ray McNally, who is working with the state prison guard union. “Trouble is, the forces of evil in his mind are teachers, nurses, firefighters, peace officers, public servants and legislators.”

His first major defeat was at the hands of the California Nurses Association, who he tried to portray as being harmful to the healthcare industry. Good nurses don’t do those kind of things, you know. They wear their little white uniforms, go to work and obey.

So now, after a humiliating defeat at the hands of a bunch of little girls, Arnold is back in full terminator mode. He will defeat the enemy, he is programmed to do so…

But Arnold, don’t you remember? You are an obsolete model. You are slated to be dismantled. So why not just self-destruct now, before those little nurses slap you down again. They kicked your butt and good, and they’ll do it again.

How many studies does it take, Monsanto, to acknowledge that you are poisoning the world?

New research from France has confirmed previous studies that Monsanto’s Roundup, the most commonly used herbicide in the world, is much more toxic that Monsanto admits. The study indicates that at levels 100 times lower than the recommended use in agriculture, Roundup herbicide causes reproductive damages and endocrine disruption. In other related news, the FDA Office of Plant and Dairy Foods has stated that half of the non-organic produce they have tested in grocery stores contains traceable residues of various pesticides, including Roundup.

That’s great to know that not even organic produce is as safe as we’d like. I’m so happy to know that I can find traces of Roundup in my organic tomatoes.

Read the details about how Monsanto is helping your health. Very important if you are pregnant, or thinking about having a baby.

And what does the FDA and the USDA have to say about this? Absolutely nothing.

This is a great day at the Vatican. Italians voted to keep their restrictive laws governing ferility research and treatments in place. And personally, I think it’s a good thing.

Why? Am I mean and nasty and enjoy seeing infertile couples suffer? Am I good Catholic bowing to the Vatican?

No, to both of the above. I personally think that fertility research is moving ahead too quickly, and we need to put the brakes on it for a little while until we sort out the ethics and consequences of what we are doing. Italy’s law came as a backlash to a rapidly expanding fertility “playground” which was dubbed the “Wild West” because it was largely unregulated and doctors were doing whatever they pleased.

Efforts to dismantle Europe’s most restrictive fertility legislation were dashed on Monday as a two-day nationwide consultation over a controversial law in Italy failed because of low voter turnout.

Although more than 80% of those who did take part in the referendum answered “Yes” to revise the much disputed law, only 25.9% of eligible citizens actually took part in the referendum—roughly half the number required for it to be legally valid.

However, I do think that the law went a little bit too far. It banned any embryo testing for research or experimental purposes, freezing embryos, the use of stem cells from about 30,000 embryos that were created and frozen before the new rules came into force, as well as preimplantation diagnosis for preventing genetically transmitted diseases.

It also prohibits donor insemination, denies access to artificial reproductive techniques for single women, and states that no more than three cells may be fertilized in vitro, and that they must be transferred into the womb simultaneously.

The provision which was defeated would have deleted the law’s provisions relating to embryo research, the attribution of rights to the embryo, the three embryo limit, and the ban on egg or sperm donation. I think that embryos should be allowed to be used for research, if the parents agree or if the embryos have been abandoned. Afterall, there is no law stating that they can’t be disposed of. So if they’re not used for research, then is flushing them down the toilet a better option? And trying to adopt out embryos has been largely unsuccessful.

But I do agree with the three embryo limit, because that eliminates the problem of multiple births beyond triplets. That should be kept in place. And even though it wasn’t on the agenda for repeal, I think that putting a halt on embryo freezing is a good idea, because we haven’t figured out what to do with the hundreds of thousands of embryos currently sitting in deep freeze. We don’t need to add more to the population.

I had thought that the new Italian law said something about banning in-vitro fertilization in menopausal women, or that there was an age limit on it. Maybe there is and this article just didn’t mention it. That I think, is an issue that does need to be addressed as well.

You can read about it in The Scientist

If you’ve got AIDS, Mississippi is the last place you want to be living. If you’re poor that is, and receive your healthcare from Medicaid. It seems that some genius–a brainless bean counter who obviously has no worries about affordable healthcare–has decided that AIDS patients are simply numbers. And since these people have the audacity to take so many different drugs, what better way to cut spending than by putting limits on their medication?

Here is a very disturbing news release from my friends at IDSA:

Mississippi’s New Medicaid Law Threatens the Lives of People with HIV/AIDS

Mississippi’s new Medicaid law limiting beneficiaries to two brand-name drugs will force people living with HIV/AIDS onto a drug regimen that can lead to premature death and the spread of drug-resistant virus, according to the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA).

“Since its introduction in 1996, HAART has commuted the death sentence of people worldwide infected with HIV,” Dr. Volberding says. “Mississippi’s new Medicaid law takes a giant step backward.” HIVMA urges Governor Haley Barbour not to cut people living with HIV/AIDS off from the medications they need to live.

As you may have seen, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of marijuana as a medicinal drug. I don’t blame the Supreme Court as much as I blame the Bush administration. If the Bushies and Bushettes had left well enough alone, and allowed states to make their own decisions regarding the health and well being of their citizens, there wouldn’t have been a Supreme Court case.

