Even though I listen to many, many podcasts, I rarely feel the need to recommend one. However, this particular story is one that is powerfully relevant to today even it may not seem so. It is about the shadow that we all live under, a shadow that that we rarely contemplate, a shadow that no one could have ever conceived could be made darker through tweets. That shadow that I’m referring to, of course, is the possibility of nuclear war and the annihilation of our species as a result.
Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History is an incredible series that provides an in-depth and balanced look at a wide range of historical subjects and time-periods. I admit I’ve only listened to his World War I series (Count Down to Armageddon) and this one, The Destroyer of Worlds. Even if you’re not a history buff, this podcast is a must listen because we still live in the nuclear age. Nuclear war is still a possibility. Perhaps less so after the Cold War but these weapons and their implicit threat have not gone away. This podcast presents an excellent primer on the subject if you’ve never contemplated what having nuclear weapons really mean to the fate of our species.
Carlin explains that the invention of nuclear weapons was a paradigm-shifting event the likes of which humanity has never previously grappled and these new implements of destruction inexorably shaped the reality of this new world. He walks through the Cold War up until the Cuban Missile crisis through the lens of nuclear weapons and how they influenced decisions on both sides of the divide during this period. It’s a fascinating perspective, which I have not considered when learning about historical topics such as the Korean War. Carlin presents a remarkably nuanced and human discussion of the thought processes of various military and political figures and does his best to argue various different historical perspectives. I think this latter point is particularly important because history is most often presented through a single lens when in reality humans are complex multifaceted entities. History distills particular leaders like Truman and Eisenhower almost down to a stereotype. I greatly appreciated Carlin’s endeavor to describe this figures much more holistically.
Carlin peppers the historical events with a more philosophical discourse on the implications of nuclear weapons. He really does an excellent job of placing the advent of nuclear war in a global frame and anchors this frame based on the course of human history up to that moment. His metaphor is perfect; humans in the 1940s and 50s were children given a gun. They had the power to kill in a way thought inconceivable before 1945, but no one had any idea on the right way to use it (if at all) or what it really meant to have it in the first place.
Of particular significance, he also includes first-hand accounts of what it is like for a human being to be exposed to one of these hellish devices: accounts of survivors of Hiroshima. I never even new such accounts existed and they are truly horrifying. Everyone should listen to this podcast simply to hear these stories alone.
Most relevant and poignant for today, though, is the huge burden of responsibility placed on leaders such as Kennedy and Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Carlin’s insights on what these two leaders were thinking at the time are excellent. Both leaders understand their actions may lead to nuclear war but at the same time cannot show any signs of weakness or capitulation. Heads of state have been doing this dance ever since there were things we now call countries but the dance chanced dramatically once humanity now had a tool that could literally annihilate civilizations.
But what really struck me about this podcast is my own terrifying hypothetical that seems to become less hypothetical every day: What if Trump was in Kennedy’s shoes in 1962? What type of world would be living in today? I know how I would answer. I doubt most people have even thought about the question.
Fascinating post by guest contributor Amy Dunn, graduate student at the Rockefeller University!
What is Vivitrol®? This question is posed in countless ads depicting attractive young people across target states, such as MA, NY, NJ and PA. The ads do little to answer the question – instead just giving a drug name and a website. Vivitrol®, made by the Boston-based company Alkermes, is the brand name for the drug naltrexone and is used to treat both alcohol and opiate addiction.
Opiates like heroin or oxycodone work by stimulating the mu opioid receptor in the brain. This leads to the euphoric and rewarding effects that are characteristic of these drugs. The two most popular medications for treating opiate addictions, methadone and buprenorphine, both work by stimulating that same receptor in a slightly different way. This relieves the cravings, but doesn’t cause the same “high” as heroin or oxycodone. Methadone and buprenorphine are known as agonist, or replacement, medications. Dr. Simon Says Science wrote an excellent article for Addiction Blog that compares methadone and buprenorphine and explains how they work in greater detail. Naltrexone, on the other hand, is an antagonist of that same receptor – meaning that it completely blocks the effects of any opioid. While it seems counterintuitive, medications that stimulate the mu opioid receptor and medications that block the mu opioid receptor have both been proven to be effective treatments for opiate addiction.
