In Oregon our Legislature hasn't done any where near enough to take care of our citizens with developmental disabilities. I write about it all the time. I also attend meetings where I can point out these short comings in the hope that if they won't do the right thing because it's the right thing, maybe they can be shamed into it.
I found these bills that have had their second reading in the Colorado Legislature. This is the kind of laws that need to be in effect right here, right now. I've highlighted some pertanant keywords.
HB08-1101 by Representative(s) Gardner B.(R), Gardner C.; also Senator(s) Renfroe(R), Spence–Concerning increased state funding for services for persons with developmental disabilities for the purpose of reducing waiting lists for such services.
HB08-1246 by Representative(s) Green(D); also Senator(s) Keller(D)–Concerning the creation of a registry of caregivers who are deemed to have a substantiated allegation of wrongdoing against a person with a developmental disability, and making an appropriation therefor.
HB08-1047 by Representative(s) Gardner B.(R), Pommer, Soper; also Senator(s) Boyd(D), Keller, Spence, Williams–Concerning the creation of a set aside program for a nonprofit agency that bids for state services solicitations when the nonprofit agency employs persons with severe disabilities, and making an appropriation therefor. (Health and Human Services recommends the bill be amended as printed in Senate Journal, April 25, 2008, page 1153.) (Appropriations recommends the bill be amended as printed in Senate Journal, April 28, 2008, page 1200.)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
I Couldn't Pass This Up
Her's a great story on how big pharma is enlisting doctors to lie about drugs that are harmful and/or ineffective. The fact that the article deals with a local doctor from OHSU who came clean makes it even more compelling. From Naturalnews.com...
Former Shill for Big Pharma Tells the Truth About Drug Testing
by Heidi Stevenson (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews) Erick Turner, a psychiatry professor at the Oregon State Health and Sciences University, woke up one day and realized that he was acting as a shill for pharmaceutical corporations. Worse, he was promoting drugs that not only provide very little benefit, but also do great harm. In spite of the benefits paid to him, including accommodations and thousands of dollars, and the ego satisfaction of being recognized as a "Very Important Person" by his fellow physicians, his conscience wouldn't let him continue.
So, Dr. Turner turned on his pharmaceutical masters. He spoke out against the products he'd been promoting. In the January 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, he published an article telling the truth about one class of drugs, SSRI antidepressants, such as Prozac and Paxil. In interviews, he has spoken even more broadly, stating that the lack of efficacy of SSRIs is the "dirty little secret" of the psychiatric world.
Dr. Turner's odyssey began in 2004, when he started selling his reputation by giving "doctor talks", as they're called in the industry. These lunches or dinners are lavish affairs, provided by pharmaceutical corporations. A doctor who is appealing, for either his or her background or appearance and style -- preferably both -- speaks about the wonders of a particular drug. Erick Turner's particular appeal was having been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for seven years, and then a clinical trials reviewer at the FDA.
He was trained by Eli Lilly to give talks, which required that he use only the visuals provided by the pharmaceutical firm and stay with their talking points. Then, Turner was sent to do doctor talks. The money he made wasn't significant to him, $500-750 per talk, a small amount in terms of his total income. However, as he put it, "In the beginning, I think I got narcissistic gratification. They fly you somewhere else in the country and pick you up in a limo, and you stay in a nice hotel you could never afford otherwise."
Within 18 months, though, Turner began to feel pangs of conscience. As he put it, "I guess you could say I bit the hand that fed." He published a paper in PloS Medicine that argued for online publication of all clinical trials produced for the FDA. Although he went from drug company advocate to critic overnight with his argument against pharmaceutical hiding of data, the article was... well, it was ignored. His article was met with a big yawn in the medical world.
Turner quit giving the doctor talks and started to search for hidden drug trial data. At first, he found some in hidden-away parts of the FDA's website. He then looked to researchers for data, and got it from a Seattle researcher and one at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "I literally went down to a Kinko's," Turner stated, "and photocopied them."
The studies he'd found consisted of 74 clinical trials, with 51% showing results that were better than placebo and 49% with negative or mixed results. In other words, about half the trials, though they'd been produced for drug corporations and most likely were attempting to produce the desired results of showing benefits, did nothing of the sort.
Armed with the smoking gun proof of negative trials being hidden, Turner produced a paper, "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy" for the New England Journal of Medicine. This time, he wasn't ignored.
Daniel Carlat, assistant professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, himself once on the dole with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, argues, "The fact that the negative trials can just be hidden away means that practicing doctors can get a very false notion of efficacy data for a drug. That's the real crisis here."
The question that must be answered is how pervasive the pharmaceutical firms' hiding of negative studies is. It's obvious from Erick Turner's exposé that SSRIs are generally useless. What about other drugs? History shows us that the same must be true.
Take, for example, Vioxx, an NSAID used for arthritis and other chronic pain. It causes heart attacks and has killed over 60,000 people in seven years. Could its manufacturer, Merck, have withheld information from doctors and the public?
Did Wyeth withhold information about Fenphen, two drugs combined to act as a single weight loss drug? It killed people by causing pulmonary hypertension.
What information was withheld by Hoechst Marion Roussel on Seldane? It was a wildly popular prescription antihistamine, which was withdrawn because it caused heart arrhythmia.
The number of drugs withdrawn because of their risks, which were likely known by the manufacturers, is stunning.
The cat is now out of the bag regarding SSRIs. If they work, it's only rarely. The known risks are extensive and appalling. Most, if not all, school shootings involved the use of SSRIs, or their next-generation offshoot, SNRIs. Suicide rates increase after starting them. Weight gain is often a problem, indicating a potential link to diabetes. Sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction are fairly common. Many people have a great deal of difficulty withdrawing from these drugs. None of these problems were revealed during pre-approval clinical tests, but the fact that they're common begs the question. How many trials showing these dangers were suppressed?
Ultimately, the real question is how many people have died or suffered irreversible harm from ingesting the products of drug manufacturers? How much information is being hidden by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, all in the interest of obscenely high profits?
How innocent are doctors in all this? It's quite clear that they have been deeply involved in the cover-up. Whether they benefit from gifts or boosts to their egos from doing bogus doctor talks, or simply fall for the cute sales reps -- recruited primarily from the ranks of cheerleaders -- so that they close their eyes to pathetically weak statistics, how believable is it that they don't know? When thousands of people outside the medical profession can find out the truth about pharmaceutical poisons, why do the doctors seem to be largely unaware?
You might think that Dr. Erick Turner, the man who exposed the withholding of negative information by drug manufacturers, would have stopped prescribing the SSRI drugs that he focused on. But that's not the case. Although he says that he doesn't give patients false hope about their efficacy, he still prescribes them.
