Shame on Orrin Hatch - The Patron Saint of Quack Medicine

[frank ryan]

So I guessed Hatch announced he will run for yet another term in the Senate. At age 84.

Good grief. What an ego. This from a guy that won his seat on the promise of promoting term limits.

He has also morphed from being a pragmatic moderate to a zany tea-party darling.

[Shaka]

So I guessed Hatch announced he will run for yet another term in the Senate. At age 84.

Good grief. What an ego. This from a guy that won his seat on the promise of promoting term limits.

While I will not argue that he has an ego I can tell you that he genuinely enjoys his job. It doesn't surprise me that he wants to keep working.

[Jeff Lebowski]

While I will not argue that he has an ego I can tell you that he genuinely enjoys his job. It doesn't surprise me that he wants to keep working.

Ha. Yeah, I don't think there is any question that he enjoys it.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Embedded Tweet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

https://cbtc.clickfunnels.com/optin1...ource=facebook

Wasn't sure if this is the quack medicine thread, but I happened upon this video. There's definitely a case to be made that eating right and living well can reduce the risk of cancer, but I'm not sure avoiding the recommendations of doctors when you have stage 3 colon cancer is the best way to go.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wasn't sure if this is the quack medicine thread, but I happened upon this video. There's definitely a case to be made that eating right and living well can reduce the risk of cancer, but I'm not sure avoiding the recommendations of doctors when you have stage 3 colon cancer is the best way to go.

I know several people who tried that. They are all dead now.

[Donuthole]

I know several people who tried that. They are all dead now.

Yep. My BIL's brother, for one (a Merrill from up your way).

"I didn't get lucky"

Uh, yeah, you did. You got really unlucky, and then really lucky. You didn't "overdose on nutrition" your way out of cancer.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yep. My BIL's brother, for one (a Merrill from up your way).

Yes. That is one.

[Topper]

https://cbtc.clickfunnels.com/optin1...ource=facebook

Wasn't sure if this is the quack medicine thread, but I happened upon this video. There's definitely a case to be made that eating right and living well can reduce the risk of cancer, but I'm not sure avoiding the recommendations of doctors when you have stage 3 colon cancer is the best way to go.

Colon cancer kills swiftly. The President of Cornell University died last year at 52 if I recall. Get the colonoscopy and keep repeating. It is worth the early detection.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016...-cancer-age-52

[Northwestcoug]

I hate to pile on a cancer survivor. But surgery alone for stage III colon cancer has a pretty significant survival benefit. Chemotherapy certainly increases that benefit, but he played the odds and won. I'm going to go out on a limb and say his crazy diet didn't do anything for his survival from cancer.

Also, I would love to know what type of colon cancer he had. At 26 that is extremely rare, and it's possible that he had an unusual variant that has a better prognosis than 'run of the mill' colon cancer.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Orrin is just trying to avoid being called as a GA.

Who can blame him?

[Uncle Ted]

I know several people who tried that. They are all dead now.

But, but, steve jobs lived 20 years with his cancer! and the mistake he made that did him in was getting that liver transplant. Ask Dr. Axe!

[frank ryan]

This is pretty heart-breaking stuff. I've cut and past quite a bit because it's a huge article, probably behind a paywall (I subscribe to WaPo through Amazon Prime). This is pretty shameful stuff. Plenty of ineptitude all around, but Hatch's actions are unforgivable. I regret voting for him.


THE DRUG INDUSTRY’S TRIUMPH OVER THE DEA
Amid a targeted lobbying effort, Congress weakened the DEA’s ability to go after drug distributors, even as opioid-related deaths continue to rise, a Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’ investigation finds.

In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription narcotics onto the nation’s streets.

By then, the opioid war had claimed 200,000 lives, more than three times the number of U.S. military deaths in the Vietnam War. Overdose deaths continue to rise. There is no end in sight.

A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and “60 Minutes.” The DEA had opposed the effort for years.

The law was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled narcotics to the black market. The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress, pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.

The chief advocate of the law that hobbled the DEA was Rep. Tom Marino,
a Pennsylvania Republican who is now President Trump’s nominee to become the nation’s next drug czar. Marino spent years trying to move the law through Congress. It passed after Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
(R-Utah) negotiated a final version with the DEA.
For years, some drug distributors were fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the DEA to shut down suspicious sales of hundreds of millions of pills, while they racked up billions of dollars in sales.

The new law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.

Political action committees representing the industry contributed at least $1.5 million to the 23 lawmakers who sponsored or co-sponsored four versions of the bill, including nearly $100,000 to Marino and $177,000 to Hatch. Overall, the drug industry spent $106 million lobbying Congress on the bill and other legislation between 2014 and 2016, according to lobbying reports.

“The drug industry, the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and chain drugstores, have an influence over Congress that has never been seen before,” said Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
who ran the DEA’s division responsible for regulating the drug industry and led a decade-long campaign of aggressive enforcement until he was forced out of the agency in 2015. “I mean, to get Congress to pass a bill to protect their interests in the height of an opioid epidemic just shows me how much influence they have.”