Naltrexone was approved by the FDA in the 1980’s and was originally formulated as a daily pill, however it was difficult to get people to adhere to taking their medication. Because naltrexone is a mu opioid receptor antagonist, it can lead to unpleasant feelings that are the opposite of the euphoria felt with an opiate agonist. People with addictions could stop taking the medication if they wanted to get high instead. Because of these adherence issues, the drug bounced around between companies. In addition to these issues with compliance, it was difficult for companies to market an addiction medication because of the social stigma. Addiction is often seen as a moral problem instead of a medical one, which makes selling medications for addictions very difficult.
Naltrexone became far more practical when it was reformulated as an extended-release injection. The extended-release injection lasts for a month, greatly reducing the problem of adherence. Vivitrol®, the brand name for the extended-release naltrexone introduced by Alkermes, was first approved in 2006 for the treatment of alcohol addiction. Following a successful clinical trial in Russia, it was also approved for treatment of opiate addiction in 2010. Despite poor initial sales, the popularity of Vivitrol® has grown rapidly in the past couple years.
Vivitrol® is still far less utilized than methadone and buprenorphine, but this is expected probably because it is much newer on the market. Importantly, not everyone responds well to methadone or buprenorphine, and having another option for the treatment of opiate addiction should be a good thing for everyone. However, a disturbing pattern has emerged in the past couple years regarding the ethics of Alkermes’ marketing strategies and scientific data. They are missing key scientific data, and actively engaging in strategies to undermine the use of agonist medications that compete with Vivitrol®. While these marketing strategies may or may not be illegal, they still raise important questions about the ethical obligations of pharmaceutical companies to their patients.
The Science on Vivitrol®
In order for the FDA to approve a drug, a drug company must first prove that the drug is effective through a clinical trial. Clinical trials are very tightly regulated in the US which makes sense because you’re testing a drug that is technically still experimental and could be dangerous to people. Not only do you need to prove that your drug is safe, but you also need to prove that it is at least as effective as other drugs out there that treat the same condition. This is where there are holes in the data on Vivitrol®.
The clinical trial that convinced the FDA to approve Vivitrol® was done in Russia.3 Clinical trials are done in other countries for many reasons. Companies may be trying to skirt the tight regulations here in the US, or they might just need to work with a patient population that is found more commonly in other places. The FDA reviews the study design and the data to see if they want to approve the drug regardless of where the study was done. The clinical trial on Vivitrol® was designed to see if Vivitrol® was effective for treating opiate addiction, but did not compare it to either of the other approved medications for opiate addiction (methadone or buprenorphine). Neither of these agonist treatments is available in Russia. In fact, both are illegal because they are opiate agonists. Alkermes only needed to prove that Vivitrol® was more effective than placebo in this case. The results were promising – almost 90% of the addicted persons who received the naltrexone shot remained abstinent during the test period, compared to just over 60% of the control group. This was enough evidence to get FDA approval, however to date there are no clinical trials comparing Vivitrol® to either methadone or buprenorphine. In addition, there was no follow-up study examining the long-term outcomes of the participants of the clinical trial in Russia.
Since it has been approved, there have been several other clinical trials examining the efficacy of Vivitrol® in different populations (although none of these studies compared it to buprenorphine or methadone). There are still concerns about adherence to Vivitro®, as well as the possibility that a person could take a dangerous amount of opioids in order to overcome the blockade effect. Because it’s an antagonist, if an addicted person takes naltrexone while they still have opiates in their system, the naltrexone will both stop the euphoric effects of the opiate and also cause withdrawal symptoms. In fact, a person has to be over a week opiate-free and have already gone through withdrawal before they can begin naltrexone treatment.
However, no medication is ever perfect. While there are still unanswered questions about Vivitrol®, it is clearly an addition to the toolbox that healthcare providers can use to help people fight addictions. It is important that these scientific concerns are discussed and addressed, and that these issues are clearly presented to the public so that people can make informed decisions about their medications.
