vol_scouter

Scoutfish, On this post, I largely agree. It goes back to my post as to what constitutes normal and abnormal. Classically, the two overlap which is what I believe is going on here. I believe that children need more time to develop and work through issues of conecentration. You are dead on on parents must be parents and not friends to their children.

Scoutfish, If too many is one then there is no group of professionals in any field that will live up to that standard. You sited a 1994 article that accused the medical profession of being guilty of kickbacks but I do not recall a string of convictions in the 1990's. We were discussing pharmaceuticals and you site medical device and lab kickbacks. I do not ever deal with medical devices and I did not comment on them. There was a single couple charged that you cited for the lab kickback that resulted in a successful prosecution. fiercepharma I am certain is a legitimate source for relatively unbiased information - please. We have been told for over a decade that the feds were going to come after us for a variety of things but there have never been many prosecutions that I have read about in any of the areas that they mention. As to the fellow doing a study, the FDA has legitimate phase IV studies. They can be legitimate or can be borderline. A legitimate phase IV or post-marketing study involved Viagra. After Viagra was released, there were reports of death which raised the question of whether the drug directly caused the deaths. The results of the study showed that it was increased activity in previously sedentary males was the cause. According to the US Department of Labor Statistics, there were 661,400 physicians holding jobs in the US in 2004 so 1 percent indulging in such activities would involve 6,614 physicians - 130 or so per state - I think that you would have heard quite a bit about it. Finally, I am sorry that you are struggling to understand the economics of medicine - it is complex -but the drug companies are not the big bad entities that you believe that they are. They are like other companies who are pushed by stock market pressures to maximize their profits. Physicians are human and not perfect as you demand so that the drug company marketing to the public must work or it would not be done. The drug companies cover their base costs in the socialized countries. The government's involvement in medicine both here and abroad makes the economics difficult to explain and understand. If you run a business, I doubt that you will give away ~20% of your services but many of us do so. By your standards, almost no one will ever receive the 'correct care' because medicine is still an art - that is the root of this discussion.

Lisabob, From my standpoint, the issue is trying to discriminate between normal development variations and abnormal. As a child, I would have probably been diagnosed as hyperactive, and by today's standards may have been prescribed medications. I had to learn to concentrate but part of that was boredom. When I started college in Engineering Physics, my problems disappeared when I was challenged. I have earned a BS, an MS & PhD in theoretical physics and an MD. Clearly, this is anecdotal at best but it illustrates the dilemma in the mental health disciplines. Some children have ADHD and will benefit from medications whereas others are just normal variations in development. It is my belief that the diagnostic criteria and techniques currently available are not sensitive and specific enough to make those distinctions. This also means that some children are not receiving the medications that would benefit them. It is my belief and understanding that currently the scales are tipped toward treating and I believe that the children would be best served by the scales being tipped towards not treating. That is my opinion and I do not have studies to support my opinion on what is the best treatment window.

