[Ip-health] National Institute of Mental Health Strategic Plan

[gittem01@med.nyu.edu]

Dear Colleagues:
I write to alert you to the forthcoming meeting of the National Advisory
Committee on Jan 11. That meeting will discuss the National Institute for
Mental health Strategic Plan. The plan makes no mention of the current crisis
in the use of newer atypical antipsychotic medicine which has been
associated(Saha, Arch. Gen Psychiat. Oct, @007) with a dramatic increase in
deaths among those with mentally illness.
Those in the Rockville,Bethesda area are encouraged to attend.
 Martin Gittelman Quoting ip-health-request@lists.essential.org:

> Send Ip-health mailing list submissions to
> 	ip-health@lists.essential.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	ip-health-request@lists.essential.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ip-health digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. NYT Letters: Trade deals hurt access to meds (robert weissman)
>    2. NYT letters - CPATH, EPI (Ellen Shaffer)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:53:41 -0500
> From: robert weissman <rob@essential.org>
> To: ip-health <ip-health@lists.essential.org>
> Subject: [Ip-health] NYT Letters: Trade deals hurt access to meds
>
> Ellen Shaffer and Tony Avirgan today have letters in the New York Times
> responding to a pro-trade agreement column. Ellen and Tony's letters
> both emphasize the access to medicines issues. Their letters, and the
> original Times editorial, follow below.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/opinion/l27trade.html?_r=3D1&ref=3Dopinio=
> n&oref=3Dslogin
>
> December 27, 2007
> The Drawbacks of Free Trade Pacts
>
> To the Editor:
>
> Current trade agreements preclude and sometimes reverse the very safety
> net you propose to ameliorate their damage, as new Congressional leaders
> recognize. Trade pacts undermine access to affordable medicines and
> offer new levers of power to the drug, tobacco, alcohol, health care and
> processed food industries. These industries dominate United States
> federal trade advisory committees and influence trade policy to promote
> the bottom line over health.
>
> The public, the candidates and The Times are right to call for
> affordable health care. We also need a new, sustainable trade model that
> does not destabilize public health benefits where they exist or are
> emerging among our trading partners. These are the genuine keys to
> prosperity.
>
> Ellen R. Shaffer
> San Francisco, Dec. 23, 2007
> The writer is co-director of the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
> Health.
>
> *
>
> To the Editor:
>
> In =93Trade and Prosperity=94 (editorial, Dec. 23), you equate opposition t=
> o
> trade agreements like Nafta with protectionism. While there are
> protectionists among the opponents of so-called free trade agreements,
> most opposition is based on the fact that these agreements have little
> to do with the exchange of goods and much more to do with empowering
> corporations to override national laws protecting workers and the
> environment in other countries.
>
> Agreements like Nafta and Cafta extend patents well beyond the
> provisions set out in United States law, inhibiting the ability of other
> countries to combat public health crises such as AIDS. These are the
> reasons that there is such widespread opposition to free trade
> agreements not just in the United States, but also in countries with
> which such agreements are promulgated.
>
> Tony Avirgan
> Silver Spring, Md., Dec. 23, 2007
> The writer is global policy organizer at the Economic Policy Institute.
>
> ---
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23sun1.html?ref=3Dopinion
>
> December 23, 2007
> Editorial
> Trade and Prosperity
>
> With most polls showing that voters believe trade with other countries
> is hurting the American economy, it is not surprising that there has
> been a lot of posturing about the perils of trade on the campaign trail.
>
> Democrats have been most tempted by the protectionism. John Edwards
> likes to talk about how trade agreements like Nafta =93have hurt workers
> and families while helping corporate insiders.=94 Senator Hillary Clinton
> has suggested that the economic theories underpinning the cause for free
> trade no longer hold, and has said she would review all of the United
> States=92 trade agreements.
>
> Even Republican candidates =97 normally staunch supporters of expanding
> trade =97 can sound skeptical. =93I don=92t want to see our food come from
> China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from
> Europe and Asia,=94 complained Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney defends
> globalization=92s record of improving living standards, but cannot resist
> drawing an applause line by adding that the government should negotiate
> better with other countries to make sure =93the American worker gets a
> fair shake.=94
>
> It would be unfortunate for the United States if the winner of the 2008
> election elevated skepticism toward trade from a red-meat sound bite on
> the campaign trail to a new wave of protectionist policy.
>
> Many Americans are experiencing economic anxiety. Wages for most workers
> are going nowhere. It is a sad fact that despite enormous gains in
> productivity over the past few decades, the wages of typical workers are
> only marginally higher than they were a quarter of a century ago. But
> throttling trade =97 say, by reconsidering existing agreements =97 would
> hurt a lot more people than it helped. There is scant evidence that
> trade has played a big role in holding down typical workers=92 wages.
> There is abundant evidence that it has contributed substantially to
> America=92s overall economic growth. It offers American producers access
> to foreign markets. It multiplies choices for producers and consumers.
> Foreign competition spurs productivity growth at home.
>
> Trade, like technological change, can produce wrenching dislocations
> that hurt some workers. But trade barriers are not the proper tool to
> deal with these changes. What is needed is a bold strategy to rebuild a
> functioning safety net, deploying some of the vast wealth this nation