It's no wonder that doctors are so disconnected from reality. From the time they're in medical school, they're bombarded with pseudo-information from pharmaceutical manufacturers. They receive gifts to such a degree that a Lancet study found "approximately 50% of the items that residents carry have pharmaceutical company origins".
When doctors enter private practice, it's hardly surprising that they often become billboards and prescription machines for pharmaceuticals. As Dr. Jay S. Cohen wrote, "No wonder patients complain that many doctors look like walking advertisements for the drug industry."
Pharmaceutical corporations are so pervasive that, as described by the Washington Post in 2002, "In the days leading up to the American Psychiatric Association's meeting in Philadelphia [2002], pharmaceutical companies mailed attendees hundreds of free phone cards, as well as invitations to museums, jazz concerts and fancy dinners... And in several dozen symposiums during the week long meeting, companies paid the APA about $50,000 per session to control which scientists and papers were presented and to help shape the presentations."
Is it any wonder that doctors have become so utterly disconnected from their responsibility to protect their patients from harmful drugs? It's no wonder that they seem to be so unable and unwilling to look at drug company reports critically. It's no wonder that they have become little more than drug pushers, forever pressing the latest pills on their patients, without considering the risks and the obvious suppression of information about the products they prescribe. It's no wonder that when, finally, after a few years of prescribing a particular poison, they're informed that it's been recalled, they immediately jump on the bandwagon of yet another highly-promoted, research-suppressed so-called "wonder" drug. And then, they repeat the pattern yet again.
The pharmaceutical industry has so controlled the medical industry -- and with the doctors' full cooperation -- that even the doctor who blew the whistle seems to have no idea how to proceed without prescribing the very medications that he knows are ineffective in most cases.
Former Shill for Big Pharma Tells the Truth About Drug Testing
by Heidi Stevenson (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews) Erick Turner, a psychiatry professor at the Oregon State Health and Sciences University, woke up one day and realized that he was acting as a shill for pharmaceutical corporations. Worse, he was promoting drugs that not only provide very little benefit, but also do great harm. In spite of the benefits paid to him, including accommodations and thousands of dollars, and the ego satisfaction of being recognized as a "Very Important Person" by his fellow physicians, his conscience wouldn't let him continue.
So, Dr. Turner turned on his pharmaceutical masters. He spoke out against the products he'd been promoting. In the January 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, he published an article telling the truth about one class of drugs, SSRI antidepressants, such as Prozac and Paxil. In interviews, he has spoken even more broadly, stating that the lack of efficacy of SSRIs is the "dirty little secret" of the psychiatric world.
Dr. Turner's odyssey began in 2004, when he started selling his reputation by giving "doctor talks", as they're called in the industry. These lunches or dinners are lavish affairs, provided by pharmaceutical corporations. A doctor who is appealing, for either his or her background or appearance and style -- preferably both -- speaks about the wonders of a particular drug. Erick Turner's particular appeal was having been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for seven years, and then a clinical trials reviewer at the FDA.
He was trained by Eli Lilly to give talks, which required that he use only the visuals provided by the pharmaceutical firm and stay with their talking points. Then, Turner was sent to do doctor talks. The money he made wasn't significant to him, $500-750 per talk, a small amount in terms of his total income. However, as he put it, "In the beginning, I think I got narcissistic gratification. They fly you somewhere else in the country and pick you up in a limo, and you stay in a nice hotel you could never afford otherwise."
Within 18 months, though, Turner began to feel pangs of conscience. As he put it, "I guess you could say I bit the hand that fed." He published a paper in PloS Medicine that argued for online publication of all clinical trials produced for the FDA. Although he went from drug company advocate to critic overnight with his argument against pharmaceutical hiding of data, the article was... well, it was ignored. His article was met with a big yawn in the medical world.
Turner quit giving the doctor talks and started to search for hidden drug trial data. At first, he found some in hidden-away parts of the FDA's website. He then looked to researchers for data, and got it from a Seattle researcher and one at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "I literally went down to a Kinko's," Turner stated, "and photocopied them."
The studies he'd found consisted of 74 clinical trials, with 51% showing results that were better than placebo and 49% with negative or mixed results. In other words, about half the trials, though they'd been produced for drug corporations and most likely were attempting to produce the desired results of showing benefits, did nothing of the sort.
Armed with the smoking gun proof of negative trials being hidden, Turner produced a paper, "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy" for the New England Journal of Medicine. This time, he wasn't ignored.
Daniel Carlat, assistant professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, himself once on the dole with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, argues, "The fact that the negative trials can just be hidden away means that practicing doctors can get a very false notion of efficacy data for a drug. That's the real crisis here."
The question that must be answered is how pervasive the pharmaceutical firms' hiding of negative studies is. It's obvious from Erick Turner's exposé that SSRIs are generally useless. What about other drugs? History shows us that the same must be true.
Take, for example, Vioxx, an NSAID used for arthritis and other chronic pain. It causes heart attacks and has killed over 60,000 people in seven years. Could its manufacturer, Merck, have withheld information from doctors and the public?
Did Wyeth withhold information about Fenphen, two drugs combined to act as a single weight loss drug? It killed people by causing pulmonary hypertension.
What information was withheld by Hoechst Marion Roussel on Seldane? It was a wildly popular prescription antihistamine, which was withdrawn because it caused heart arrhythmia.
The number of drugs withdrawn because of their risks, which were likely known by the manufacturers, is stunning.
The cat is now out of the bag regarding SSRIs. If they work, it's only rarely. The known risks are extensive and appalling. Most, if not all, school shootings involved the use of SSRIs, or their next-generation offshoot, SNRIs. Suicide rates increase after starting them. Weight gain is often a problem, indicating a potential link to diabetes. Sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction are fairly common. Many people have a great deal of difficulty withdrawing from these drugs. None of these problems were revealed during pre-approval clinical tests, but the fact that they're common begs the question. How many trials showing these dangers were suppressed?
Ultimately, the real question is how many people have died or suffered irreversible harm from ingesting the products of drug manufacturers? How much information is being hidden by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, all in the interest of obscenely high profits?
How innocent are doctors in all this? It's quite clear that they have been deeply involved in the cover-up. Whether they benefit from gifts or boosts to their egos from doing bogus doctor talks, or simply fall for the cute sales reps -- recruited primarily from the ranks of cheerleaders -- so that they close their eyes to pathetically weak statistics, how believable is it that they don't know? When thousands of people outside the medical profession can find out the truth about pharmaceutical poisons, why do the doctors seem to be largely unaware?
You might think that Dr. Erick Turner, the man who exposed the withholding of negative information by drug manufacturers, would have stopped prescribing the SSRI drugs that he focused on. But that's not the case. Although he says that he doesn't give patients false hope about their efficacy, he still prescribes them.