Scoutfish, Once again, provide evidence that physicians are receiving kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry. I know and have known hundreds of physicians and none have ever been accused or intimated to me that they have ever received anything like a kickback. I have been asked by pharmaceutical representatives if I have used their medications and what my experience was if I did. I have NEVER been offered any sort of reward or inducement to prescribe something. Why do the companies advertise here? It is simple. First, the socialist nations do not allow a profit so the sales in the US are key to company viability. So if they can encourage patients to request particular medications in particular situations then the company will increase sales. An example that happened to me is illustrative. I was prescribing a statin for a patient's cholesterol issues. I picked one that would best address the patient's problem and had the best side effect profile. The patient then requested a particular brand which then meant that I had to take time to explain to him why my pick was the best for him. That required time that I really did not have to spend as I was behind. I did not change my prescription but others may do so since the differences between drugs in a class are often small. As far as prescribing for Strep throat, the Strep screen and culture are only a little better than 50% by so elaborate studies. The reason to treat is to prevent Rheumatic fever which damages the heart valves. More recent studies indicate that the likelihood of rheumatic fever is more related to virulence than to using antibiotics. So the optimal therapy fr this condition is not clear at this time. Medicine is a business. It is recommended that when it appears that the patient has a viral upper respiratory infection, no antibiotics should be prescribed. It is also true that Staph and Strep pneumonias often follow viral respiratory infections. So if you have a patient with presents with a viral process who 1) expects an antibiotic, 2) is likely to get a post viral bacterial pneumonia, and 3) due to underlying COPD is likely to be hospitalized for a post-viral bacterial pneumonia they, according to guidelines should not be treated. So what is your reputation in the community going to be if you stick with the 'experts' and do not prescribe an antibiotic? The patient waited, was sick, did not receive an antibiotic, and ended up in the hospital. What is the down side to prescribing the antibiotic - possible adverse reaction to the drug and theoretical issues of increased resistance. Positive aspects of prescribing an antibiotic - better business decision and prevent a hospitalization for your patient. It is often true that the 'experts' actually practice very little and those who do practice in environments that usually do not reflect the average medical practice. To compare to law, it would be similar to an attorney who defends only well educated wealthy clients telling an attorney who defends drug addicts with mental issues how best to prepare their clients to take the stand. Physicians are humans. Most are dedicated and competent. A few are not as in any profession. Statements to the contrary are lies. Before leaving full time practice, my payor mix was typically 17-20% medicaid and no pays. Medicaid pays about 11 cents on the dollar. Offices have a fixed cost so for a significant portion of my practice, it cost me money to see these patients. Who else in businesses takes those kinds of loses? Back to the question at hand. Until the DSM-IV changes and/or the medical/legal climate greatly improves, children will continue to receive, in my opinion, more therapy than needed. The current direction of medicine will exacerbate rather than improve that situation. It is not good for the future because it also teaches that we can 'fix' people with medications which is not a good approach to life.

Beavah said: "This is da reason it's important to have recourse to malpractice lawsuits in medicine, despite their occasional abuse by grieving families. " In the current discussion concerning mental disorders in children, the reason that there are so many medications prescribed is partly physicians protecting themselves. Psychiatrists are bound by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. So they interview the patient and match their list to findings to that in the DSM IV (same for major depression, schizophrenia, etc.). If the child matches a list then they have that diagnosis and the treatment is likewise outlined. If the physician follows the DSM IV, they are following the standard of care and a lawsuit will not be successful. So many children are placed on medications that are at least not beneficial and probably harmful. In the current medical and medical/legal climates, I see little promise of significant improvement which is a travesty. Scoutfish said: "The damned down side to it is this: While there are many, many cases of Dr's trying to do what is best for kids and people in general...too many ( in which case I think even 1 is too many) Dr's will follow the $$$$ before they practice good medicine. Sure, there are legit Dr's out there, and as far I know, the one I see is one of the honest ones. He tries other things before writing a prescription even for Strep throat or even more common ailments. He gives you a full vist for $40.00. The next time he see's you, he asks how long X symtom tok to clear up and how are the kids. Unfortuneatly, too many Dr's are under the influence of all those drug co reps who droop off tons of samples and maybe tickets to a ball game or a set of golf clubs too." Response: The samples go to the patients and are going away. No large gifts since the mid 80's have been allowed. Until a few years ago, the drug companies would have informational dinners at nice restaurants but those are going away as well. Most gifts are cheap pens that last 2-3 days and cheap notepads - wow what a bribe. To believe that individuals who make 6 figure incomes are bribed by a dinner, cheap pens and pads is ludicrous. Being able to provide a patient with a month's supply of a medication for free benefits whom? The patient. "Mgazines and tv show ad after ad to the common person of drugs that have to be prescribed. Why show them to us? Because we will pre diagnose what we need to fix our ails and pressure the Dr to giving us that drug. The dr's who own their own offices will get kickbacks from the drug industry for this. " Response: The companies market to patients because they will ask for a drug and be upset when they do not receive it. Physicians are in a business and want their patients to be happy. WE DO NOT GET KICKBACKS - THAT IS A LIE! "Ever wonder why a $.05 pill costs $10.00 here but only $.05 in Canada or Europe? Cause we pay for all that advertising and the extras the Dr's get for using that particular brand or type of pill. " Response: Canada and Europe are socialist states and do not allow the pharmaceutical companies to make a profit on their medications. The US and Japan provide ALL of the profits for the companies because socialism is disallowing it. "So what do we have here? We have a situation where the majority of the doctors make the handfull of the good ones look bad. " Response: Back it up with facts. The facts are that physicians work very hard, often not being paid to help their patients. There are a few bad apples but the vast majority are competent and try very hard help their patients. I have practiced medicine for 25+ years and left because the government is increasing making it difficult to provide the best care and I have research opportunities. Where does your knowledge come from?