Ten states have voted to allow sick people to use marijuana to relieve a cornucopia of symptoms, ranging from glaucoma to nausea to intractable pain. Obviously, the people in question are quite ill and in much discomfort, and they know what works and what doesn’t. Marijuana is effective. It is also cheap. They can grow it themselvs, which is quite a boon for those without health insurance (remember Bush–4o million have no health insurance), or for those who are underinsured or don’t have a prescription policy.

But apparently, Bush and cronies and cronies think that denying people pain relief, or allowing them to go blind, is a great thing. Marijuana is a dangerous and treacherous drug, and thou shalt not smoke. Pain is better, and going blind isn’t such a big deal. Afterall, you can learn to read with Braille.

You really have to wonder what’s up with the drug czar. Can he be that much of a moron to keep plugging away at this inane policy? Surely there are other reasons for this hideous stance. And aren’t Republicans supposed to be in favor of state’s rights? Isn’t that one of their mantras?

These are my reasons, why I think the drug czar has this vendetta against medical marijuana:

1) Medical marijuana allows patients to opt out of the drug system. That’s right—they grow it themselves, or buy it from the local church, and the big pharmaceutical companies are completely out of the loop. That’s what it’s about, isn’t it. These people have the audacity to deny big pharma revenue.

2) The War on Drugs is such a dismal failure that the drug czar has to find someone to pick on. Someone close up and vulnerable and within his reach (sort of like dubya attacking Iraq instead of finding the elusive bin Laden). He can’t stop the drug lords, and even the local pushers have eluded his warriors. So who is more vulnerable and accessible than sick people using marijuana. Round ‘em up and let’s get those cancer patients into the penitenary, because obviously, they are a danger to society.

3) The hemmorrhoid that he has growing in his asshole is expanding at an alarming speed, and is now slowly devouring his brain.

Here are a few comments that I’ve seen on the subject:

Well, the Feds have done it again: it’s now open season on cancer patients, AIDS victims, and little old ladies with glaucoma who use doctor-prescribed marijuana to ease their symptoms. Thanks to the Bush administration, which can’t find Osama bin Laden but evidently has the manpower to go after citizens with a pot plant or two growing in their living room.

Yes, one would think that the feds would have better things to do with their time and resources. like hunting terrorists. Then again, they seem to think that forbidding nail clippers on board on a plane is a major step forward in fighting the war on terror.

I’m not even going to debate the pros and cons of medical marijuana here; it just angers me that a government which supposedly espouses states’ rights and individual freedoms is not only sticking its nose into people’s bedrooms, but their medical records and their gardens as well. But then, I guess freedom—like everything else—is allowed only as long as this administration agrees with it

Duh, I guess states rights doesn’t include the right to live without pain.

In the meantime, all Hell is breaking loose elsewhere in the country………..meth use, which affects everyone is epidemic now; we still have 45 million men, women, and children without access to health care; our educational system is over-mandated and underfunded; our borders are like a sieve; prices for everything from gas to milk are going through the roof; PLUS we’re in the middle of a war. Don’t the feds have anything better to do than pick on sick people using a natural herb that, God forbid, makes them feel better??!!

I think that says it all.

If the pharmaceutical companies can’t make a profit, no one is going to legalize and/or market it. Their lobby is too strong and they gave zillions to Bush. This is just another piece of corrupt immorality.

So what did ever happen to those compassionate conservatives? Or do you have to be a pre-embro living in a petri dish to get noticed in this country, or to have someone care about you?

One of the biggest medical mysteries of all times is the subject of today’s entry into the annals of health/medical history.

What did Alexander the Great die from? Was he poisoned? Did he die of natural causes?

On June 13, 323 BC (or BCE for the politically correct among us), Alexander the Great , at the tender age of 33, died. He wasn’t sick, and in fact, his death came after a huge celebration. But for some reason, after some heavy duty partying in Babylon (which by the way, is present day Iraq), he dropped dead. Just like that.

Trying to figure out the cause of death of a person who died 2300 years ago is no small feat, particularly if you haven’t even got a corpse to play with. It does seem to be a favorite pasttime to try to figure out the illnesses and ailments of historical figures, both real and fictional, and Alexander has come under intense scrutiny. Over the years, biographers and doctors have offered various theories, attributing his death to intentional poisoning (not unlikely for a conquerer), pancreatitis (too much alcohol), malaria (lots of mosquitos where he hung out) and, most recently, typhoid fever.

Unfortunately, there’s not even a scrap of DNA for doctors to inspect. Not even so much as a dried out bone or strand of hair. After Alexander died, his body was stolen when it was being sent back to Macedonia. It was embalmed, and displayed in a glass sarcophagus in Alexandria (Egypt) for over five centuries , and then it somehow vanished. To this day, the whereabouts of his corpse are unknown. So I suppose that unless his body turns up, or we uncover the true, unabridged diary written by Alexander’s private physician, this is just one medical mystery that will remain unsolved.

And the military is wondering why recruitment is down and that their quotas are going unmet. Aside from that fiasco called Iraq, the military has no regard for the women who serve, and thinks that its a-ok to discriminate against them. Believe me, if this legislation applied to men, it would have been passed in a New York minute or less.

