PS - Ozark - Poppies for Opioids in Afghanistan

 

So I knew that poppies for opium for opioid-based pharmaceuticals were grown mostly somewhere in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, I just didn't know exactly where - but Ozark tells you - and it's true.

Did you know that  poppies for opioid-based pharmaceuticals are grown to a certain degree in Tasmania -  but primarily in Afghanistan?

It's true.  

See  here (ncbi-nih). 

Here (Obama White House archives). 

Here (livescience.com).

And Here (University of Chicago health journal).

I tried to avoid most press releases for political bias, with the exception of the White House Archives during the Obama administration - but you're welcome to find your own source -  but you will note that all political sources, left or right, will tell you the same.

Though percentages may vary slightly, all sources will tell  you Tasmania (for one particular kind of opium specifically used for the drug OxyContin) and Afghanistan are now the world's top producers of legal opium for pharmaceuticals, with estimates on Afghanistan producing  75% to 90% of opium for pharmaceuticals overall..

(You will note, however, that unlike the Obama White House archives, though there is mention of the opioid crisis in America in the Trump administration White House archives  - there is no mention of combatting the growth of poppies for both legal and illegal purposes in Afghanistan at all in the Trump White House archives  - no mention of it all, as if it doesn't  exist.)

Legal poppies for opioid-based pharmaceuticals used to be mostly  grown Southeast Asia in the "Golden Triangle," and Afghanistan's supply was illegal and processed into street heroin.

However, since the late 1990s, now Tasmania and Afghanistan are the world's top producers of legal opium for pharmaceuticals.

The justification of legalizing these two locations in the 1990s and 2000s was to push it towards pharmaceuticals and get it off the streets in heroin form.

HOWEVER - Afghanistan, in particular, still tends to do both -  sell it to pharmaceutical companies for legal opioids AND sells it on the street for heroin - and the Taliban wants to control it all and keep doing this.

And yet we curiously only focused on Tasmania's opium during the opioid crisis, for supplying the distinct type of heroin for OxyContin, - despite the fact that at least Tasmania isn't also selling it directly on the street in the form of heroin -  unlike Afghanistan, who still does both  - isn't that odd? 

Now - does the strange, 180 opinion from Republicans, changing from "all Muslims are evil" to "Poor Afghanis" and the "atrocities" committed in Afghanistan -  as justification for continued military involvement there -  make more sense to you?

It should - because this has never been a bout faith, that's just an emotional manipulation used to sway public sentiment - this has always been about oil - and opium.

Because Afghanistan is the leading producer for legal opium for U.S. opioid-based pharmaceuticals there, too ;)

The U.S. government never seems to care about atrocities committed by China towards pacifist Buddhist monks in Tibet or atrocities committed under apartheid in South Africa, regardless of Democrats or Republicans being in charge - just but don't mess with our oil or our opium - but especially Republican politicians ;)

(European jewelers cared a bit more than we did about South Africa, because of the diamonds there, but the U.S. economy is driven more by oil and pharmaceuticals.)

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "Why don't we just legally grow it in some locations here?"

Well, then we'd have to take direct responsibility for the opioid crisis, now, wouldn't we? ;)

Ozark, Episodes 1-4 Watched So Far ...

 

If you haven't watched the whole thing yet, and you're confused about the car accident - I think they're showing the end first, or the near end first -  then flashing back, after that, telling the story about what happened just after Helen was killed in Mexico and since.

I don't care for story-telling done that way, and it's not consistent with how they've done things thus far, but that seems to be the new "Taylor Sheridan" Yellowstone way of doing things - put in something that doesn't make sense and appear disjointed, then explain it much later.  I personally don't care for it, it makes things appear disjointed and confuses the audience.

We shall see if I'm right?

Otherwise, without giving away too much or any spoilers - can I just say that I hope Wendy goes down - hard?  

That woman is a manipulative monster.

Okay, everyone on the show is a monster, but she's the worst - actually even worse than the Navarro, the drug cartel lord lol. 