OGE, Others have been permanently banned from this list for poor behavior. Merlyn now states that he has no interest in Scouting except to limit where it can meet. He often calls others names. I frankly do not see why he is not censured especially since he has a lack of interest in what is good for Scouting. He was in an argument with how boys of particular religious backgrounds are handled in Scouting insisting that they were handled in one manner when several (many?) Scouters said that was not the case. Merlyn persisted in claiming to be right on something that he cannot have knowledge. While he can make some good points about atheism and Scouting, he is hardly the only one to do so. When his position is shown wanting, he often makes ad hominem attacks which are uncalled for (I would say un-Scout like but once again, he has stated in this thread that he has no interest in Scouting). Beevah has tried to get him to work with youth which he also has no interest in doing. I do not understand why he is allowed to remain but some that have jousted with him have been removed.

Merlyn, I am sorry that you do not like the results. The studies mentioned the high incidence of IV drug abuse among prostitutes - that is how I know that. I did not say that heterosexuals do not have anal intercourse but that it is the primary method of sexual transmission. Since male homosexuals make up less than 2% of the male population but account for 54% of cases they are over represented. Since the studies feel like that the reporting under-reports IV drug abuse among female prostitutes, the heterosexual transmission is felt to be over estimated. The studies, not I, concluded that the disease is primarily a disease of male homosexuals, IV drug abusers, and female prostitutes who were likely to have contracted the disease from IV drug abuse. If you have issues, contact the authors.

Merlyn, The issue is which category is a prostitute who uses IV drugs placed when they contract HIV/AIDS. The studies that I have read in the past indicated that they would be classified as heterosexual transmission rather than IV drug abuse. I have not read the most recent articles (last 3 years or so) as I had indicated. All of the studies indicate that vaginal sex has a low transmission rate. Anal sex is the most dangerous since there are epithelial cells with CD4 receptors so that the virus has a binding site. If that was not the case, there would be a widespread epidemic of HIV/AIDS since it is currently not curable. This is clearly not the case. The point is that male homosexuals lifestyle has some risks that others are not likely to face. That does not mean that they are 'bad' since that is a moral issue. It is not in the best interest of anyone to say because a group develops some disease in a disproportionate rate that they should be somehow censured. We should not confuse the two issues.

Merlyn, The last studies (a few years ago) that I read stated that the majority of the heterosexual transmission was in prostitutes. Those studies noted that the incidence of IV drug abuse is very high among prostitutes but they were counted in the heterosexual transmission. The main mode of transmission is anal intercourse and IV drug abuse.

CalicoPenn wrote: "I might write the sentence "by 1998, AIDS cases amongst homosexual men dropped to only 54% of the total" and worry more about what that meant for heterosexuals. " HIV/AIDS remains primarily a disease of homosexual males, prostitutes and IV drug addicts. Prostitutes have a high rate of IV drug abuse which prompts some to say that the disease is mostly gay males and IV drug addicts. This is a statement of transmission and should not be construed as a condemnation.