Besides the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, few lawmakers knew the true impact the law would have. It sailed through Congress and was passed by unanimous consent, a parliamentary procedure reserved for bills considered to be noncontroversial. The White House was equally unaware of the bill’s import when President Barack Obama signed it into law, according to interviews with former senior administration officials.

Top officials at the White House and the Justice Department have declined to discuss how the bill came to pass.

Michael Botticelli, who led the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, said neither Justice nor the DEA objected to the bill, removing a major obstacle to the president’s approval.

“We deferred to DEA, as is common practice,” he said.

The DEA’s top official at the time, acting administrator Chuck Rosenberg,
declined repeated requests for interviews. A senior DEA official said the agency fought the bill for years in the face of growing pressure from key members of Congress and industry lobbyists. But the DEA lost the battle and eventually was forced to accept a deal it did not want.

“They would have passed this with us or without us,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Our point was that this law was completely unnecessary.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.b4273fe0160a

[Pelado]

This is pretty heart-breaking stuff. I've cut and past quite a bit because it's a huge article, probably behind a paywall (I subscribe to WaPo through Amazon Prime). This is pretty shameful stuff. Plenty of ineptitude all around, but Hatch's actions are unforgivable. I regret voting for him.


THE DRUG INDUSTRY’S TRIUMPH OVER THE DEA
Amid a targeted lobbying effort, Congress weakened the DEA’s ability to go after drug distributors, even as opioid-related deaths continue to rise, a Washington Post and ‘60 Minutes’ investigation finds.

In April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress effectively stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon against large drug companies suspected of spilling prescription narcotics onto the nation’s streets.

By then, the opioid war had claimed 200,000 lives, more than three times the number of U.S. military deaths in the Vietnam War. Overdose deaths continue to rise. There is no end in sight.

A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation’s major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills, according to an investigation by The Washington Post and “60 Minutes.” The DEA had opposed the effort for years.

The law was the crowning achievement of a multifaceted campaign by the drug industry to weaken aggressive DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled narcotics to the black market. The industry worked behind the scenes with lobbyists and key members of Congress, pouring more than a million dollars into their election campaigns.

The chief advocate of the law that hobbled the DEA was Rep. Tom Marino,
a Pennsylvania Republican who is now President Trump’s nominee to become the nation’s next drug czar. Marino spent years trying to move the law through Congress. It passed after Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
(R-Utah) negotiated a final version with the DEA.
For years, some drug distributors were fined for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the DEA to shut down suspicious sales of hundreds of millions of pills, while they racked up billions of dollars in sales.

The new law makes it virtually impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments from the companies, according to internal agency and Justice Department documents and an independent assessment by the DEA’s chief administrative law judge in a soon-to-be-published law review article. That powerful tool had allowed the agency to immediately prevent drugs from reaching the street.

Political action committees representing the industry contributed at least $1.5 million to the 23 lawmakers who sponsored or co-sponsored four versions of the bill, including nearly $100,000 to Marino and $177,000 to Hatch. Overall, the drug industry spent $106 million lobbying Congress on the bill and other legislation between 2014 and 2016, according to lobbying reports.

“The drug industry, the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and chain drugstores, have an influence over Congress that has never been seen before,” said Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
who ran the DEA’s division responsible for regulating the drug industry and led a decade-long campaign of aggressive enforcement until he was forced out of the agency in 2015. “I mean, to get Congress to pass a bill to protect their interests in the height of an opioid epidemic just shows me how much influence they have.”

Besides the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, few lawmakers knew the true impact the law would have. It sailed through Congress and was passed by unanimous consent, a parliamentary procedure reserved for bills considered to be noncontroversial. The White House was equally unaware of the bill’s import when President Barack Obama signed it into law, according to interviews with former senior administration officials.

Top officials at the White House and the Justice Department have declined to discuss how the bill came to pass.

Michael Botticelli, who led the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, said neither Justice nor the DEA objected to the bill, removing a major obstacle to the president’s approval.

“We deferred to DEA, as is common practice,” he said.

The DEA’s top official at the time, acting administrator Chuck Rosenberg,
declined repeated requests for interviews. A senior DEA official said the agency fought the bill for years in the face of growing pressure from key members of Congress and industry lobbyists. But the DEA lost the battle and eventually was forced to accept a deal it did not want.

“They would have passed this with us or without us,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Our point was that this law was completely unnecessary.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.b4273fe0160a

Interesting. What are the supposed benefits of this law?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Eddie]

Interesting. What are the supposed benefits of this law?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

That's my question too. What was the problem they thought they were trying to fix? I don't believe that the lobbyists simply told Hatch "Hey - the DEA is trying to keep us from flooding the market with pills sold via the black market to drug lord pharmacists. Help! Help!"

What was their argument as to the need for this particular legislation?

I was recently surprised to see Hatch say he was going to sponsor legislation to allow for increased research into medical marijuana. Seems like it's often two steps forward, on step back with him. Or hopefully it is - I suppose sometimes it's one step forward and two steps back. Ugh.