> has gained through globalization to assist those hurt by the forces of
> economic change. This will allow Americans to embrace globalization,
> rather than fear it.
>
> The planks of this strategy include health care reform, to ensure that
> workers who lose their jobs do not also lose access to affordable health
> insurance, and a form of extended unemployment insurance for all
> displaced workers, not just those hurt by trade. More progressive
> taxation =97 using tools like the earned income tax credit =97 should be
> used to address the stagnation of incomes. And more should be spent on
> the continuous training and education of workers throughout their lives.
>
> It is unclear whether the next president will have the vision to carry
> through these changes. The Republican candidates=92 posturing on trade has
> been pretty much substance-free. But considering the field=92s uniform
> approach to economic policy, in which all taxes are bad and most
> nondefense spending is worse, it is unlikely that a Republican president
> would be interested in investing in such an expansion of America=92s
> social safety net.
>
> The Democratic candidates, on the other hand, tend to be on the right
> side of the discussion on issues like universal health care, education
> and social spending. But all of them have included hints of defensive
> trade policies amid their proposals. Barack Obama has offered the most
> resistance to the easy path of blaming imports from foreign countries
> for the woes of the American middle class. =93Global trade is not going
> away, technology is not going away, the Internet is not going away,=94 he
> said in New Hampshire. =93And that means enormous opportunities, but also
> means more dislocations.=94
>
> But Mrs. Clinton proposes a =93timeout=94 on future trade agreements,
> including the World Trade Organization=92s global trade negotiations, and
> a reconsideration of existing deals =97 including Nafta, a cornerstone of
> Bill Clinton=92s presidency. Mr. Edwards also talks of =93redoing=94 Nafta.
> All the Democratic candidates agree that trade agreements should be
> amended to attach provisions about minimum labor standards.
>
> These changes would do virtually nothing to protect American workers
> from the disruptions wrought by trade, technology and other economic
> forces. A protectionist agenda would hurt them.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:29:04 -0800
> From: "Ellen Shaffer" <ershaffer@gmail.com>
> To: ip-health@lists.essential.org
> Subject: [Ip-health] NYT letters - CPATH, EPI
>
> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> On 12/23/07, a New York Times editorial misleadingly linked current trade
> agreements, trade itself, and prosperity, warned against protectionist
> opposition, and recommended safety net measures such as expanded health
> care.   Responses from CPATH and from Tony Avirgan of EPI, on 12/27,  appear
> below.  To see other excellent letters, and the original editorial, go to:
> http://www.cpath.org/id4.htm, or:
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/opinion/l27trade.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
>
> December 27, 2007
> The Drawbacks of Free Trade Pacts
>
> To the Editor:
>
> Current trade agreements preclude and sometimes reverse the very safety
> net you propose to ameliorate their damage, as new Congressional leaders
> recognize. Trade pacts undermine access to affordable medicines and
> offer new levers of power to the drug, tobacco, alcohol, health care and
> processed food industries. These industries dominate United States
> federal trade advisory committees and influence trade policy to promote
> the bottom line over health.
>
> The public, the candidates and The Times are right to call for
> affordable health care. We also need a new, sustainable trade model that
> does not destabilize public health benefits where they exist or are
> emerging among our trading partners. These are the genuine keys to
> prosperity.
>
> Ellen R. Shaffer
> San Francisco, Dec. 23, 2007
> The writer is co-director of the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
> Health.
>
> *
>
> To the Editor:
>
> In "Trade and Prosperity" (editorial, Dec. 23), you equate opposition to
> trade agreements like Nafta with protectionism. While there are
> protectionists among the opponents of so-called free trade agreements,
> most opposition is based on the fact that these agreements have little
> to do with the exchange of goods and much more to do with empowering
> corporations to override national laws protecting workers and the
> environment in other countries.
>
> Agreements like Nafta and Cafta extend patents well beyond the
> provisions set out in United States law, inhibiting the ability of other
> countries to combat public health crises such as AIDS. These are the
> reasons that there is such widespread opposition to free trade
> agreements not just in the United States, but also in countries with
> which such agreements are promulgated.
>
> Tony Avirgan
> Silver Spring, Md., Dec. 23, 2007
> The writer is global policy organizer at the Economic Policy Institute.
>
> ---
> Originally circulated on the G&H List--- The Globalization and Health list
> is a discussion group, an information source, and an organizing tool for
> people concerned about the impact of economic globalization on health. The
> list is managed by CPATH, the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and
> Health, an independent research and advocacy group. www.cpath.org You are
> currently subscribed to g-h as: ershaffer@gmail.com To post a message, send
> an email to G-H@list.cpath.org To unsubscribe via email, send a blank email
> to leave-g-h-1060805N@list.cpath.org To subscribe via email send a blank
> email to join-G-H@list.cpath.org To subscribe, unsubscribe or view archived
> messages, visit the list web site at
> http://list.cpath.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=g-h
>
> --
> Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD MPH
> Co-Director, CPATH
> Phone 415-933-6204
> www.cpath.org
> cell: 415-680-4603
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>
>
> End of Ip-health Digest
>
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.