Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects.5 Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the trials (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive—that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative. Drugs are approved only for a specified use—for example, to treat lung cancer—and it is illegal for companies to promote them for any other use.
But physicians may prescribe approved drugs “off label”—i.e., without regard to the specified use—and perhaps as many as half of all prescriptions are written for off-label purposes. After drugs are on the market, companies continue to sponsor clinical trials, sometimes to get FDA approval for additional uses, sometimes to demonstrate an advantage over competitors, and often just as an excuse to get physicians to prescribe such drugs for patients. (Such trials are aptly called “seeding” studies.)
Since drug companies don’t have direct access to human subjects, they need to outsource their clinical trials to medical schools, where researchers use patients from teaching hospitals and clinics, or to private research companies (CROs), which organize office-based physicians to enroll their patients. Although CROs are usually faster, sponsors often prefer using medical schools, in part because the research is taken more seriously, but mainly because it gives them access to highly influential faculty physicians—referred to by the industry as “thought-leaders” or “key opinion leaders” (KOLs). These are the people who write textbooks and medical journal papers, issue practice guidelines (treatment recommendations), sit on FDA and other governmental advisory panels, head professional societies, and speak at the innumerable meetings and dinners that take place every year to teach clinicians about prescription drugs. Having KOLs like Dr. Biederman on the payroll is worth every penny spent.
A few decades ago, medical schools did not have extensive financial dealings with industry, and faculty investigators who carried out industry-sponsored research generally did not have other ties to their sponsors. But schools now have their own manifold deals with industry and are hardly in a moral position to object to their faculty behaving in the same way. A recent survey found that about two thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution.6 A study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three fifths received personal income.7 In the 1980s medical schools began to issue guidelines governing faculty conflicts of interest but they are highly variable, generally quite permissive, and loosely enforced.
Posted inDrugs, Medicine|Comments Off on Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
A conservative media company has sued YouTube, saying that the online video giant illegally censors the short videos it produces.
PragerU was founded in 2011 by Dennis Prager, a prominent conservative writer and radio talk show host. The organization is a nonprofit that espouses conservative viewpoints on various issues by means of short, animated videos, which it posts on its own website, as well as its YouTube channel.
“Google/YouTube have represented that their platforms and services are intended to effectuate the exercise free speech among the public,” write PragerU lawyers in the organization’s complaint (PDF), filed Monday. “As applied to PragerU, Google/YouTube use their restricted mode filtering not to protect younger or sensitive viewers from ‘inappropriate’ video content, but as a political gag mechanism to silence PragerU.”
PragerU says that at least 37 of its videos continue to be censored by “restricted mode filtering,” which limits views based on certain characteristics, including the age of the viewer. Those videos include “educational content ranging from the legal creation of Israel and the history of the Korean War, to the idea of diversity of thought on college campuses.”
YouTube’s actions are “absurd, arbitrary, capricious, and devoid of any rational basis,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit cites cases like Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the California Supreme Court allowed protesters to pass out leaflets on mall property, even though they were advocating for boycotts of certain stores.
Another precedent PragerU points to is Marsh v. Alabama, a US Supreme Court case in which a Jehovah’s Witness was handing out religious pamphlets on the sidewalk in Chickasaw, a privately owned “company town” near Mobile. The high court ruled that Grace Marsh had a right to hand out pamphlets even though the sidewalk she stood on was owned by a private corporation.
The lawsuit includes a long list of PragerU videos that have been restricted or “demonetized” by YouTube, and it lists videos on similar topics that have not been restricted. For instance, PragerU claims its YouTube video “Are the police racist?” was restricted or demonetized, but it points to a list of six other videos related to police behavior and racism that weren’t restricted.
Posted inDennis Prager|Comments Off on PragerU sues YouTube, says it censors conservative videos
The 14 Words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
* 1.5: Harvey Weinstein, James Toback, Mark Halperin, Leo Wieseltier. Will anyone notice that they are Jewish? The same traits that make for Jewish success — high verbal IQ, drive, passionate intensity in going for what you want, disregard for social norms, self-confidence — also lead at times to bad outcomes such as unethical behavior.
* 2. God resumes speaking to Abraham after he separates from Lot. There are a lot of things you can only hear if you separate from bad company.
* 3. Abraham’s tent was open on all four sides to show his hospitality. You can only be that kind of hospitable in a safe homogeneous society or if you have a ton of security.