It's no wonder that doctors are so disconnected from reality. From the time they're in medical school, they're bombarded with pseudo-information from pharmaceutical manufacturers. They receive gifts to such a degree that a Lancet study found "approximately 50% of the items that residents carry have pharmaceutical company origins".
When doctors enter private practice, it's hardly surprising that they often become billboards and prescription machines for pharmaceuticals. As Dr. Jay S. Cohen wrote, "No wonder patients complain that many doctors look like walking advertisements for the drug industry."
Pharmaceutical corporations are so pervasive that, as described by the Washington Post in 2002, "In the days leading up to the American Psychiatric Association's meeting in Philadelphia [2002], pharmaceutical companies mailed attendees hundreds of free phone cards, as well as invitations to museums, jazz concerts and fancy dinners... And in several dozen symposiums during the week long meeting, companies paid the APA about $50,000 per session to control which scientists and papers were presented and to help shape the presentations."
Is it any wonder that doctors have become so utterly disconnected from their responsibility to protect their patients from harmful drugs? It's no wonder that they seem to be so unable and unwilling to look at drug company reports critically. It's no wonder that they have become little more than drug pushers, forever pressing the latest pills on their patients, without considering the risks and the obvious suppression of information about the products they prescribe. It's no wonder that when, finally, after a few years of prescribing a particular poison, they're informed that it's been recalled, they immediately jump on the bandwagon of yet another highly-promoted, research-suppressed so-called "wonder" drug. And then, they repeat the pattern yet again.
The pharmaceutical industry has so controlled the medical industry -- and with the doctors' full cooperation -- that even the doctor who blew the whistle seems to have no idea how to proceed without prescribing the very medications that he knows are ineffective in most cases.
Couldn't Pass This Up
Here's a good article on how big pharma is using doctors to promote drugs that are harmful and/or ineffective. The fact that it deals with an Oregon doctor from OHSU who was caught up in this scam makes it even more interesting. From aturalnews.com...
Former Shill for Big Pharma Tells the Truth About Drug Testing
by Heidi Stevenson (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews) Erick Turner, a psychiatry professor at the Oregon State Health and Sciences University, woke up one day and realized that he was acting as a shill for pharmaceutical corporations. Worse, he was promoting drugs that not only provide very little benefit, but also do great harm. In spite of the benefits paid to him, including accommodations and thousands of dollars, and the ego satisfaction of being recognized as a "Very Important Person" by his fellow physicians, his conscience wouldn't let him continue.
So, Dr. Turner turned on his pharmaceutical masters. He spoke out against the products he'd been promoting. In the January 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, he published an article telling the truth about one class of drugs, SSRI antidepressants, such as Prozac and Paxil. In interviews, he has spoken even more broadly, stating that the lack of efficacy of SSRIs is the "dirty little secret" of the psychiatric world.
Dr. Turner's odyssey began in 2004, when he started selling his reputation by giving "doctor talks", as they're called in the industry. These lunches or dinners are lavish affairs, provided by pharmaceutical corporations. A doctor who is appealing, for either his or her background or appearance and style -- preferably both -- speaks about the wonders of a particular drug. Erick Turner's particular appeal was having been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for seven years, and then a clinical trials reviewer at the FDA.
He was trained by Eli Lilly to give talks, which required that he use only the visuals provided by the pharmaceutical firm and stay with their talking points. Then, Turner was sent to do doctor talks. The money he made wasn't significant to him, $500-750 per talk, a small amount in terms of his total income. However, as he put it, "In the beginning, I think I got narcissistic gratification. They fly you somewhere else in the country and pick you up in a limo, and you stay in a nice hotel you could never afford otherwise."
Within 18 months, though, Turner began to feel pangs of conscience. As he put it, "I guess you could say I bit the hand that fed." He published a paper in PloS Medicine that argued for online publication of all clinical trials produced for the FDA. Although he went from drug company advocate to critic overnight with his argument against pharmaceutical hiding of data, the article was... well, it was ignored. His article was met with a big yawn in the medical world.
Turner quit giving the doctor talks and started to search for hidden drug trial data. At first, he found some in hidden-away parts of the FDA's website. He then looked to researchers for data, and got it from a Seattle researcher and one at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "I literally went down to a Kinko's," Turner stated, "and photocopied them."
The studies he'd found consisted of 74 clinical trials, with 51% showing results that were better than placebo and 49% with negative or mixed results. In other words, about half the trials, though they'd been produced for drug corporations and most likely were attempting to produce the desired results of showing benefits, did nothing of the sort.
Armed with the smoking gun proof of negative trials being hidden, Turner produced a paper, "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy" for the New England Journal of Medicine. This time, he wasn't ignored.
Daniel Carlat, assistant professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, himself once on the dole with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, argues, "The fact that the negative trials can just be hidden away means that practicing doctors can get a very false notion of efficacy data for a drug. That's the real crisis here."
The question that must be answered is how pervasive the pharmaceutical firms' hiding of negative studies is. It's obvious from Erick Turner's exposé that SSRIs are generally useless. What about other drugs? History shows us that the same must be true.
Take, for example, Vioxx, an NSAID used for arthritis and other chronic pain. It causes heart attacks and has killed over 60,000 people in seven years. Could its manufacturer, Merck, have withheld information from doctors and the public?
Did Wyeth withhold information about Fenphen, two drugs combined to act as a single weight loss drug? It killed people by causing pulmonary hypertension.
What information was withheld by Hoechst Marion Roussel on Seldane? It was a wildly popular prescription antihistamine, which was withdrawn because it caused heart arrhythmia.
The number of drugs withdrawn because of their risks, which were likely known by the manufacturers, is stunning.
The cat is now out of the bag regarding SSRIs. If they work, it's only rarely. The known risks are extensive and appalling. Most, if not all, school shootings involved the use of SSRIs, or their next-generation offshoot, SNRIs. Suicide rates increase after starting them. Weight gain is often a problem, indicating a potential link to diabetes. Sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction are fairly common. Many people have a great deal of difficulty withdrawing from these drugs. None of these problems were revealed during pre-approval clinical tests, but the fact that they're common begs the question. How many trials showing these dangers were suppressed?
Ultimately, the real question is how many people have died or suffered irreversible harm from ingesting the products of drug manufacturers? How much information is being hidden by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, all in the interest of obscenely high profits?
How innocent are doctors in all this? It's quite clear that they have been deeply involved in the cover-up. Whether they benefit from gifts or boosts to their egos from doing bogus doctor talks, or simply fall for the cute sales reps -- recruited primarily from the ranks of cheerleaders -- so that they close their eyes to pathetically weak statistics, how believable is it that they don't know? When thousands of people outside the medical profession can find out the truth about pharmaceutical poisons, why do the doctors seem to be largely unaware?