The Marketing on Vivitrol®
To understand more about how Alkermes is advertising Vivitrol®, we can look at a screenshot of their main website listed on their advertisements (www.Vivitrol.com). This language – “the first and only once-monthly, non-addictive medication” is problematic. While they are correct in characterizing naltrexone as “non-addictive”, this wording implies that the other medications that are available (methadone and buprenorphine) somehow are addictive. This same language is often used in a 2016 investor presentation as well, where they describe agonist therapy as “maintain[ing] physiologic dependence on opioids”. This is scientifically correct; a person who is using agonist medication may indeed be dependent on their medication. This simply means that they would experience negative physiological consequences if they abruptly stopped use. It does not mean that they are addicted. “Addiction” is a physiologic dependence combined with compulsive drug-taking despite negative consequences. Alkermes is conflating these two terms in a way that is confusing, and is meant to manipulate the consumer into equating agonist therapies with addicting opiates of abuse. While their statement that agonist therapies lead to dependence is not incorrect, it is still reinforcing a very damaging stereotype that agonist therapy is just “replacing one drug with another.” This stigma against agonist therapies is a major hurdle for the treatment of opiate addictions. Alkermes actively reinforces and uses this stereotype in order to promote Vivitrol® as the “only non-opioid treatment.”
In addition to portraying Vivitrol® as a better and safer alternative to agonist therapies in the public sphere, Alkermes is also deliberately promoting this view in the political realm. This is noted in the slide from an investor presentation that outlines their marketing strategies, above. NPR and Side Effects Media published an excellent article detailing their investigation into Alkermes’ political involvement. They describe Alkermes lobbyists presenting to government committees on addiction therapy and promoting the idea that agonist therapies are “replacing one drug with another”. There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting methadone and buprenorphine as effective treatments for keeping people with addictions off of heroin and able to live their lives without experience frequent drug cravings. Despite this, there are many decision-makers in the government who do not want to support their use in treatment. Republican Rep. Tim Murphy described agonist therapy as “government –supported addiction” at a meeting in March 2015. He has received political donations from Alkermes. Tom Price, the new Health and Human Services Secretary, received a great deal of criticism for his statement that agonist therapy was “substituting one opioid for another” – despite the department’s website explicitly stating that it supports these kinds of evidence-based treatments.
Alkermes’ strategy of reinforcing of this stereotype leads to real policy consequences. The NPR and Side Effects Public Media report describes several bills that contain language steeped in these stereotypes – specifically instructing treatment providers to strive for “the goal of opioid abstinence.” This is beneficial for Alkermes, as Vivitrol® is the only non-opioid treatment available. The science however, does not indicate that opioid abstinence leads to better outcomes for patients than maintaining their agonist therapies. The report includes drafts of several bills that even mentioned Vivitrol® by name, although it was later removed because of ethical concerns. Alkermes lobbyists have also supported tightening regulations for methadone and buprenorphine, which is incredibly problematic given how restrictive the regulations already are for treatment providers.
Alkermes may not be making explicitly false claims in its marketing, but it is certainly playing off of existing harmful biases in order to further their sales. Whether or not this is illegal is debatable; it is illegal under the Federal Trade Commission for companies to “mislead” consumers. At the very least, it is incredibly unethical for a company to be so actively promoting stereotypes and policies that harm the very patients that they claim to be helping. This falls under the larger umbrella of the issues of advertising, pricing and political involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in our country. While there are no easy fixes, it is important that companies like Alkermes are held responsible for their unethical behavior and that consumers are able to make informed decisions about their treatment based on the available research.
About the Author: Hello! I’m currently finishing my 3rd year of graduate school at Rockefeller University. I’m studying the cell signaling changes caused by drugs of abuse and investigating the ways we can use those different pathways to treat addictions. In addition to learning more about the science of addiction through my research, I’m also interested in learning about the different political and social issues surrounding drug addiction. All of the views and opinions here are entirely my own and definitely don’t reflect those of my lab or institution! My email address is email@example.com.
Check out our August Recess Guide so you can petition your local congressperson on science and technology and other policy issues! It’s your 1st amendment right to hold your congressperson accountable. Don’t let them relax while they’re on recess!
I contributed the piece below on a Department of Labor rule than can have a huge impact on Postdoc pay.