“The controversy resonated in both Los Angeles and Houston, which are among the most racially diverse cities in the nation and have prided themselves as being melting pots that welcome immigration and celebrate tolerance.”
* 5. What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? LINK: “Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them'” (Genesis 19:4–5). The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then “the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities…” (Genesis 19:24).
In light of the passage, the most common response to the question “What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?” is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term “sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.”
6. Where does morality come from? The argument that morality comes from society is not a strong one. After all, Sodom and Gomorrah were societies with a moral code, a revolting one, much like America today that celebrates same-sex marriage and kids going transsexual.
The secret is when you only do 30 minutes of preparation and call yourself an expert you just look stupid.
Everybody has an opinion about it, but nobody seems to know exactly what it is. So, I took it upon myself to find out. I took a deep dive into alt-right culture. I read their books, listened to their podcasts, watched their videos, followed their blogs, and spoke personally to their leaders.
The video is tedious, and though I was promised a deep understanding of the Alt-Right, he spends a lot of time setting it up and explaining what Alt stands for. This is the stuff we have all heard many times before, people discussing how Alt-Right are concerned with race and so were the left-wingers. The bait is of low quality, and if it were not for this next statement, I would have continued on my day without addressing this point.
So in the Alt-Right’s view the moral ideals of the American Founders like: ‘All men are created equal,’ are naive and misguided.
So you did a lot of research for this article, did ya champ?
Let’s break this one down; The phrase you referenced is an excerpt from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, the document which was written by founding father Thomas Jefferson and served to sever ties with our colonial overlords. While the declaration has no authority in US law, I will agree it still is an excellent way of describing the ideals on which America is founded, that if you can work hard, you will be successful. The phrase “all men are created equal” is a middle finger to the European aristocrats who did not see the Americans as equal, believed themselves much more civilized than us petty commoners. Well sure this is all interpretation, and how are we to know what Thomas Jefferson meant by his statement? Maybe we can take a look at the one novel he published in his life, let’s get a sense of what our Founding Father believed, to see if he did indeed think all races were equal.
I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them?
It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.
Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? … and more by the glands of the skin, which gives [blacks] a very strong and disagreeable odour. … They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.
— Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia.
Here is some more:
To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U. S. the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population. The objections to a thorough incorporation of the two people are, with most of the Whites insuperable; and are admitted by all of them to be very powerful. If the blacks, strongly marked as they are by Physical & lasting peculiarities, be retained amid the Whites, under the degrading privation of equal rights political or social, they must be always dissatisfied with their condition as a change only from one to another species of oppression; always secretly confederated agst. the ruling & privileged class; and always uncontroulled by some of the most cogent motives to moral and respectable conduct. The character of the free blacks, even where their legal condition is least affected by their colour, seems to put these truths beyond question.
— James Madison James Madison to Robert J. Evans 15 June 1819 (James Madison too, just for fun)
Well uh-oh.
Now I do not expect everyone to be experts in history, but if you are making this claim that you have ‘read their books, listened to their podcasts, watched their videos, etc.’ it should be assumed that you understand this core tenant of our system of beliefs. The truth of the Founding Father’s intentions for America is an introductory level belief of the Alt-Right ideology, and as I do not want to imply you would knowingly lie to your audience, the only other option I see is that you did not, in fact, do your “deep dive” at all.
If you’re going to make an appeal to authority, make sure the authority agrees with you. It seems you are the one who believes the founding fathers naive and misguided.
He goes on to make some weak generalizations about the Alt-Right “rejecting God,” I suppose he is appealing to his boomer bible belt audience here, asserting that the reason we don’t accept it is that black people are allowed in heaven too.
The article is getting long, and I don’t want to get into a religious debate here so I will answer your unsubstantiated claim with an anecdote: The majority of the people I know in the Alt-Right are Christian to a degree. One of my closest friends who is in the movement is planning on becoming a Catholic priest.
I recommend you actually watch this part of the video, it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth as he attempts this very dishonest categorization of the Alt-Right as strict atheists, quoting Nietzsche with big “GOD IS DEAD” words flashing on the screen, referencing Richard Spencer’s similarities to both Marx and the Nazi’s in the same breath. The rest of the article I was able to convince myself he was just a stupid man who didn’t care enough to research, but this man is a Yale graduate, I cannot explain this away as sheer incompetence on this one.
Now there needs to be a point to analyzing this outsider’s perspective of the Alt-Right. The truth of the matter is one only understands the ideology after being immersed in the culture for a long time. People like Michael Knowles don’t want to have to browse TRS or /pol/ or even altright.com for three months to figure us out.
