|
Drug firms ‘inventing diseases’
|
|||
Pharmaceutical firms are inventing diseases to sell more drugs, researchers have warned.Disease-mongering promotes non-existent diseases and exaggerates mild problems to boost profits, the Public Library of Science Medicine reported. Researchers at Newcastle University in Australia said firms were putting healthy people at risk by medicalising conditions such as menopause. But the pharmaceutical industry denied it invented diseases.
Report authors David Henry and Ray Moynihan criticised attempts to convince the public in the US that 43% of women live with sexual dysfunction. They also said that risk factors like high cholesterol and osteoporosis were being presented as diseases – and rare conditions such as restless leg condition and mild problems of irritable bowel syndrome were exaggerated. The report said: “Disease-mongering is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments. Campaigns “It is exemplified mostly explicitly by many pharmaceutical industry-funded disease awareness campaigns – more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health.” The researchers called on doctors, patients and support groups to be aware of the marketing tactics of the pharmaceutical industry and for more research into the way in which conditions are presented. They added: “The motives of health professionals and health advocacy groups may well be the welfare of patients, rather than any direct self-interested financial benefit, but we believe that too often marketers are able to crudely manipulate those motivations. “Disentangling the different motivations of the different actors in disease-mongering will be a key step towards a better understanding of this phenomenon.” But Richard Ley, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said the research was centred on the US where the drugs industry had much more freedom to promote their products to the public. “The way you can advertise is much more restricted in the UK so it is wrong to extrapolate it. “Also, it is not right to say the industry invents diseases, we don’t. It is up to doctors to decide what treatment to give people, we can’t tell them.” |
|||
Category: Article
by the BBC
TPP, TTIP, and Comparison Between TTP/TTIP Countries and the BRICS
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5895.html
TPP – THE BIG PICTURE
show how all the world’s events are just
pebbles in the mosaic of one global power.
May God save the world.”
The Observer, 2014TPP – One Piece of a Gigantic Puzzle
The TPP did not float to the shores of Australia in a sealed bottle. It has been many years in the making. It is part of a wider plan never discussed in our media. Australia’s participation in the TPP is a small part of a geopolitical power play by the US and its largest corporations. This powerplay has two major components. One is economic and the other is political/military. How does the TPP in Australia fit into the massive changes taking place in the world economy? How do these changes fit into the international political and military situation?Who is in the TPP? Who is Not in the TPP?
The TPP is not just a local imposition on our sovereignty and legal system. The negotiations on what became the TPP began in 2005.(1) The main nasty element of the TPP, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, was developed in the late 1980s.(2) The TPP covers 12 contries which border on the Pacific: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Unlike standard bilateral trade agreements, the TPP is a one size fits all treaty carefully designed by 600 of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. It is forced on the politicians of the different countries, not negotiated by them.The TPP does not include any of the Asian Tigers in our region. It does not include China, which has the second largest economy in the world as measured by its Gross Domestic Product.(GDP). Nor does it include important South East Asian countries like Indonesia – 9th largest GDP, South Korea – 11th, Taiwan – 21st, or Thailand – 22nd. The table below shows the GDP rank of the countries involved in the TPP.(3) Slightly more than half of them rank lower than these important Asian economies. What the 11 countries joining with the US in the TPP have in common is that they are politically very close to the US. Are these 11 countries in the TPP simply because they are client states of the US and prepared to accept the dictates of the the US corporations?
Countries in the TPP with GDP rank:
United States 1
Japan 4
Mexico 11
Canada 15
Australia 19
Malaysia 28
Vietnam 37
Singapore 40
Chile 42
Peru 47
New Zealand 69
Brunei 116
And There is More – the TTIP!
The TPP is not a one-off. There is another TPP clone being negotiated between the US and the EU called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It developed out of three important groups. In 1995, a pressure group of business people was founded. Later the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) was set up by public authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. In turn this led, in 1998, to the creation of an advisory committee, the Transatlantic Economic Partnership.(4) Finally negotiations got serious about 2013 and it is supposed to be finalized this year. The TTIP covers the US and 28 countries.(5) Three European countries are missing: Iceland, Switzerland and Norway.
One might also wonder where Israel fits into this global economic picture. Israel’s rank of 54 puts it between Portugal – 53rd and Morocco – 55th. In terms of its economic weight, Israel is clearly a lightweight. Really it is a US funded garrison state in the Middle East. It has political and military influence far above its lowly position in the world economic system. In economic terms it is outranked by the following Middle Eastern countries: Saudi Arabia – 14th, Turkey – 17th, Iran – 18th, Egypt – 24th, the United Arab Emirates – 32th, Algeria – 34th, Iraq – 35th, Qatar – 49th and Kuwait – 52th. If there ever was an national mouse that roared, it is Israel.
There is an Alternative to the TPP/TTIP Trade Block – the BRICS
Outside of the TPP/TTIP trade block several countries are coming together to create a new economic world order. In reality this is a direct challenge to the TPP/TTIP trade block because they want to do things very differently. Their goal is to replace the current system controlled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which in turn are directed by the international 1% in the US and the EU. One of their main goals is to use local currencies rather than the US dollar for imports and exports. The most prominent countries working on this project are Russia and China. The media, our government and all major political parties in Australia are silent about these new and quite public plans.