Fate of Department of Labor rule may impact postdoc pay
On May 23, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a new rule allowing overtime pay for certain professionals making less than $47,476, including most postdoctoral researchers. The rule would effectively incentivize a pay increase for postdocs making less than $47,476. Indeed, after the announcement, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) adopted a new pay scale for one of its most widely awarded postdoctoral fellowships. However, the rule, which was supposed to take effect December 1, 2016, was blocked by a federal judge in Texas on November 22, 2016. The rule, along with the potential postdoc pay raise, has been frozen, awaiting further determination by the court ever since.
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, the DOL published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register seeking responses to a series of detailed questions concerning this rule, likely in anticipation of pending legal action (the legal challenge to the rule is currently being reviewed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals). According to the DOL, “the RFI is an opportunity for the public to provide information that will aid the department in formulating a proposal to revise these regulations.” The future of the much-anticipated increase in postdoc pay may depend on the legal fate of this rule. Public comments must be submitted on or before September 25, 2017, and additional instructions can be found at Regulations.gov referencing the Regulatory Information Number 1235-AA20. Read more about the rule and the RFI in RISE Stronger’s policy and action brief on this topic.
I recently became involved with the science advocacy group RISE Stronger. The group’s Mission is to “To build a dynamic, strategic movement of politically engaged communities that demand a responsible and accountable government which serves the interests of the people.”
One component of organization is the Science and Technology Working Group, which acts as a watchdog group for science in government. Every week we compile and release a newsletter on developments in Science Policy and reporting on any actions the Trump Administration or Congress have taken in the previous week that may impact the use of science in policy making or government actions on science issues. I am happy to have contributed a story on the opioid epidemic to last week’s summary.
Since taking over at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been attempting to reignite the “War on Drugs” (for example, he issued a memo to federal prosecutors calling for the them to seek the harshest possible sentence when dealing with low-level drug offenders, the exact opposite of Obama-era guidance).
Sessions now has his sites on state-run medical marijuana programs (marijuana is still listed as a Schedule 1 illegal drug according to the DEA, the most severe categorization for drugs). In May, Sessions tried to pressure Congress to not stop him from authorizing the DOJ to prosecute medical marijuana clinics and patients.
Sessions attack on medical marijuana would be extremely harmful to not only the patients that benefit from medical marijuana but may even increase opioid overdose deaths in those states (there’s actually a growing body of scientific evidence that opioid overdose deaths are reduced in states with legalization of marijuana; I plan to write a more detailed post on this in the near future).
Thankfully the Senate has taken measures to prevent Sessions from being able to take action against medical marijuana. A bipartisan committee approved an amendment to the 2018 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. The amendment does not allow DOJ to use funds to prevent states from “implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.” In essence, even if Sessions instructed Federal law enforcement agents to target medical marijuana clinics and patients, they would be unable to do so because it would be illegal to use any federal dollars to carry out this action.
Time will tell what other ways Sessions will try revive antiquated drug policy (if he survives his tenure as AG that is). A study in the Lancet last year examined the public health impact of drug policy throughout the world (future post on this too) and concluded, among other things, that “policing practices undertaken in the name of the public good have demonstrably worsened public health outcomes.” Clearly, Sessions didn’t read this report…
At this point, I would think that knowledge about the vastness and seriousness of the prescription opioid and heroin epidemic, the biggest threat to American health and well being since the HIV/AIDS epidemic, would be common knowledge. Of course, given the abundance of shiny Internet things to tantalize easily distracted Americans, this is unfortunately not necessarily the case. Thankfully the New Yorker, with their characteristic excellence in reporting, has just released a superb and humanizing article on the opioid epidemic in their June 5 & 12, 2017 issue.
The piece puts a much-needed human face to the horrors and misery of opioid addiction and the too-frequent death by overdose. Margaret Talbot, the article’s author, zeroes in on Berkeley County, West Virginia, in the heart of a region of the country hardest hit by the epidemic. I don’t want to give away much (because you should actually just read the article) except that the stories are heart wrenching yet balanced, and thorough in way that only the New Yorker can deliver. While the article is largely about the lives of people affected by and fighting against the epidemic, I was disappointed with a couple of points that were either made incorrectly, weakly, or not at all.