Pack, The societies are the American Physical Society (APS), American Nuclear Society (ANS), Wilderness Medical Society (WMS), and the American College of Physicians (ACP). Some had vendor displays but none had direct vendor involvement. I have not been to a vendor sponsored scientific meeting. Beevah is most correct, the cost for non-members is steep and I have never encountered anyone who did not appear to have the proper credentials to attend the meeting (it is obvious as it would be for other professional meetings). The large meetings all have areas set up for press announcements. Dan, I encounter people who do not have any training in my fields who say silly things all of the time. Beevah and I had a lively discussion on just such issues a few months ago. As a physician, I do have some training in psychology and psychiatry. So while not a professional, I do possess some understanding. The issue with homosexuals (most concern being with male homosexuals) is whether there is a risk to youth that it is out of proportion to their prevalence in the population. I have been generous by saying that it has not been scientifically proven which appears to be true. Since the prevalence of homosexuality in the population is low, showing a positive relationship is difficult statistically unless sexual molestation of minors is very prevalent in that community and there is no evidence that is true. Also, it is difficult to clearly determine sexual orientation by questions when the person is going to be tried taints the answers. Also, parsing into bisexual and other groups makes the study even more difficult. So it boils down to the issue of: when an adult of any sexual orientation, religion, or whatever set of descriptive terms are appropriate wishes to supervise youth, how do we risk stratify that person. If homosexuals commit less than 2% of all child molestation, then sexual orientation is not a valid concern. If the prevalence is 10% when they are

Over the years I have been to many professional meetings in medicine, physics, and nuclear engineering. It is my experience that only legitimate members of the professional organization are allowed in the scientific sessions. The meeting has a press area where selected research in presented to the press. The selection is based upon criteria made by the professional organization. So the 'studies' featured would likely have been the ones selected by the professional organization. Since we still have freedom of speech, attendees could be interviewed but from what I have seen that is frowned upon. I have no experience with the APA but merely providing what I know from many other professional meetings.

The article cited by DanKroh by Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer is a retrospective chart review. The authors correctly discuss the limitations of retrospective studies. The determination of the sexual offender was by the medical record which would not be collected under the rigors of a prospective study. They conclude that the data for the number of homosexual offenders (0% - 3.1%) is consistent with the actual prevalence in the population (note that the study Dan quotes here did the same thing that I did - used the prevalence). However, the mean age of the victims is 6.1 years with a range of 1 - 17 years. Thus, it mixes pedophilia and ephebophilia. The older article by A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D., and H. Jean Birnbaum, B.A. is actually looking at pedophilia primarily since most of the boys are pre-pubertal so it has no bearing on my points. I did not read the editorial since by definition of editorial, it has a point of view. I remain unconvinced that a definitive and conclusive set of studies has been done to prove that the rate of homosexual offenders committing ephebophilia is equal to the prevalence of homosexuality in the population. That is the key question as far as risk to youth is concerned. The issue is so charged at this time, I doubt that rigorous scientific studies can be performed. Beevah, your comments are accurate as is usual (though not always ).

Dan, The 5% was taken from Packsaddle's hypothetical. I do not recall the error bars on the 2 CDC studies but they will not account for the numbers that homosexual groups claim. I agree that it is not scientifically accurate to equate long term homosexuals as the sole perpetrators but since that is typically not reported, I have no basis to make a better approximation. You are well aware that not all ephebophiles are committing a crime of violence - some are crimes of passion. Homosexuals commit some of those crimes. The question is what is that rate as compared to the prevalence of homosexuality. The last time we discussed this via this forum, I looked up some of the references and the studies were performed by groups or researchers who were members of pro-homosexual groups or whose websites had a pro-homosexual theme which brought the validity of the studies into question. I have not read the studies that cited so I cannot comment upon them but I suspect that they have similar author bias (not entirely fair). I have read many articles on both sides and have not seen a scientifically rigorous study. In my mind, the issue is not settled. That said, I am not trying to contradict you but I am saying that I do not believe that the answer is honestly known at this time.

First, pedophiles have sex with PRE-pubertal children. Typically, the perpetrator is an adult male forcing himself on a female although males are not uncommon. These are very sick individuals and labeling them as homo- or hetero- sexual is probably not correct. They are very ill and have a high recidivism rate (near 100%). Adults having sex with post-pubertal youths is correctly identified as a ephebophiles as earlier posted. The CDC has reported many times that the prevalence of long term homosexuals in America is less than 2%. Clearly, homosexuals and heterosexuals are ephebophiles. The question that I have not seen a good non-biased peer reviewed study report, are 98% of those molestations by heterosexuals. If, as someone suggested, the rate of homosexual ephebophilia is 5%, then the incidence of homosexual abuse is 2.5 times greater than expected. So that becomes the real issue, what are the actual rates? Due to the strong feelings on all sides, I rather doubt that the issue will be scientifically answered.

