Beginning in September 2013, we will have the right to know if our doctors are being wined, dined, gifted, funded, or in any way compensated by a pharmaceutical company, thanks to the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. There is evidently a lot of money changing hands, because the cost of recording all those payments and complying with the new federal law is going to be $224 million the first year, and $163 million annually thereafter. The purpose of the law is to ensure that undisclosed financial ties do not unduly influence medical research and medical practice.

A federal website will be maintained for the public, listing names of physicians and the value in dollars of payments received from manufacturers greater than $10 (add three or four zeros for some physicians). Doctors will also be required to disclose their stock holdings involving companies that supply drugs, medical devices and biologics. Aside from the extra cost to health care providers (which will likely be passed along to patients), this law is good news for consumers.

How do pharmaceutical companies feel about the bright light of day shining on the wined and dined? Pharma is apparently not too confident that we, the consumers of their goods, can handle this information. They are concerned that transparency “without context” could give us the wrong idea. They are worried that we might think drug companies are actually trying to buy influence by giving our doctors gifts, food, entertainment, travel, honoraria, research funding, grants, charitable contributions, direct compensation for teaching, consulting fees, investment interest, royalties, licensing fees and speaking fees.

Now why would we think that? John Castellani, President and CEO of the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) tells us that “transparency should bring clarity, not confusion.” Ironically, this is how PhRMA describes its “transparency” to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:

“Our comments to CMS are long and complicated, reflecting the complexities of the issue. They make use of examples, hypotheticals and incredibly long descriptions.”

Such tactics do not bode well for either transparency or clarity. In fact, medical consumers may be left wondering if this is just another old-fashioned snow job. Pharmaceutical companies are very worried that the Physician Payment Sunshine provision of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act will result in consumers looking at a physician’s name and a dollar amount the doctor is paid by companies that make drugs, medical devices or supplies, and draw conclusions without understanding “the information learned, the expertise provided, or the resources that went into the particular research work.”

The law is meant to provide the public with transparency “in interactions between biopharmaceutical companies and health care providers.” (Try wading through pages 1542 – 1563 of the Affordable Care Act.) But Castellani fears that patients will see “such limited information as inaccurately suggesting a physician’s bias, despite research that has shown that this could not be further from the truth.” Getting at “the truth,” however, is not what pharma-funded research is known for, as evidenced by drug safety studies in which the “placebo” is not inert, or the epidemiological study of a vaccine preservative whose data is repeatedly reworked until it can no longer be shown to cause developmental delay in children.

Castellani says pharmaceutical companies want “more useful transparency.” The Canary Party asks, useful to whom? He claims that “we’re proud of the way that we collaborate with physicians, and they with us, in the interests of medical progress. Our goal is to continue working with CMS to create a tool with the appropriate resources for patients to appreciate this, as well.”

Does that last sentence sound like doublespeak nonsense to you? It doesn’t make any sense to us either. Unfortunately, the people who wrote it have a seat at the table with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Let’s hope that table isn’t at the Four Seasons.

Attend the rally, Sign the petition.  From our Canary friends in West Virginia:

RALLY FOR PARENTAL RIGHTS
Wednesday February 22 @ 10am
WV State Capitol Steps

HUNDREDS WILL GATHER ON THE CAPITAL STEPS TO DEMAND END TO FORCED VACCINATION

The New England Journal of Medicine supports non-medical exemptions. Why does WV have to stand outside of these recommendations and the rest of the country?

On Wednesday, February 22 at 10am on the steps of the West Virginia State Capital, families, military members, health care professionals, and legal experts will gather to affirm that vaccination choice is a fundamental human and civil right. They will demand that Senate Bill 50 (introduced by Senators Boley and Nohe) be passed swiftly, providing families with the same type of non-medical immunization exemption 48 other states enjoy and realigning West Virginia with the rest of the country regarding compulsory immunization for school entrance. 

The “Rally for Parental Rights” is a free, public rally coordinated by a grassroots effort called  We the Parents that will raise awareness of the legal, medical, and ethical implications of compulsory medical interventions. Parents will share their stories of tragedy, harassment, and discuss how current law impacts and decreases their family’s quality of life. Keynote speakers include representatives from VaxTruth.org, ACLU- WV, and Center for Personal Rights, as well as Patricia Finn, Attorney, PC, parents, families, and military members. 