You might think that Dr. Erick Turner, the man who exposed the withholding of negative information by drug manufacturers, would have stopped prescribing the SSRI drugs that he focused on. But that's not the case. Although he says that he doesn't give patients false hope about their efficacy, he still prescribes them.
It's no wonder that doctors are so disconnected from reality. From the time they're in medical school, they're bombarded with pseudo-information from pharmaceutical manufacturers. They receive gifts to such a degree that a Lancet study found "approximately 50% of the items that residents carry have pharmaceutical company origins".
When doctors enter private practice, it's hardly surprising that they often become billboards and prescription machines for pharmaceuticals. As Dr. Jay S. Cohen wrote, "No wonder patients complain that many doctors look like walking advertisements for the drug industry."
Pharmaceutical corporations are so pervasive that, as described by the Washington Post in 2002, "In the days leading up to the American Psychiatric Association's meeting in Philadelphia [2002], pharmaceutical companies mailed attendees hundreds of free phone cards, as well as invitations to museums, jazz concerts and fancy dinners... And in several dozen symposiums during the week long meeting, companies paid the APA about $50,000 per session to control which scientists and papers were presented and to help shape the presentations."
Is it any wonder that doctors have become so utterly disconnected from their responsibility to protect their patients from harmful drugs? It's no wonder that they seem to be so unable and unwilling to look at drug company reports critically. It's no wonder that they have become little more than drug pushers, forever pressing the latest pills on their patients, without considering the risks and the obvious suppression of information about the products they prescribe. It's no wonder that when, finally, after a few years of prescribing a particular poison, they're informed that it's been recalled, they immediately jump on the bandwagon of yet another highly-promoted, research-suppressed so-called "wonder" drug. And then, they repeat the pattern yet again.
The pharmaceutical industry has so controlled the medical industry -- and with the doctors' full cooperation -- that even the doctor who blew the whistle seems to have no idea how to proceed without prescribing the very medications that he knows are ineffective in most cases.
Former Shill for Big Pharma Tells the Truth About Drug Testing
by Heidi Stevenson (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews) Erick Turner, a psychiatry professor at the Oregon State Health and Sciences University, woke up one day and realized that he was acting as a shill for pharmaceutical corporations. Worse, he was promoting drugs that not only provide very little benefit, but also do great harm. In spite of the benefits paid to him, including accommodations and thousands of dollars, and the ego satisfaction of being recognized as a "Very Important Person" by his fellow physicians, his conscience wouldn't let him continue.
So, Dr. Turner turned on his pharmaceutical masters. He spoke out against the products he'd been promoting. In the January 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, he published an article telling the truth about one class of drugs, SSRI antidepressants, such as Prozac and Paxil. In interviews, he has spoken even more broadly, stating that the lack of efficacy of SSRIs is the "dirty little secret" of the psychiatric world.
Dr. Turner's odyssey began in 2004, when he started selling his reputation by giving "doctor talks", as they're called in the industry. These lunches or dinners are lavish affairs, provided by pharmaceutical corporations. A doctor who is appealing, for either his or her background or appearance and style -- preferably both -- speaks about the wonders of a particular drug. Erick Turner's particular appeal was having been a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health for seven years, and then a clinical trials reviewer at the FDA.
He was trained by Eli Lilly to give talks, which required that he use only the visuals provided by the pharmaceutical firm and stay with their talking points. Then, Turner was sent to do doctor talks. The money he made wasn't significant to him, $500-750 per talk, a small amount in terms of his total income. However, as he put it, "In the beginning, I think I got narcissistic gratification. They fly you somewhere else in the country and pick you up in a limo, and you stay in a nice hotel you could never afford otherwise."
Within 18 months, though, Turner began to feel pangs of conscience. As he put it, "I guess you could say I bit the hand that fed." He published a paper in PloS Medicine that argued for online publication of all clinical trials produced for the FDA. Although he went from drug company advocate to critic overnight with his argument against pharmaceutical hiding of data, the article was... well, it was ignored. His article was met with a big yawn in the medical world.
Turner quit giving the doctor talks and started to search for hidden drug trial data. At first, he found some in hidden-away parts of the FDA's website. He then looked to researchers for data, and got it from a Seattle researcher and one at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "I literally went down to a Kinko's," Turner stated, "and photocopied them."
The studies he'd found consisted of 74 clinical trials, with 51% showing results that were better than placebo and 49% with negative or mixed results. In other words, about half the trials, though they'd been produced for drug corporations and most likely were attempting to produce the desired results of showing benefits, did nothing of the sort.
Armed with the smoking gun proof of negative trials being hidden, Turner produced a paper, "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy" for the New England Journal of Medicine. This time, he wasn't ignored.
Daniel Carlat, assistant professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, himself once on the dole with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, argues, "The fact that the negative trials can just be hidden away means that practicing doctors can get a very false notion of efficacy data for a drug. That's the real crisis here."
The question that must be answered is how pervasive the pharmaceutical firms' hiding of negative studies is. It's obvious from Erick Turner's exposé that SSRIs are generally useless. What about other drugs? History shows us that the same must be true.
Take, for example, Vioxx, an NSAID used for arthritis and other chronic pain. It causes heart attacks and has killed over 60,000 people in seven years. Could its manufacturer, Merck, have withheld information from doctors and the public?
Did Wyeth withhold information about Fenphen, two drugs combined to act as a single weight loss drug? It killed people by causing pulmonary hypertension.
What information was withheld by Hoechst Marion Roussel on Seldane? It was a wildly popular prescription antihistamine, which was withdrawn because it caused heart arrhythmia.
The number of drugs withdrawn because of their risks, which were likely known by the manufacturers, is stunning.
The cat is now out of the bag regarding SSRIs. If they work, it's only rarely. The known risks are extensive and appalling. Most, if not all, school shootings involved the use of SSRIs, or their next-generation offshoot, SNRIs. Suicide rates increase after starting them. Weight gain is often a problem, indicating a potential link to diabetes. Sleep disturbances and sexual dysfunction are fairly common. Many people have a great deal of difficulty withdrawing from these drugs. None of these problems were revealed during pre-approval clinical tests, but the fact that they're common begs the question. How many trials showing these dangers were suppressed?
Ultimately, the real question is how many people have died or suffered irreversible harm from ingesting the products of drug manufacturers? How much information is being hidden by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, all in the interest of obscenely high profits?
How innocent are doctors in all this? It's quite clear that they have been deeply involved in the cover-up. Whether they benefit from gifts or boosts to their egos from doing bogus doctor talks, or simply fall for the cute sales reps -- recruited primarily from the ranks of cheerleaders -- so that they close their eyes to pathetically weak statistics, how believable is it that they don't know? When thousands of people outside the medical profession can find out the truth about pharmaceutical poisons, why do the doctors seem to be largely unaware?