House Denies Reproductive Health Care to Servicewomen

Late last month, the House of Representatives voted to deny servicewomen better access to reproductive health care on military facilities. The amendment, offered to the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1815), by Reps. Susan Davis (D-CA) and Jane Harman (D-CA) would lift the current ban that forbids servicewomen and female military dependents from using their own funds for abortion care at overseas military hospitals. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 194-233.

The refusal to consider these amendments comes on the heels of recent
military reports that 1,275 cases of sexual assault among service members were reported to military criminal investigators last year – a 25 percent increase from 2003, and 41 percent over the 2002 figure. In the Army alone, the number of reported rape cases rose from 356 in 1999 to 469 in 2003.

So in other words, the military thinks that sexual assault is okay for female serving their country. One has to wonder why the numbers are increasing so dramatically (could it be the failure to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law?) in the first place. And then not to guarantee emergency contraception to women on military bases, who have been raped and assaulted by one of their own?

Absolutely disgusting. I hope some women in the military sue on grounds of discrimination. As I said, if this applied to men, you’d better believe that those morning after pills would be as easy to obtain as a stick of chewing gum, and probably kept in stock in every barracks on every base.

Here’s another reason why I love Monsanto so much. When it comes to sleaze, they are at the top of the list. They have grandiose dreams of controlling the planet’s food and water supply, but it seems that pesky scientists (not on their payroll), even more annoying activists, and reporters seeem to keep getting in their way. Here’s another story about Monsanto, and why they are dangerous to the health of the planet.

The plague of genetically modified (GM) foods infecting the country’s food supply continues to run rampant. In fact, an alarming 75 percent of all processed products in the United States contain some GM ingredients; but the infestation doesn’t stop there.

Additionally, Dr. Pusztai noted a long list of significant differences between conventional corn and MON 863 — the kind of corn modified by Monsanto to ward off corn rootworm.

Read the article from The Independent

Yes, it’s true. Poor Monsanto, my heart goes out to you, but it seems that people don’t want to consume your toxic hormones. Sure you got a sweetheart deal from the FDA to approve bovine growth hormone without any proof that it’s safe. Oh, I know it was a big blow to you when the EU and Canada banned it, despite relentless pressure from both you and the FDA to approve it. But they apparently had data that was suppressed here, damning data which indicated that you were lying.

At any rate, read this and weep, because the demand for ORGANIC milk (read my lips, guys) is enormous. That’s milk that excludes your beloved bovine growth hormone, as well as pesticides and antibiotics. Oh my, how tragic. People want milk that excludes all of those essential nutrients. And don’t they know that you, Monsanto, have to make a profit?

The consumer demand for organic dairy products in the U.S. now exceeds the supply by at least 15%. As an example, Organic Valley Coop, the second largest organic dairy company in the U.S., experienced a 36% growth in sales in 2004, but says it would be growing even faster if it wasn’t for supply limitations. There simply are not enough organic dairy farmers. While the USDA gives out $25 billion a year in taxpayers money for crop subsidies to large farms engaged in chemical intensive agriculture and genetic engineering, family farmers wishing to make the transition to organic get nothing. Bruce Ellis, CEO of Wisconsin Organics, says the shortage of organic milk has severely limited his company’s growth. If more conventional dairy farmers converted to organic, Ellis says his company could “certainly grow several hundred times.”

Now I am sure that Monsanto is wondering how to change this trend. The nerve of consumers to shun their hormone laden garbage. The FDA already tried to forbid labeling of milk that was NOT treated with hormones, and they tried to force dairy companies to put labels on their milk saying that “milk treated with hormones was identical to milk not treated,” which was an outright lie since the milk is quite different. If it was identical, then why has it been banned virtually everywhere else in the world?

I suppose that Monsanto could start working with the USDA and the FDA in getting organic milk banned, or mandating that all milk must contain their hormone. That all cows must be pumped up with antibiotics and eat antibiotic laced grain, and only eat food grown with pesticides. Oh, how could I forgot? The cow feed must be from genetically modified grains. Now wouldn’t that bring a smile to Monsanto’s face, instead of this nasty trend towards “au naturel.”

Who are these luddites, anyway, demanding something as retro as organic milk?

Read the story

In keeping with my previous post about stupid headlines, here’s another one that appeared today in the Seattle paper; “Mount Rainier claims third life this year.”

Excuse me, but the mountain didn’t do anything. Mt. Rainier didn’t go on a rampage murdering and pillaging. Three people who decided to climb the mountain, and who were well aware of the risks involved, had accidents which unfortunately took their lives.

Yes, it’s sad that people die in accidents. The man who just died was a firefighter and it will be a great loss to the community, to say nothing of leaving his two small children without a father. But that headline is ridiculous, as though it’s trying to absolve the man who died from any responsibility. It makes it sound like this guy was walking along, minding his own business, and the mountain reached out and grabbed him. Then bludgeoned him to death.

Mountain climbing is dangerous. Exciting, but dangerous. The mountain sits there, the people seek it out. The elements of nature do not adjust themselves in any way to either attack climbers or make life easier.