The most prominent countries leading this movement are called the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The BRICS countries also play a role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Asian counterweight to NATO. The SCO is made up of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, India, Mongolia, Iran, and Pakistan.
Comparison Between TTP/TTIP Countries and the BRICS
It is useful to look at the GDP of the BRICS countries and compare them with some of the major EU countries. As we have seen China is ranked 2nd. India is 3rd. Russia – 6th, Brazil – 7th, and South Africa is 29th. By comparison, Germany at 5th is below China and India. France at 8th is below Russia and Brazil. The UK, at 10th, is just below Indonesia at 9th, and just above Mexico.
Top 10 countries by GDP rank:
1. USA TPP/TTIP
2. China BRICS
3. India BRICS
4. Japan TPP/TTIP
5. Germany TPP/TTIP
6. Russia BRICS
7. Brazil BRICS
8. France TPP/TTIP
9. Indonesia Independent
10. UK TPP/TTIP
Thus of the top 10 countries ranked by GDP, four of them are in the BRICS, five of them are in the TTP/TTIP block. The only “non-aligned” country in the top 10 is Indonesia. Notice that the BRICS countries are not economic lightweights, and to think of them as “underdeveloped” is to miss the point. In economic terms they are right up there with the Big Boys of the West. Further, if you think about the aggressive and antagonistic attitude of Prime Minister Abbott toward Indonesia, it is interesting to realize that ranked in terms of its GDP, it is easily on a par with his native UK. He is certainly not thinking about Australia’s economic and political future in Asia.
The following table highlights an interesting fact about a difference between the major Western countries in the TPP/TTIP trade agreements and the major BRICS countries.(6) All of the major Western countries in the TPP/TTIP agreements have a greater government debt to GDP ratio than any of the BRICS countries. Note also that Australia’s debt to GDP ratio is at the lower end of the percentages for the BRICS countries. While the Liberal/National Coalition talks of Australia’s level of government debt as if it was a sign of gross economic mismanagement – and Labor does not seem to dispute this – Australia’s debt level is relatively low by world standards. It looks much better than the debt ratios of the large Western countries who run the IMF. Do they practice what they preach? It seems the LNP Coalition are just playing politics.
Please go to
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5895.html
for more details.
Bringing back the Carbon Tax?
Max Corden argues that the tax burden of a carbon tax could come to represent a benefit for future generations.
Australians have been told that this “great big new tax” would be a burden. Max Corden points out that all taxes impose burdens or costs somewhere, whether on companies or individuals.
I think it is a very interesting article. If you want to read it, please go to the above link.
Weimar America
Weimar America: Four Major Ways We’re Following In Germany’s Fascist Footsteps.
I think this is an interesting article!
The Matthew Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from The Matthew Effect)
In sociology, the Matthew effect (or accumulated advantage) is the phenomenon where “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”[1][2] In both its original and typical usage it is meant metaphorically to refer to issues of fame or status but it may also be used literally to refer to cumulative advantage of economic capital. The term was first coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1968 and takes its name from a verse in the biblical Gospel of Matthew, pertaining to Jesus’ parable of the talents:
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath.
Australia – Cambodia Refugee Deal
http://www.upswellmag.com/blog–australia-refugees-and-the-containment-of-surplus-life
According to the Australian government refugees who tried to come to Australia in one of these leaky boats, that are operated by people smugglers, refugees like this who are being held at present in some offshore detention centre, have eventually to be settled in a country other than Australia. Our government calls this a very successful border control policy. They are adamant that Australian voters do like this policy. The introduction of this policy has stopped the boats for quite some time now. People who dared to come near Australia in one of these leaky boats in the past and who are at present in some off shore detention centre, have to be settled in some country elsewhere, not in Australia, so our government says.
Cambodia apparently is willing to receive refugees as settlers. Australia does not want to settle these unwanted boat arrivals in our vast country.
SPIEGEL Interview with Leon Panetta
Leon Panetta, 76, served under former US President Bill Clinton as White House chief of staff. He later served as defense secretary and the head of the CIA under President Barack Obama. He retired during the spring of 2013 and Penguin Press published his memoir, “Worthy Fights,” in October 2014.
Debaltseve
Chancellor Angela Merkel has often been accused of hesitancy. But in Minsk this week, she committed herself to helping find a way to quiet the weapons in Ukraine. The result was a cease-fire. But it is fragile and may ultimately be disadvantageous for Ukraine.
The problem has four syllables: Debaltseve. German Chancellor Angela Merkel can now pronounce it without difficulties, as can French President François Hollande. Debaltseve proved to be one of the thorniest issues during the negotiations in Minsk on Wednesday night and into Thursday. Indeed, the talks almost completely collapsed because of Debaltseve. Ultimately, Debaltseve may end up torpedoing the deal that was worked out in the end.
Debaltseve is a small town in eastern Ukraine, held by 6,000 government troops, or perhaps 8,000. Nobody wants to say for sure. It is the heart of an army that can only put 30,000 soldiers into the field, a weak heart. Until Sunday of last week, that heart was largely encircled by pro-Russian separatists and the troops could only be supplied by way of highway M03. Then, Monday came.