First, the article barely talks about how the epidemic arose in the first place. It mentions Purdue pharmaceuticals, the bastards behind Oxycontin (drug name: oxycodone), and that prescription opioid abuse led to heroin addiction but does not describe how the surge in addiction to prescription opioids occurred in the first place. The article describes the main problem with Oxycontin is that it can be crushed and snorted but a 2010 formulation of the drug reduced this risk. While this is indeed true, the article neglects to mention that when someone is first prescribed an opioid like Oxycontin for chronic pain (as was the case in the late 90s and early 2000s despite any evidence for the effectiveness of opioids in the treatment of chronic pain), the addictive potential of opioids often led to opioid substance abuse disorder in people who took it as prescribed (see this comprehensive article for more info). This is the big point, many of the people that eventually abused opioids started down that road by taking the drug as prescribed! Talbot incorrectly frames the big picture problem but she then goes on to correctly describe how those addicted to prescription opioids found their way to the cheaper and more abundant heroin.
The article goes on to mention the CDC’s release of guidelines on opioid prescription but fails to cite that this guidance came out as late as March, 2016, well after the epidemic had already taken root and thousands were already addicted and dying of overdose (I wrote an article on the CDC’s guidelines last year and highly recommend you read that article too if you want to learn more). The CDC’s guidance is mainly about the point I made above, that the over-prescription of opioids is the real cause of the epidemic, not just the crushable version of Oxycontin, and the limitation of opioid prescription is one of the huge policy interventions that is needed.
Later in the article, Talbot introduces us to Dr. John Aldis, a retired U.S. Navy Physician and resident of Berkeley County, WV who took it upon himself to educate people on how to use Narcan (generic drug name: naloxone), the treatment for opioid overdose. Dr. Aldis makes the critical point about the importance of medication-assisted treatments such as Suboxone (generic drug name: buprenorphine) and methadone. I appreciated the point made in the article that some patients may need these vital treatments long-term, or even for life, to combat the all-consuming single-mindedness of opioid addiction. However, beyond this passing mention, I felt that medication-assisted treatment was only weakly covered. There is still a great deal of ignorance about these treatments. Indeed, current HHS secretary Tom Price falsely characterized them as “replacing one opioid with another” and was majorly criticized by addiction experts. The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence (I’ve written plenty on this site) describing the effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine at 1) keeping addicts off of heroin, 2) allowing them to be able to live their lives without suffering from withdrawals and cravings, and 3) most importantly, keeping them alive. Talbot could have done a much better job of really hammering these points home but she seemed reticent, for some reason, to discuss it in detail in this article.
Finally, the article repeatedly emphasizes the importance of rehab clinics and tells the story of a huge victory for Martinsburg, WV (a town in Berkeley County) when the city council agrees to open a clinic in the town itself. I do not want to discount the importance of an addict assessing their addiction and taking an active role to end it, but this article does miss another critical point: rehab clinics only exist because addiction medicine is not part of medical school curricula and most hospitals are ill-equipped to treat those suffering from addiction. I feel this article could have really made the case for the importance of training for doctors in addiction medicine and the necessary shift that needs to happen for addiction treatment, a move away from overpriced (and often ineffective) private rehab facilities, and to public hospitals. Unfortunately, this point was not made.
Despite these missed opportunities, I commend Talbot and the New Yorker for a well-written article and thank them for this important piece that I encourage all to read.
When a politician is in his or her final few month in office (because either they lost their re-election or simply decided not to or can’t run), they call this the “lame duck” period. President Obama’s last few months in office were anything but “lame”.
On December 14, 2016, in a rare move of bipartisanship, Obama signed into law the massive 21st Century Cures Act. This law provides a boost in funding for NIH (which includes $1.8 billion for the cancer moonshot initiative), changes to the drug approval process through the FDA, and ambitious mental health reform. This huge bill has the stated purpose of “To accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes.”
I’m willing to bet many people were totally unaware of this legislation that could help millions. There are some parts that are controversial and, as with any large piece of legislation, some provision that benefit this interest or that have been worked in (the changes to drug approval at the FDA will likely benefit Big Pharma). I’m not a health policy expert so I’m not about to go through and discuss line-by-line the winners and losers in this law (if you want a more in depth discussion: NPR, Washington Post, and PBS have all written articles on the law).