Speaking of Yellowstone, again - though Yellowstone isn't even in the same ballpark of quality - what's similar is here's a family that  tells themselves they're doing what they do for their future and to protect themselves - tack on the Byrdes claiming to someday be in a position to help others, too, unlike the Duttons - but it's just a lame justification, just like I'm sure all white-collar criminals and organized criminals do.

The Byrdes had the chance to get out just after they bought the riverboat casino, Marty was ready.  Marty just likes figuring out solutions to equations and problems, "creative accounting," gets a buzz from that.

Wendy, however, is obsessed with power, so getting out was never going to happen, and she's got to drag everybody down with her pipe dreams and her inflated ego which imagines that she can figure this all out.  

So I don't blame Jonah for his choices, at the moment, but I feel sorry for him - no option is safe or sane. 

 I also feel sorry for Ruth, I always have.  The environment she was born into, and her foul mouth and general demeaner can get her in trouble every time, but underneath that tough exterior, she's actually still a little girl, looking for a dad, a family, and someone to trust.  

She also doesn't "use" people like the others, meaning she doesn't manipulate the heart.  She's pretty straight forward - everything is a business transaction to her, there's no sugar-coated manipulation to anything she does, like Wendy does.  

It's not that she doesn't lie or withhold key information, it's just that she doesn't manipulate people when it comes to matters of the heart - so no, I don't believe she's "using" Jonah's skills to get back at Marty, as has been suggested by various websites -  it just may be a bonus.

I believe she feels Jonah is a kindred spirit, after Ben and the things Wendy and Marty do - both Ruth and Jonah were both just kids when the Byrdes dragged them into this life  - which is why she keeps handing him a beer.

Remember - everyone keeps telling Jonah to "grow up" and think of the long game, because he's upset about Ben - despite the fact that they haven't let him in on the bigger picture and how much danger they're really in (not that that excuses what Wendy did).

In case you missed it, Ruth handing him a beer twice is symbolic, as in "Welcome into grownup world before you were ready, just like I was."

So I think it's more of kindred-spirit thing, unless she's suddenly learned the art of manipulation from them, but I don't think so - I could be wrong, though, again, we shall see - she may have learned the art of manipulation from the Byrdes, too.

Don't forget, even though everyone keeps saying she "recruited" him, Jonah came to her with Ben's ashes and a business proposition -  not the other way around. 

Now - that is not to say she's not out for revenge at Marty, she most certainly is - but I think Jonah was just a bonus.

Make no mistake, though, she's sharp as a tack and will take you down in a heartbeat if you mess with her.

The one I've noticed this season with her since Ben, even though he's dead - she smiles more at people, just a tiny bit softer with people who deserve a smile or strangers - since falling in love for the first time with Ben.

My husband wasn't a huge fan of Ozark, he liked Yellowstone more, but now he's hooked lol - he said, "This show gets my adrenaline up, man, it's a wild ride from start to finish."

Yep - that's what great screenwriting does for you - and not just the action scenes, but the story unfolding itself keeps you on the edge of your seat (well, except for the new idea of putting the unexplained car accident at the beginning, creating more confusion than wanting to know more, that is ;)

Here We Go Again Today - RIP Thich Nhat Hanh ...

 Geez, what a day of deaths ... this one the most upsetting for me, personally - because the Vietnamese (Zen) Buddhist monk of Plum Tree Village, Master of Mindfulness (upon which mindfulness therapy is based) and political activist/reformer, has died at the age of 95 :(

Martin Luther King was so impressed with Thich that he nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967 (which ultimately was not given that year.  

Also, Catholic monk, political activist, and author, Thomas Merton, was also a fan. 

We have literally now lost some of our best human beings on the planet, over the last few weeks, folks ... :( 

Let us do our best to try to remember what they taught us and strive to live their lives as they did :)

Ozark, Season 4, Servant, Season 3 - Tonight!

 

After a lull in things to watch, the past few weeks - with the exception of Archive 81 -  Ozark, Season 4 dropped today on Netflix ...

...  and M, Knight Shyamalan's  Servant, Season 3, dropped on AppleTV today!  