Separatist fighters began advancing across snowy fields towards the village of Lohvynove, a tiny settlement of 30 houses hugging the M03. The separatists stormed an army checkpoint and killed a few officers. They then dug in — and the heart of the Ukrainian army was surrounded.
The situation in Debaltseve plunged the Ukrainian army into a desperate, almost hopeless, position, as the negotiators in Minsk well knew. Indeed, it was the reason the talks were so urgently necessary. Debaltseve was one of the reasons Merkel and Hollande launched their most recent diplomatic offensive nine days ago. The other reason was the American discussion over the delivery of weapons to the struggling Ukrainian army.
Debaltseve and the weapons debate had pushed Europe to the brink of a dangerous escalation — and the fears of a broader war were growing rapidly. A well-armed proxy war between Russia and the West in Ukraine was becoming a very real possibility. A conflict which began with the failure of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and the protests on Maidan Square in Kiev, and one which escalated with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of the Crimea Peninsula, has long since become the most dangerous stand-off Europe has seen in several decades. It is possible that it could ultimately involve the US and Russia facing each other across a line of demarcation.
Ukrainian Crisis
Julian Borger is the Guardian’s diplomatic editor. He was previously a correspondent in the US, the Middle East, eastern Europe and the Balkans.
Arming Ukraine army may escalate conflict, west warned.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/08/arming-ukraine-army-escalate-conflict-ocse
Richard Norton-Taylor writes for the Guardian on defence and security and until recently was the paper’s security editor. He is a regular broadcaster.
He joined the Guardian in 1973 as the newspaper’s first European correspondent based in Brussels. He returned to Britain in 1975. He won the Freedom of Information Campaign Award in 1986 and in 1994, and Liberty’s Human Rights Award for journalism in 2010.
He edits the Guardian Defence and Security blog with Ewen MacAskill
US weapons to Ukraine ‘would be matched by Russian arms to rebels’
International Institute for Strategic Studies warns that Moscow could arm separatists more quickly than US could reinforce Ukraine’s forces
Ukraine Crisis
Ukraine Crisis More Dangerous Than Cold War
By Igor Ivanov Jan. 26 2015 17:27 Last edited 17:28
Since the crisis in Ukraine began, many have claimed that a new Cold War between Russia and the West already exists. This rhetoric, used even by high-profile politicians, in my opinion, is driven mostly by emotions and is meant to justify difficult positions taken by one or the other side.
I am convinced that no Cold War of the type we experienced in the second half of the 20th century can be repeated today. The world has changed in the most radical way. Today we live in an entirely new reality that does not fit the old paradigms.
But if we compare the current state of global affairs with those that existed during the Cold War, we must keep in mind that during the Cold War, international relations were confined by a certain order established after the end of World War II.
All the shortcomings and liabilities of this order notwithstanding, it allowed humankind to avoid a new global disaster.
True, we all lived fearing a devastating nuclear conflict. But this fear forced the Soviet Union and the United States to negotiate serious nuclear arms reduction agreements accompanied by appropriate verification mechanisms.
Today we live in a world where the old order has ceased to exist, and a new one that would suit all the major players has not yet been established. And this is what makes our times so different from the Cold War.
Yes, we have the same international institutions like the United Nations, just as we had in the second half of the past century. Formally, we all subscribe to the established norms of international law. However, as the Ukraine crisis has demonstrated once again, the old institutions are dramatically losing their efficiency, and international law is becoming a victim of political interests.
The current transition stage in international relations has become unnecessarily protracted, and further procrastinations in facing these problems will generate more complications. Above all, the current transition creates major security challenges.
The threat of a nuclear conflict is higher today than it was during the Cold War. In the absence of a political dialogue, with mutual mistrust reaching historical highs, the probability of unintended accidents, including those involving nuclear weapons, is getting more and more real.
The situation with regional conflicts does not look any better. Let us consider, for instance, the Middle East conflict and the security of Israel. During the Cold War, the two superpowers had at their disposal mechanisms that could stop military clashes in the region within a couple of days, preventing uncontrolled escalation. Today such mechanisms are no longer available.
The recent terrorist act in Paris has demonstrated not only the vulnerability of modern society to religious extremism, but also the absence of adequate instruments that should unite the international community in its fight against this common threat.
Likewise, the Ukraine crisis that has already led to thousands of deaths and the suffering of millions of innocent people should be a powerful message to all of us: We are falling behind a rapidly changing world and are failing to come up with adequate solutions to problems of the 21st century.
I noticed that on New Year’s Eve many wished their friends and loved ones not only traditional things like good health, happy family life and professional accomplishments, but also a peaceful year without war.
This bad presentiment should urge responsible politicians all over the world to put aside their ambitions and mutual insults in order to start a meaningful dialogue about the future world order that would allow all the nations to build their own futures. Otherwise, instead of a new Cold War, someday we could face a real, large-scale military conflict.
Igor Ivanov is the president of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and served as Russian foreign minister from 1998 to 2004
AuntyUta 