9. What are the spiritual lessons we’re supposed to glean from the following Bible story? Genesis 19:30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
10. Jews often mock white nationalists as “in-bred” but I suspect that Jews and other Middle Eastern people are usually more in-bred than whites. For example, Abraham’s wife was also his sister. They had a common father but not a common mother.
11. Gen. 20:17: “for God had completely restrained every orifice of teh household of Abimelech, because of Sarah, the wife of Abraham.”
It seems like every time Sarah is taken by some powerful dude, gets household gets horrible diseases. It is as though she has AIDS.
12. Sarah tells Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishmael and then God says to Abraham, “Whatever Sarah tells you, heed her voice.” It can be painful and awkward to remove people from your society, but often it is necessary for your survival. If you are a minority such as Hagar and Ishmael, it’s not a good idea to mock the majority.
Posted inTorah|Comments Off on Parasha Vayeira (Genesis 18:1 – 22:24)
Mayor Bill de Blasio crony Jona Rechnitz revealed in court Friday that he treated his NYPD pals to an all-expenses-paid trip to Miami to catch a college football championship game — complete with prostitutes as “entertainment.”
Rechnitz said he took then-NYPD Deputy Chiefs James McCarthy and Andrew Capul and now-retired cops Eddie Gardner and Stephen McAllister, who is now the police commissioner in Floral Park, LI, on the jaunt to the BCS National Championship game in 2013. It was the first time the alleged trip has come to light.
The deep-pocketed real estate investor paid for travel, “a suite to watch the game, food, everything,” he told jurors in Manhattan federal court.
“Did you pay for entertainment?” prosecutor Martin Bell asked.
“Yes,” said Rechnitz, who is cooperating with feds in a bid for leniency.
“What was the nature of the entertainment?” Bell continued.
“Prostitutes,” Rechnitz responded.
The 34-year-old de Blasio donor-turned-felon was testifying in the ongoing trial for Norman Seabrook, the once-powerful head of the New York City corrections officers union.
Rechnitz has testified that he helped hedge fund pal Murray Huberfeld bribe Seabrook in exchange for the union investing in the failed fund.
Posted inJona Rechnitz|Comments Off on Felon Jona Rechnitz who says he bought de Blasio: I also scored hookers for cops
A crooked Mayor de Blasio crony testified in court Friday just how easy it was to keep Hizzoner under his thumb, describing how he just had to dangle some money and City Hall jumped to do his bidding.
Mayoral donor-gone-rogue Jona Rechnitz — during his second day of explosive testimony in Manhattan federal court — said de Blasio campaign staffer Ross Offinger hit him up for a $102,000 donation to help keep state Senate Democrats in office after de Blasio won the 2013 mayoral race.
The shady real-estate developer said he initially balked at the request, sniffing that he wasn’t getting the favors he wanted from City Hall. Plus, Rechnitz said, he deserved more personal attention from his pal the mayor.
“I told [Offinger], ‘No, I’m out on this,’ ” testified Rechnitz, who was a cooperating witness in since-closed state and federal probes into de Blasio’s fund-raising. “I was frustrated that we had a lot of requests and issues on the table that weren’t being attended to in a timely fashion.
“All you do is you come here when you need money,” he said he griped to Offinger.
In particular, Rechnitz said, he wanted help with a slew of violations he had received because a tenant at his Madison Avenue property illegally sublet his apartment on Airbnb.
“I paid all the violations,” Rechnitz said of his tenant’s illegal sublet. But he said he wanted to meet with someone in the Housing Department to explain why the violations were unfair, and had been asking Offinger “for a long time” to arrange a sit-down.
Rechnitz said he also asked for more information from the city on an Ocean Parkway home his friend was considering selling — and his request “wasn’t moving quickly enough for my liking.”
“I was sick and tired of it,” Rechnitz said. “I wasn’t getting the proper forum or attention that I wanted.”
The disgraced donor said that after he refused to cough up the dough, things got moving. He soon got a personal phone call from de Blasio, Rechnitz said.
“The mayor told me it means a great deal to him,” he said of the donation. Rechnitz said that prompted him to make the hefty contribution. “Once the mayor called me, I felt it was a personal favor to him,” Rechnitz said.
Posted inJona Rechnitz|Comments Off on Felon Jona Rechnitz: I dangled $100,000 in front of the mayor, and he did whatever I wanted
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