“This is an opportunity for parents to have a voice,“ says Lori Lee, an organizer and parent of two healthy, non-vaccinated children in Jackson County. “Our state government, our legislature is not listening. Concerned parents have been ignored by their own Senators. Senate Bill 50 is stalled in the Senate Education Committee, while many Senators ignore phone calls, faxes, letters, and pleas from their constituents. This is our chance to be heard.” Each day, the Lees drive their children across the border where they are schooled in Ohio. Ohio, is one of the 48 states in the US which provides non-medical exemptions for parents regarding immunizations for school entrance. Ohio offers medical, religious and philosophical exemptions and maintains a higher percentage of children immunized than West Virginia. In fact, based on 2010 data from the Center for Disease Control, 26 additional states which provide simple non-medical exemptions remain at or above West Virginia’s immunization rate (2010 3DTaP % per CDC).

“Current code substantially burdens the free exercise of religion as is protected by the 1st Amendment and is in opposition of the 9th Amendment which guarantees fundamental rights,” says Patricia Finn, Attorney, PC whose law office focuses on clients’ 1st Amendment Rights. A group of parents in West Virginia is working to ensure these rights are given back. Ms. Finn is one of the keynote speakers at the rally. 

West Virginia Code (§16-3-4) mandates compulsory immunization, prohibiting parents who object to some or all vaccines from sending their children to public or private schools in the state. It is important to note that this code was introduced in 1931, when only three vaccines were in use (diphtheria, pertussis, and tuberculosis) as opposed to the 14 vaccinations now required for school entry (Four doses of DTaP, 3 doses of Polio, 2 doses MMR, 2 doses chicken pox, 3 doses hepatitis B). 

Senate Bill 50 enjoys the support of the community, much of the West Virginia Legislature, and many large groups such as the ACLU-WV, Canary Party, Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), VaxTruth, Center for Personal Rights, and National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). However, if Senator Plymale, Senate Education Chair, refuses to put the bill on the committee’s agenda in the coming week, it will die in committee. To date, he is unresponsive. 

In a letter to the West Virginia Senate Education Committee, where the bill is currently awaiting placement on the committee agenda, Jane M. Orient, MD of the AAPS wrote, “We believe that patients, or in the case of children, their parents or guardians, have the right to make their own medical decisions. According to the Nuremberg Code, patients may not be forced to participate in experiments without their fully informed consent.” She further states, “We note that many other states permit non-medical exemptions like that in Senate Bill 50, and no serious public health consequences have been demonstrated. Adverse reactions to vaccines may be serious, permanently disabling, or even fatal in some individuals.”

USA Today, The Parkersburg News and Sentinel, Herald-Dispatch, Intelligencer: Wheeling News Register, and WTRF have all reported on the debate whirling around flawed public policy and parental rights. We the Parents is fighting for their rights and for their children, and that passion is not easily quelled. They are demanding that the State of West Virginia bring its code in line with the rest of the United States and restore their Constitutional freedoms.

Sign the online petition and help us reach 1000 signatures by Wednesday!

"The right to choose what is injected into your child's body is a decision that should made with due diligence by the parents of a child, as the one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination doesn't look at at the immune response by certain individuals and take into account personal and family medical history.

My own son was given a vaccination for school which was described to me as harmless and having no side effects and no possibility of a reaction, who then collapsed in my arms while coming home from the doctor's office. I frantically turned around and rushed him to the hospital where he, thank God, was revived and stabilized.

I thought I had lost my son forever. I was then told he never could have these vaccinations the rest of his life. Quite a turn around from the day before when told there were never any complications from these inoculations. In most states citizens currently have the legal right to opt out of using vaccines, West Virginia should be no different!"

     -- WV State Senator David C. Nohe

At one time, everyone drank raw milk. But with the invention of pasteurization and its alleged safety benefits, consumption of raw milk in this country almost completely disappeared. In fact, in some states it is illegal to sell raw milk. But a growing segment of the population is clamoring for increased access to raw milk, citing its nutritional benefits and recently discovered inbuilt safety mechanisms. Opponents are skeptical of such nutritional claims and believe the safety risks of unpasteurized milk are simply too high.

Chipotle whose motto is "Food with Integrity," encourages a retreat of factor farming and a return to sustainable farming practices that produce Real Food.  The restaurant chain teamed up with Willie Nelson to create an animated remake of Coldplay's "We're Going Back to the Start," to spread the word.

The Canary Party is pleased to see a fast food chain raise their standards, and encourage more corporations to follow Chipotle's lead.  We remind our Canaries to vote with their dollars.  The money you spend at the grocery store can go to Monsanto or it can go to farmers like Joel Salatin at Polyface Farm.