You might think that Dr. Erick Turner, the man who exposed the withholding of negative information by drug manufacturers, would have stopped prescribing the SSRI drugs that he focused on. But that's not the case. Although he says that he doesn't give patients false hope about their efficacy, he still prescribes them.
It's no wonder that doctors are so disconnected from reality. From the time they're in medical school, they're bombarded with pseudo-information from pharmaceutical manufacturers. They receive gifts to such a degree that a Lancet study found "approximately 50% of the items that residents carry have pharmaceutical company origins".
When doctors enter private practice, it's hardly surprising that they often become billboards and prescription machines for pharmaceuticals. As Dr. Jay S. Cohen wrote, "No wonder patients complain that many doctors look like walking advertisements for the drug industry."
Pharmaceutical corporations are so pervasive that, as described by the Washington Post in 2002, "In the days leading up to the American Psychiatric Association's meeting in Philadelphia [2002], pharmaceutical companies mailed attendees hundreds of free phone cards, as well as invitations to museums, jazz concerts and fancy dinners... And in several dozen symposiums during the week long meeting, companies paid the APA about $50,000 per session to control which scientists and papers were presented and to help shape the presentations."
Is it any wonder that doctors have become so utterly disconnected from their responsibility to protect their patients from harmful drugs? It's no wonder that they seem to be so unable and unwilling to look at drug company reports critically. It's no wonder that they have become little more than drug pushers, forever pressing the latest pills on their patients, without considering the risks and the obvious suppression of information about the products they prescribe. It's no wonder that when, finally, after a few years of prescribing a particular poison, they're informed that it's been recalled, they immediately jump on the bandwagon of yet another highly-promoted, research-suppressed so-called "wonder" drug. And then, they repeat the pattern yet again.
The pharmaceutical industry has so controlled the medical industry -- and with the doctors' full cooperation -- that even the doctor who blew the whistle seems to have no idea how to proceed without prescribing the very medications that he knows are ineffective in most cases.
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Abuse Keeps Coming
My nephew spent the first 8 years of his life in Poughkeepsie, New York. If he and his mom hadn't moved to California, chances are good he would have wound up living in a group home by now. Maybe he'd be living in the group home where this sadist worked. This news piece comes courtesy of the poughkeepsiejournal.com.
Police: Care aide shot clients with BB gun
By Lindsay Suchow and Michael Woyton • Poughkeepsie Journal • April 26, 2008
A Town of Poughkeepsie man faces a felony charge after he allegedly fired a BB gun at four mentally challenged men who were in his care, the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office said.
Ryan Howley, 21, was charged with one count of second-degree assault Wednesday. He was arraigned and sent to Dutchess County Jail on $25,000 bail.
Howley was employed by the Dutchess County Advocacy Respect Community, formerly known as the Association of Retarded Citizens, as a direct-care aide, police said.
Police said Howley fired the airsoft-style rifle at the men, who were described as "profoundly mentally retarded," multiple times over a period of three weeks.
The men, ranging from 47 to 70 years old, suffered welts on their faces and bodies, police said.
Police said it appeared Howley shot the men as a means of punishment.
Crys McCuin, Dutchess ARC executive director, said Howley no longer works for the agency. She said his employment was terminated after the police became involved in the investigation.
McCuin said the victims have been medically assessed and appear to be all right, in spite of some bruising.
Their families have been notified, along with the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, New York State Association for Retarded Children and the Dutchess County Department of Mental Hygiene.
"Most importantly, we are grateful for the quick, supportive response of the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office who were critical in ensuring this allegation reached what we believe to be the best outcome for the people we serve at Dutchess ARC," McCuin said.
Reach Lindsay Suchow at lsuchow@poughkee.gannett.com or 845-437-4825. Reach Michael Woyton at mwoyton@poughkeepsiejournal.com or 845-451-4518.
Police: Care aide shot clients with BB gun
By Lindsay Suchow and Michael Woyton • Poughkeepsie Journal • April 26, 2008
A Town of Poughkeepsie man faces a felony charge after he allegedly fired a BB gun at four mentally challenged men who were in his care, the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office said.
Ryan Howley, 21, was charged with one count of second-degree assault Wednesday. He was arraigned and sent to Dutchess County Jail on $25,000 bail.
Howley was employed by the Dutchess County Advocacy Respect Community, formerly known as the Association of Retarded Citizens, as a direct-care aide, police said.
Police said Howley fired the airsoft-style rifle at the men, who were described as "profoundly mentally retarded," multiple times over a period of three weeks.
The men, ranging from 47 to 70 years old, suffered welts on their faces and bodies, police said.
Police said it appeared Howley shot the men as a means of punishment.
Crys McCuin, Dutchess ARC executive director, said Howley no longer works for the agency. She said his employment was terminated after the police became involved in the investigation.
McCuin said the victims have been medically assessed and appear to be all right, in spite of some bruising.
Their families have been notified, along with the state Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, New York State Association for Retarded Children and the Dutchess County Department of Mental Hygiene.
"Most importantly, we are grateful for the quick, supportive response of the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office who were critical in ensuring this allegation reached what we believe to be the best outcome for the people we serve at Dutchess ARC," McCuin said.
Reach Lindsay Suchow at lsuchow@poughkee.gannett.com or 845-437-4825. Reach Michael Woyton at mwoyton@poughkeepsiejournal.com or 845-451-4518.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Spoke Too Soon In Last Post
From today's Oregonian comes this news snipet. My question is if there are sexual predators living in this home, why isn't ALL behavior being closely monitored by the staff? My other question is are either of these "patients" in this sexual relationship a sexual predator??
Officials look into report of sex, drugs at Cornelius group home
Posted by Jill Rehkopf Smith, The Oregonian April 23, 2008 11:25AM
Categories: Top Stories, Washington County
Law enforcement officials are investigating the possibility of sex- and drug-related crimes at Connell House, the controversial treatment center for "guilty except for insanity" patients in Cornelius.
The investigation began April 15 when Cornelius Police Department officers were called to Connell House because a resident had cut himself with a razor. After the resident's injury was treated, Washington County Sheriff's Office deputies interviewed him.
The man reportedly told deputies he had cut himself because he wanted to go back to the Oregon State Hospital in Salem and didn't want to be around sex offenders.
Three of the seven current Connell House residents deemed "guilty except for insanity" have committed sex crimes. Several other patients are civilly committed to the home.
The man told deputies his roommate had sex with a female patient the previous day and had pestered him for sexual activity despite his rejections. Also, the man said his roommate and another patient were getting high on Vicodin they had concealed.
Deputies said the patients in question acknowledged having sex. The man's roommate has since voluntarily returned to the state hospital.
Deputy Jason Yazzolino reported that Kathryn Urhausen, service coordinator for Connell House, said she knew about the pair's relationship and that no rule forbid sex between patients there.