Both are complex stories with complex families and characters - even unlikeable or barely likeable characters - the most likeable Ruth (Julia Garner) on Ozark and Julian (Rupert Grint) on Servant, you can't help yourself but like them.

Who would've thought the foul-mouthed, rough, redneck and the  crass cokehead would ever be the most likeable/closest to anywhere near the moral centers (and I use that term loosely) on these shows? lol

(Well, Wyatt is actually the moral center of the show, but he's so passive of a character.)

Okay, "complex" actually meaning they're extraordinarily effed up, - and yet you can't turn away/stop watching - but both shows are very well written, directed, acted - can't wait!

RIP, Meat Loaf and Louie Anderson ...

 

Geez, I've written too many of these the past month, but here we go again - Meat Loaf, dead at 74 - no cause of death was yet given.  

He was talented musician and actor, but honestly, I couldn't help laughing with his songs and scenes, as both were always done tongue-in-cheek, rock-and-roll with a sense of humor, instead of taking it all so seriously, which was unique - and his on-stage performances were theatrically legendary. 

He got a little kooky in his later years, especially politically, but we'll focus on his talent and sense of humor :)

For some reason, the first thing that popped into my head was this scene from the 2018 movie, "Book Club," when Mary Steenburgen's character it supposed to be tap-dancing to "Red, Red Robin" for a charity event, because her husband refused to learn ballroom dancing with her for it, when he surprises her by changing the song to Meat Loaf's "I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" and joins her on stage :)

RIP, Meaty - thanks for the laughs and teaching rock and roll not to take itself so seriously :)

PS - Just after I wrote this, comedian Louie Anderson died as well, from B-cell lymphoma, at 68 ...

Besides standup and a memorable appearance in Coming to America and Coming 2 America, he was a three-time Emmy winner for "Baskets" ... 

Reassurance For Those Afraid of Vaccines Based on Fears About Big Pharma ...

 

(*Edited - content added)

Now, first you need to know, if your fears about vaccines are based on Big Pharma, I get it - I don't automatically trust Big Pharma either.  I also don't automatically trust national-payer insurance companies.  Nor do I automatically trust politicians or government.

In fact, Mark and I waited and observed for a few months, when they first came out, to see what happened in the real world, just because what happens in clinical trials doesn't always happen in real life.

But it does appear to be working to curb the severity of the disease and transmission in areas where people are vaccinated - and here's what I do trust - the consensus of expert opinions, based on thoroughly reviewing the clinical trials.

I trust the majority opinion of expert clinicians in their fields, especially on independent advisory panels for new drugs - as a committee and consensus, mind you - NOT as individuals (who can be greedy, too, and may have their own motivations, such as shares in certain companies).

Plus I have just a tiny bit of extra insight into how our pharmaceutical system works ;)

I've mentioned what I do before, but for those who missed it, I transcribe interviews for an independent pharmaceutical marketing firm, between payers and clinicians, before new drugs launch, from various (and competing) Big Pharma manufacturers.

Not just for the U.S. - I transcribe international interviews as well, meaning government payers in Europe.

The interviews are "double-blind," meaning the person being interviewed is not identified to the pharmaceutical company, and the product and its manufacturer are not identified by name to the person being interviewed (although I will say, often they figure out what the drug is, and who the manufacturer is, because experts already know what's in the pipeline and have already read the clinical trials).

Let me tell you something - those clinician experts in their field - and the payers, who are clinicians and pharmacists themselves - know their sh*t.

They're very practiced at critically reviewing clinical trials - and if there's even the slightest weakness in trial design, efficacy, or safety, they're going to find it.

(That happened with Aduhelm for Alzheimer's disease - though the FDA approved it, virtually no one will pay for it or prescribe it.)

And think about this - especially the medical director or pharmacy director for insurance companies are going to ferret out and pounce on even the slightest flaw so they can leverage when it comes to price negotiation and rebates, believe me.

Though that doesn't apply to vaccines yet in America because the government is still paying for vaccines, though we have mostly private payers/insurance, remember healthcare in Europe is government funded in general  - and especially France and Germany would hop on even the smallest weakness to negotiate price - but they haven't.