Check out: The DoJ actually won the case and then dropped all charges at the time of sentencing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOTQzdRwj0&feature=related If you never watch Fox, you do not understand how misled you are.

Sorry, it was in the 2008 election and the prosecution was the Obama administration. According to a DoJ attorney (not the one that resigned), Holder said that the DoJ would not prosecute any charges of civil rights violations regarding voting by the Black Panthers. Just keep your heads in the sand and think that you are so bright.

Gern, If you wish people to be misled by your post, then don't take down the thread. I agreed with Pack that the way you worded the original post, that Obama was refusing to sign Eagle certificates. Just trying not to sully Obama incorrectly. As far as accuracy in the media, all news sources have errors. It is clear that most of the media is so far to the left that important stories are often ignored. For example, the scandal with Holder dropping charges on the Black Panthers for voting rights crimes that resulted in the resignation of a DoJ attorney. A representative was asked about this at a town hall meeting and was throughly criticized when he said that he was not aware of the incident. He said that his staff was not aware of the issue even though they read 60 news sources everyday - Fox was noticeably off the list. So if you wish to be led like a sheep, don't watch Fox. If you want to be able to understand what is happening in the country, watch Fox and another major outlet.

I agree with Calico. This thread is best terminated since apparently the White House is currently signing the certificates.

Beavah, You are trying to reason with the irrational who displays bigotry towards an organization that is dedicated to helping youth. He always has the last word because everyone else gets tired of pointing out the error in his points. I will watch with curiosity to see if you are more successful.

Merlyn, The BSA makes a statement of its belief - it does not mention atheists or attack them in anyway. It does not defame them. Howeever, your inflammatory rhetoric does so to the BSA which is merely exercising its' constitutional right of free expression. Did you leave Cub Scouting because you were an atheist and felt unwelcome? Did you leave Cub Scouting for some other reason?

Merlyn, The online Merriam-Webster has this entry for denigrate: Main Entry: denigrate Pronunciation: \ˈde-ni-ˌgrāt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): denigrated; denigrating Etymology: Latin denigratus, past participle of denigrare, from de- + nigrare to blacken, from nigr-, niger black Date: 1526 1 : to attack the reputation of : defame

Merlyn, I do not appreciate your attitudes; I do not know whether I like you or not for I do not know you. I did overstate what I should have said and apologized. According to Wikipedia, Bigotry: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs." You are obstinate, intolerant, and prejudiced toward the BSA and from this thread alone you demonstrate animosity, intolerance, and irrationality toward those on this list who do not share your beliefs about the BSA. So your online presence is difficult to like and you do your cause more harm than good.

Merlyn, Your anger is palpable. I overstated my point and apologized. In my readings of these forums, though not exhaustive, I have never seen you apologize or even be willing to admit that you are wrong as in the current case. The issue of scouting regarding schools has not come up in this thread so you have to change the topic because you are once again shown to be wrong. Please cease showing your anger and contempt because it does not serve you well.

To clear up the discussion, from Wikipedia: "Ermey was cast in his first movie while attending the University of Manila in the Philippines, using his G.I. Bill benefits. He first played a Marine drill instructor (SSgt Loyce) in the 1978 Vietnam-era film The Boys in Company "C", which brought Ermey to the attention of Stanley Kubrick in later years. Ermey then played an Air Cavalry Officer in Apocalypse Now, doubling as a technical advisor to director Francis Ford Coppola on that film. He also served as Louis Gossett's technical advisor for the film An Officer and a Gentleman. For the next few years, Ermey played a series of minor film roles until 1987, when he was cast as tough drill instructor Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket; Ermey also served as the technical advisor on the film."