Cornelius Police Chief Paul Rubenstein said he was concerned that female residents might not have the mental capacity to consent to sex.
- Jill Rehkopf Smith;
Officials look into report of sex, drugs at Cornelius group home
Posted by Jill Rehkopf Smith, The Oregonian April 23, 2008 11:25AM
Categories: Top Stories, Washington County
Law enforcement officials are investigating the possibility of sex- and drug-related crimes at Connell House, the controversial treatment center for "guilty except for insanity" patients in Cornelius.
The investigation began April 15 when Cornelius Police Department officers were called to Connell House because a resident had cut himself with a razor. After the resident's injury was treated, Washington County Sheriff's Office deputies interviewed him.
The man reportedly told deputies he had cut himself because he wanted to go back to the Oregon State Hospital in Salem and didn't want to be around sex offenders.
Three of the seven current Connell House residents deemed "guilty except for insanity" have committed sex crimes. Several other patients are civilly committed to the home.
The man told deputies his roommate had sex with a female patient the previous day and had pestered him for sexual activity despite his rejections. Also, the man said his roommate and another patient were getting high on Vicodin they had concealed.
Deputies said the patients in question acknowledged having sex. The man's roommate has since voluntarily returned to the state hospital.
Deputy Jason Yazzolino reported that Kathryn Urhausen, service coordinator for Connell House, said she knew about the pair's relationship and that no rule forbid sex between patients there.
Cornelius Police Chief Paul Rubenstein said he was concerned that female residents might not have the mental capacity to consent to sex.
- Jill Rehkopf Smith;
Nursing Home Abuse Story
Our elderly citizens (parents, etc.) are not immune from abuse in the Nursing Homes we place them in. Expect me to report these case on my blog until more is done to ensure the health, safety, human, and civil rights of people in the care of others. From today's NursingHomeLaw.org...
Three indicted in abuse case
Posted on April 23, 2008 in Blog by Evan
Controversy surrounds Gateway Care and Center in Portland, Oregon.
Most recently, three former employees have been indicted for failing to summon help when a 60-year-old woman was dropped and broke her legs. Five days after the fall in 2006, Linda J. Ober was brought to the hospital, where she died the next day.
Last December, Ober’s daughter filed a $3.5 million lawsuit for the wrongful death of her mother. The suit claims that Ober was dropped when being moved from her wheelchair to her bed, and that while she was clearly in pain, the workers tried to convince her that she had not fallen but simply “had a bad dream.” The suit states that workers “did unlawfully and knowingly withhold necessary and adequate physical care and medical attention” from Ober. Following the fall, two women were fired from the home and one resigned. The same three have been indicted and are expected to be tried in June.
Prior to these indictments, the home was facing other legal troubles. One lawsuit, filed in late January, accused Gateway of persecuting a worker for reporting patient abuse. Melissa Muir says Gateway rearranged her hours so they clashed with her other job, forcing her to resign, as retaliation for reporting patient neglect. Muir was three weeks into a six-week employment stint.
Furthermore, Gateway earned 13 citations for failing to comply with federal nursing home standards. Rick Harding, director of Gateway, believes these numbers cast a bad light on the home; it is not uncommon for homes to rack up several demerits at a time. Only 14 of Oregon’s 138 homes passed citation-free during the same evaluation. Regardless, Gateway needs clear improvement.
Three indicted in abuse case
Posted on April 23, 2008 in Blog by Evan
Controversy surrounds Gateway Care and Center in Portland, Oregon.
Most recently, three former employees have been indicted for failing to summon help when a 60-year-old woman was dropped and broke her legs. Five days after the fall in 2006, Linda J. Ober was brought to the hospital, where she died the next day.
Last December, Ober’s daughter filed a $3.5 million lawsuit for the wrongful death of her mother. The suit claims that Ober was dropped when being moved from her wheelchair to her bed, and that while she was clearly in pain, the workers tried to convince her that she had not fallen but simply “had a bad dream.” The suit states that workers “did unlawfully and knowingly withhold necessary and adequate physical care and medical attention” from Ober. Following the fall, two women were fired from the home and one resigned. The same three have been indicted and are expected to be tried in June.
Prior to these indictments, the home was facing other legal troubles. One lawsuit, filed in late January, accused Gateway of persecuting a worker for reporting patient abuse. Melissa Muir says Gateway rearranged her hours so they clashed with her other job, forcing her to resign, as retaliation for reporting patient neglect. Muir was three weeks into a six-week employment stint.
Furthermore, Gateway earned 13 citations for failing to comply with federal nursing home standards. Rick Harding, director of Gateway, believes these numbers cast a bad light on the home; it is not uncommon for homes to rack up several demerits at a time. Only 14 of Oregon’s 138 homes passed citation-free during the same evaluation. Regardless, Gateway needs clear improvement.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
An Open Letter to Portland Dog Owners
Dear Dog Owners,
As the warmer and drier weather approaches, many of you who spent the Winter in your houses are now comfortable enough to take walks in the morning. That's a good thing; God bless you. I see you out with your pooches in my neighborhood by the score.
I also see the piles of feces being carelessly left behind on the green spaces between the street and the sidewalk. I see dogs running ahead of you, unleashed and unsupervised as you take in the fresh air you've been missing.
I want to believe that you are unaware of the messes your dogs are leaving in your neighbor's yards. You are so friendly and quick to smile and nod as you walk past me. I don't want to think that you are so selfish that you think it's ok for your dog to poop in your neighbor's yard as you continue your morning jaunt. I recently confronted one of you only to be told; " It happens in my yard too", as if that justifies your behavior.
Let's see if a little responsibility won't remedy this problem. Carry a bag, pick up your dog's poop, and follow the leash law the same way you follow the many other civil laws in our city.
Thanks so much,
David
As the warmer and drier weather approaches, many of you who spent the Winter in your houses are now comfortable enough to take walks in the morning. That's a good thing; God bless you. I see you out with your pooches in my neighborhood by the score.
I also see the piles of feces being carelessly left behind on the green spaces between the street and the sidewalk. I see dogs running ahead of you, unleashed and unsupervised as you take in the fresh air you've been missing.
I want to believe that you are unaware of the messes your dogs are leaving in your neighbor's yards. You are so friendly and quick to smile and nod as you walk past me. I don't want to think that you are so selfish that you think it's ok for your dog to poop in your neighbor's yard as you continue your morning jaunt. I recently confronted one of you only to be told; " It happens in my yard too", as if that justifies your behavior.
Let's see if a little responsibility won't remedy this problem. Carry a bag, pick up your dog's poop, and follow the leash law the same way you follow the many other civil laws in our city.
Thanks so much,
David
Monday, April 14, 2008
Can I Get a Witness?