Man, France and Germany don't play -  even laughing at manufacturers for trying to get things reimbursed based on BS.  

Because even though the EMA for the EU might even approve the drug, no country is required to adopt it and reimburse/pay for it - and those two countries in particular have exercised that right many times ;)

FYI, France and Germany especially don't like short trials and against placebo trials, especially if something is already on the market.  

They also don't like when a drug is a "me-too" drug that shows no additional benefit, trying to charge a premium price to the drug already on the market, instead of cheaper to lower the prices, as a free market is supposed to work, but nevertheless flies in America especially, due to varying contract rebates.

Also, one thing France and Germany will do that we don't is renegotiate the price after a year or two based on efficacy and safety and market uptake, regardless of when the actual contract ends - this is part of their agreement with the manufacturer - they can renegotiate the access and price at any time.

During these renegotiations, broader access may be granted - and though it's possible for a premium price to be given to a drug later for proven better efficacy and safety, that never happens, the price will go only down - because if a drug becomes a market leader, then they manufacturer is already benefiting from controlling the market share/more of their product is being prescribed/bought than before ;)

Commercial payers in the U.S. can do this only when their contract ends, in at least two years, sometimes as long as five years - based primarily on market share alone - and Medicare/Medicaid typically tends to renegotiate price more when a new product in the same class launches, or generics and biosimilars enter the market, rather than contract renewal time.

Regardless, I really wish we would do healthcare more like either France or Germany, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon because of people's irrational fears about national healthcare being "socialism" (which is what the corporate fat-cats push so that they can continue to overcharge you for healthcare without sanction) :/

Anyway, though I did not transcribe any interviews for the vaccines (because they were government purchased), I have for some of the pending treatments - and let me tell you, if there's even the smallest weakness in any trial, they will hop on it - payers will tell them straight up that even if it's approved by the FDA, you're going to have to jump through 9 hoops to get it and the experts will tell you they won't prescribe it.

So no, I don't trust Big Pharma either, and I get it - but what I do trust is majority opinion of clinicians, pharmacists, and the Medical Directors/Pharmacy Directors for our insurance companies as a whole. 

Now ...

Of course, there are always a few outliers and stragglers who like to do things their own way, there are even a few quacks - or they have their own motivations for things (including being shareholders in certain pharmaceutical companies or they put their money/political motivations above their patients).  

Of course there's doctors who want the latest, shiniest new product.  

Of course there are payers - and especially the PBMs they use - who want big kickback rebates.

But the thing is, these three things together tend to balance each other out.

The insurance companies can get all the kickbacks they want, but if the doctors aren't prescribing it, well, too bad for them.

-AND - 

The doctors can want the latest, newest, shiniest thing, regardless of cost - but if it's in the same class and wants to charge a premium to the last one, too bad for them, too - they're not going to get it easily if it's the same efficacy and safety as the other ones, but too expensive.

So you see, I trust the checks-and-balances system  we have a whole to root out any problems with the drugs -  if not before launch, then typically within a year after.

*NOT when it comes to price, you understand -  just efficacy safety of a drug* ;)

Now, is the reviewing system perfect?

No - and I would add that I would trust France and Germany's pharmaceutical reviewers before ours lol.

But then again, no reviewing system is perfect and mistakes are made.

But if there was a problem, we'd hear about it by now, in the form of a large-scale, international, majority-consensus public outcry from our clinicians themselves, like we did with Aduhelm, only even bigger news - and yet we don't.

And the fact is, the majority opinion hasn't changed - in fact, there's greater respect for the vaccines, they have proven themselves even more efficacious than we thought in clinical trials - keeping in mind they never claimed to prevent infection, just lessen the severity and  spread of disease. 

Yes, there were a few more adverse events than in the clinical trials, but that always happens with new drugs in the real world - but frankly, not many more adverse events than expected based on the clinical trials - in fact,  adverse events have been pretty close to the same percentage found in the clinical trial, just in a larger population than in the clinical trial.

Yes, we also don't know the long-term effects, that's true - but that could happen with any drug we take - no drug is perfectly effective and/or perfectly safe.