Ok, it's Autism Awareness Month. Many people from both the disability and general community are blogging about it. I have no problem with the idea of educating people around disability issues. That's one of the reasons I set up my own blog in the first place. It just seems to me that there isn't enough discussion about disability life.
However; in all the stuff I've read lately about autism in blogs, I've seen a statement over and over that really disturbs me. People keep saying that there are more cases of autism than diabetes, cancer, and AIDS combined. I swear I've seen this at least 20 different times since the beginning of April. Why does this bother me?
AUTISM IS NOT A DISEASE!!!
For God's sake, can't people find another way to get the point across that autism numbers are increasing without comparing it to life threatening diseases? It's like people saw this statement and decided it was a good idea to use it themselves. Why not say there are more cases of autism than all the apples in the orchard. Or there are more cases of autism than the stars you can see on a clear night.
Just had to get that off my chest...
However; in all the stuff I've read lately about autism in blogs, I've seen a statement over and over that really disturbs me. People keep saying that there are more cases of autism than diabetes, cancer, and AIDS combined. I swear I've seen this at least 20 different times since the beginning of April. Why does this bother me?
AUTISM IS NOT A DISEASE!!!
For God's sake, can't people find another way to get the point across that autism numbers are increasing without comparing it to life threatening diseases? It's like people saw this statement and decided it was a good idea to use it themselves. Why not say there are more cases of autism than all the apples in the orchard. Or there are more cases of autism than the stars you can see on a clear night.
Just had to get that off my chest...
Thursday, April 10, 2008
A Sound Investment
According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in DC there are some heavy investors in companies with Department of Defense contracts in Congress. I expected that it would involve more Republicans and was curious who would make these investments. I was not pleased to find that the man I voted for to become president in 2004 was at the top of the list (significantly!).
Senator Kerry struts around saying the occupation in Iraq is wrong, so he invests in it?
Johnny we hardly knew ya.
The Investors: Lawmakers with the most money invested in companies with Department of Defense contracts
Senator Kerry struts around saying the occupation in Iraq is wrong, so he invests in it?
Johnny we hardly knew ya.
The Investors: Lawmakers with the most money invested in companies with Department of Defense contracts
| Minimum | Maximum | |
| Lawmaker | Investment | Investment |
| Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) | $28,872,067 | $38,209,020 |
| Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) | $12,081,050 | $49,140,000 |
| Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) | $9,232,037 | $37,105,000 |
| Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr.(R-Wis) | $5,207,668 | $7,612,653 |
| Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif) | $2,684,050 | $6,260,000 |
| Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich) | $2,469,029 | $8,360,000 |
| Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) | $2,000,002 | $2,000,002 |
| Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis) | $1,365,004 | $5,800,000 |
| Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas) | $1,163,231 | $1,163,231 |
| Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 |
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Save The Date!
In light of several articles written in the Oregonian in recent months, a community meeting has been set up to discuss ways of dealing with the crisis of abuse and neglect experienced by adults with developmental disabilities in our state. The idea is to brainstorm ideas on what can be done NOW instead of waiting for the legislature to convene in 2009.
Come and share your thoughts/wisdom about domestic violence, ombudsman programs, protection task forces, and common sense on how we can combat this ongoing problem in Oregon. The meeting will take place at the United Way building at 5:00 PM on April 14th. It will be held in room # 10. The address is 619 SW 11th Ave. If you care about the safety and well being of this underserved population, come and let your voice be heard.
Come and share your thoughts/wisdom about domestic violence, ombudsman programs, protection task forces, and common sense on how we can combat this ongoing problem in Oregon. The meeting will take place at the United Way building at 5:00 PM on April 14th. It will be held in room # 10. The address is 619 SW 11th Ave. If you care about the safety and well being of this underserved population, come and let your voice be heard.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
REALLY Making People Aware
The average Oregonian is probably unaware that April is Autism Awareness Month. That opening statement is pretty odd, isn't it? To make one aware of something you must tell them about it. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen much local publicity around this. However; in good ols New York they aint afraid to make the general public aware. From the Saturday New York Times...
-------------------------------
Dozens Walk In Queens To Raise Awareness Of Developmental Disabilities
April 05, 2008
Walkers pounded the pavement in Queens Saturday to show support for an organization dedicated to serving people with disabilities.
Dozens of people came out for the 33rd annual five-mile walk sponsored by the Queens Centers for Progress.
Organizers say the walk is not only about raising money.
"It's often the case that unless someone has a family member with a disability, they really don't know too much about developmental disabilities and what people with those conditions can do, and we find this a good educational opportunity," said Charles Houston of the Queens Center for Progress.
Today's walk was dedicated to a Department Of Environmental Protection Worker who was killed by a hit-and-run driver.
For the tenth year, The Palace Diner in Flushing showed its support by supplying food for the marchers.
-------------------------------
Dozens Walk In Queens To Raise Awareness Of Developmental Disabilities
April 05, 2008
Walkers pounded the pavement in Queens Saturday to show support for an organization dedicated to serving people with disabilities.
Dozens of people came out for the 33rd annual five-mile walk sponsored by the Queens Centers for Progress.
Organizers say the walk is not only about raising money.
"It's often the case that unless someone has a family member with a disability, they really don't know too much about developmental disabilities and what people with those conditions can do, and we find this a good educational opportunity," said Charles Houston of the Queens Center for Progress.
Today's walk was dedicated to a Department Of Environmental Protection Worker who was killed by a hit-and-run driver.
For the tenth year, The Palace Diner in Flushing showed its support by supplying food for the marchers.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
A Silver Lining?
I know I post a lot of stories relating to the abuse and neglect of people with developmental disabilities on my blog. That’s only because there are a lot of them. As this story demonstrates, it doesn’t have to be that way. This comes out of California from the Amador Ledger Dispatch.
------------------
Stories of abuse highlight dangers for
developmentally disabled community
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
By Bethany Monk, Amador Ledger Dispatch
She said a prayer after he shoved her into the trunk of his car. When they finally got to the house, he locked her in a dark closet where she would bury her head into her arms and see the blood dripping from her body. She was 10 years old.
"I had anger for a long time," said Sherri Douglas, a member of the Consumer Abuse Awareness Team, following the team's presentation last week at the American Legion Hall in Martell. More than 65 people attended the March 26 event, sponsored by The Arc of Amador and Calaveras in Sutter Creek and San Andreas, and Operation Care in Jackson.
Douglas, who lives in Chico, and three other members of the team, shared their personal stories of abuse and survival with the audience and discussed ways to help stop it. After sharing their respective stories, each speaker showed a brief slide show of pictures of "our lives now," Douglas said, adding that she's not the same person she was during her years of abuse. After getting help, and working to recover from her abuser's actions, she decided to help others. Douglas works full-time for the Northern Regional Medical Center and the abuse prevention program in Redding "talking to consumers about their rights - teaching consumers how to say 'no.'"
Operation Care is a non-profit organization that provides domestic violence and sexual assault support services, and crisis intervention and education; the Arc of Amador and Calaveras provides support and services to people with developmental disabilities. This is the second time these two organizations have collaborated and sponsored this event. Their first event was held two years ago in the same location.
"Each of (the team members) has their own story of abuse," said Lynn Shield, executive director of Operation Care, in a brief interview during the presentation. Other members of the Consumer Abuse Awareness Team who spoke during the presentation include Rosie Johansen and Shelly Anderson, both of Redding, and Glen Pollock from Chico.
By sharing their stories, they can spread the word and help others. "They're human beings. Everyone should be treated with respect," Shield said. "These kinds of things are important," Shield said of the presentation. "It shows (people) that they're not alone ... if you are in an abusive situation, tell someone (you trust)."
Douglas echoed Shield during her presentation when she advised those in the audience to "keep on telling people until you find the the right person - until someone listens."
Abuse is not limited to physical, Shield said. There's verbal abuse, such as yelling and screaming and put-downs; there's emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse and financial abuse, she said, "especially of someone with developmental disabilities," who often get taken advantage of in that area.
According to statistics provided by Operation Care, people with disabilities have a four in 10 higher risk of becoming a crime victim; nearly 50 million people in the U.S. have a disability.
Pollock told the audience that 80 percent of women and 54 percent of men with developmental disabilities have been sexually assaulted. Ninety-nine percent of those abusers are people whom the victims trust, like caregivers and family members, he added, noting that his data comes from writer and researcher Dave Hingsburger, who has written several books on the topic.
Abuse prevention education and resources are both a large part of The Arc's curriculum, said Peggy Cunningham, director of services at the Calaveras branch in San Andreas. Fifteen Arc members from the San Andreas location attended Wednesday's presentation in Jackson, Cunningham said, adding that they all found it very informative. Several members from the Arc of Amador in Sutter Creek also attended the event.
"The most important thing is education," she said during a phone interview Friday, noting that several speakers from the Calaveras Crisis Center have given presentations at The Arc to "teach people to have determination, and teach them about their rights."
It can be challenging to say "no" to something big like abuse, "unless you've been able to say 'no' to small things in the past," Shield said. Integrated into The Arc's curriculum on abuse prevention is teaching assertiveness and how to say "no" to smaller things, like "No, I don't want these peas."
Shield, who has worked with disabled people since 1969, said society's perceptions about people with disabilities have changed a lot in the past 10 years. "The public at large is becoming more aware" of people with disabilities, she said.
Operation Care, established in 1980, offers several services and resources for men and women who have been abused or sexually assaulted. The 24-hour crisis number is 223-2600 or (800) 675-3392. To reach the main office, call 223-2897.
For more information about The Arc of Amador and Calaveras counties, call 267-5978.
------------------
Stories of abuse highlight dangers for
developmentally disabled community
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
By Bethany Monk, Amador Ledger Dispatch
She said a prayer after he shoved her into the trunk of his car. When they finally got to the house, he locked her in a dark closet where she would bury her head into her arms and see the blood dripping from her body. She was 10 years old.
"I had anger for a long time," said Sherri Douglas, a member of the Consumer Abuse Awareness Team, following the team's presentation last week at the American Legion Hall in Martell. More than 65 people attended the March 26 event, sponsored by The Arc of Amador and Calaveras in Sutter Creek and San Andreas, and Operation Care in Jackson.
Douglas, who lives in Chico, and three other members of the team, shared their personal stories of abuse and survival with the audience and discussed ways to help stop it. After sharing their respective stories, each speaker showed a brief slide show of pictures of "our lives now," Douglas said, adding that she's not the same person she was during her years of abuse. After getting help, and working to recover from her abuser's actions, she decided to help others. Douglas works full-time for the Northern Regional Medical Center and the abuse prevention program in Redding "talking to consumers about their rights - teaching consumers how to say 'no.'"
Operation Care is a non-profit organization that provides domestic violence and sexual assault support services, and crisis intervention and education; the Arc of Amador and Calaveras provides support and services to people with developmental disabilities. This is the second time these two organizations have collaborated and sponsored this event. Their first event was held two years ago in the same location.
"Each of (the team members) has their own story of abuse," said Lynn Shield, executive director of Operation Care, in a brief interview during the presentation. Other members of the Consumer Abuse Awareness Team who spoke during the presentation include Rosie Johansen and Shelly Anderson, both of Redding, and Glen Pollock from Chico.
By sharing their stories, they can spread the word and help others. "They're human beings. Everyone should be treated with respect," Shield said. "These kinds of things are important," Shield said of the presentation. "It shows (people) that they're not alone ... if you are in an abusive situation, tell someone (you trust)."
Douglas echoed Shield during her presentation when she advised those in the audience to "keep on telling people until you find the the right person - until someone listens."
Abuse is not limited to physical, Shield said. There's verbal abuse, such as yelling and screaming and put-downs; there's emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse and financial abuse, she said, "especially of someone with developmental disabilities," who often get taken advantage of in that area.
According to statistics provided by Operation Care, people with disabilities have a four in 10 higher risk of becoming a crime victim; nearly 50 million people in the U.S. have a disability.
Pollock told the audience that 80 percent of women and 54 percent of men with developmental disabilities have been sexually assaulted. Ninety-nine percent of those abusers are people whom the victims trust, like caregivers and family members, he added, noting that his data comes from writer and researcher Dave Hingsburger, who has written several books on the topic.
Abuse prevention education and resources are both a large part of The Arc's curriculum, said Peggy Cunningham, director of services at the Calaveras branch in San Andreas. Fifteen Arc members from the San Andreas location attended Wednesday's presentation in Jackson, Cunningham said, adding that they all found it very informative. Several members from the Arc of Amador in Sutter Creek also attended the event.
"The most important thing is education," she said during a phone interview Friday, noting that several speakers from the Calaveras Crisis Center have given presentations at The Arc to "teach people to have determination, and teach them about their rights."
It can be challenging to say "no" to something big like abuse, "unless you've been able to say 'no' to small things in the past," Shield said. Integrated into The Arc's curriculum on abuse prevention is teaching assertiveness and how to say "no" to smaller things, like "No, I don't want these peas."
Shield, who has worked with disabled people since 1969, said society's perceptions about people with disabilities have changed a lot in the past 10 years. "The public at large is becoming more aware" of people with disabilities, she said.
Operation Care, established in 1980, offers several services and resources for men and women who have been abused or sexually assaulted. The 24-hour crisis number is 223-2600 or (800) 675-3392. To reach the main office, call 223-2897.
For more information about The Arc of Amador and Calaveras counties, call 267-5978.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