Also, as I mentioned previously, there was some debate about Pfizer's booster's small Israel study at first, but when Moderna's study came out proving efficacy waned in all three vaccines and their larger study proved booster efficacy, that sealed the deal.

So what I'm saying is, you're right not to trust Big Pharma.  You're right not to trust insurance companies.  You're right not to trust politicians and government.  You're even right not to trust individual doctors who just want something fast and the latest, shiniest thing, despite it being no more efficacious/safe than the last thing, or they may hold shares in pharmaceutical companies ...

-- BUT -- 

 ... as a whole, these three groups together will balance each other out, in the end  as a majority consensus opinion.

And there would especially be a huge public outcry from clinicians themselves if there was huge a problem, regardless of the kickbacks to insurance companies - just like they did with Aduhelm - not just a few quack outliers.

Does that help? :)

Now -  if you're instead worried about the vaccines due to fear of nanochips or government monitoring or controlling your mind, then I can't help you - perhaps a psychiatrist can lol

Because you're giving medical science and technology too much credit - science simply isn't that advanced yet.

We don't even have actual cures for any virus (except hep C) based on genetic/mRNA technology yet -  not even the common cold.

We can't even make implanted insulin pumps that coordinate with implanted continuous blood-glucose monitors to accurately record blood sugar readings even close to 100% of the time for diabetics yet.

Heck, we can't even make wristband watches that monitor your heart rate and blood pressure as accurately as large, compressive upper armbands yet.

And yet you think anyone has the technology to alter your DNA to that degree, especially via a vaccine, or control and/or monitor what you think and do with a tiny nanochip?  lol.

Alrighty, good luck with that.  You have the right to believe that, but beliefs like that are  probably a lot more detrimental to your health than any vaccine ;)

(Prince) Andrew Stripped of All Royal Titles, Military Titles, and Charity Affiliations ...

 

Apparently, the business that is the royal family - with approval by the Queen herself - has approved stripping Andrew of all royal titles, including military titles - so that he can be tried as an ordinary citizen in the United States for sexual abuse/assault of a minor. 

Pay attention, those that say that current royal family covers up everything -  they're letting Andrew face the consequences without any royal or financial support on this one - he's on his own :)

They may still drag their feet on things and fail to address things directly  - and the business that is the royal family may use tricky, vague language - but they're not covering up this one, now, are they?  :)

Queen Elizabeth is not playing, clearly.

(Mummy's mad and mortified - and I don't blame her.)

Poor lady - I just hope she survives this latest round of heartache :(

Now - does anyone else find it odd that the only person that has been investigated and prosecuted in this Epstein sex-trafficking thing thus far has been a woman -  and the only man that Maxwell allegedly trafficked to that's being investigated/tried - is a British royal?  

Because you know dang well he wasn't the only one, and that wealthy, powerful, white American men were involved, too -  in fact, it was likely primarily rich, powerful, white American men involved.

Like Prince Andrew, Trump and Clinton were both friends with Epstein and frequently hung out with him/went to his parties - and both have been accused of sexual harassment and assault previously - so what's the problem with investigating them?

We're too afraid the white American men we've put in power, on both sides of the political spectrum, are actually power-abusing, creepy criminals?

Does this mean we care more about political power than we do crime?

It especially bothers me that Republicans  - who are supposed to be harder on crime than we are - turn the other way with millions of dollars in white-collar money crimes, and immediately cry "fake news" with sexual assault/rape/harassment situations -  when it's one of their own :/

We Democrats have totally been behind prosecuting Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, etc. -  and we're open to the possibility that Bill Clinton might've been involved. 

That is because we don't idolize our celebrities and politicians, like Trumpers do - we don't consider them the hands of God, or even "chosen" or "blessed" by God.

So what gives - can't you even consider the possibility that one of your own might've been involved in the Maxwell thing, or committed any crime?

Well, you may be re headed for a rude awakening, then, blindly believing that - because eventually, someone's going to come along and take advantage of your blind faith that no one in your party could be guilty of anything - and likely already have - and his name may be Trump ;)