There’s one piece of the law that I am particularly thrilled about: $1 billion over 2 years for treatment for opioid addiction. That’s rights billion, with a “B”. The money is to be distributed to states in the form of block grants (block grants are in essence a large allocation of federal money to be used for a specific purpose given to states but the details of how that money is used is decided by the states themselves).
This is an unprecedented amount of funding earmarked exclusively to fight the opioid epidemic that is still raging in the US. The funding is to be used for expanding and increasing accessibility to treatment, such as life saving medication-assisted treatments such as methadone and buprenorphine. The federal money will also be used to train healthcare professionals to better care for people dealing with addiction, and a comparatively smaller amount for conducting research on how best to fight the epidemic, and other provisions.
I’ve written about methadone and buprenorphine and their effectiveness ad nauseam on this site and I am personally and thrilled to see a massive federal effort to increase access to these vital tools in the fight against the opioid crisis
The Cures Act comes on the heels of another promising piece of legislation, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), signed into law by President Obama on July 13, 2016. This law includes provisions to expand the availability of naloxone–the medication used to save people from the effects of opioid overdose–to first responders, improve prescription drug monitoring programs, make it easier for healthcare providers to administer, dispense, or prescribe medication-assisted treatments, and other provisions.
The combination of these two pieces of legislation is a promising and much needed initial federal response.
However, this huge boost in funds for treatment in the Cures Act is only for 2-years. President Trump’s budget for FY18 would add $500 million for opioid addiction but most analysts think this is just a sneaky way of making it seem as if he’s supporting addiction treatment when the money has already been written in as part of the Cures Act. Further, his cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services (which contains the NIH and other agencies that administer the Cures and CARA laws) would make it difficult to launch any type of effective response to the crisis.
Regardless of how things shake out, Trump’s massive cuts for everything that’s not the Department of Defense will likely hurt the fight against the opioid epidemic too. The real question is by how much?
Sadly, the history of the Office has already been cheapened by the antics of one Donald J. Trump (and the white supremacists that whisper in his ear). As expected, the Trump White House is already embroiled in turmoil and scandal. But don’t think that he’ll being getting impeached anytime soon. Our Democracy is a fragile thing and on today, I hope we all reflect on the need to be as vigilant and as engaged as ever if the authoritarian Trump agenda is to be thwarted.
Though a common line of thinking I get from people, there’s nothing I can I do so why should I care?
True, there’s nothing you can do to prevent Trump from signing an Executive Order but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing you can do. It’s important to remember we’re still in a country that operates under the rule of law, whether Trump likes it or not (the judicial actions against Trump’s Muslim Ban should be proof of this). The President is powerful but limited in his powers. Congress still makes the laws.
And that’s where “We the People” come in. We can engage with government both at the local and Federal level. Remember, the First Amendment to the Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, andto petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You’re probably familiar with most parts of this but people always forget about that last bit. You have a RIGHT to hold your Member(s) of Congress (MoC) accountable! People say they have no voice…actually you do! But this voice is most effective when many, many other voices are joined together. Ultimately a MoC only has their job because of PEOPLE’S VOTES. If they get enough complaints from people and fear they might lose re-election, I guarantee they will listen!
This is exactly what happened with the Tea Party. A group of angry and extremely vocal conservatives hammered their representatives often and in a coordinated way in order to affect changes in their MoC’s positions and votes. We as rational-minded folks opposed to Trump’s Authoritarian agenda of hate can accomplish something if we borrow from the Tea Party playbook. But unlike the Tea Party, we don’t have to resort to intimidation, physical threats, and lies. The Facts are on our side so let’s use them!
I know it seems like your voice and your vote doesn’t matter but trust me, YOU ARE WRONG! Congress only exists because of VOTES and VOTES = PEOPLE! A representative or senator will change their vote if there are ENOUGH PEOPLE TO CONVINCE THEM TO!
I admit, I’m new to this type of action but thankfully there are so many committed and intelligent activists out there. It’s good to remember that we live in a country with such dedication and political engagement (at least some of us). Nothing compiled here I created myself but thanks to the hard work of many others, I am happy to share their accomplishments (I’ll also be re-posting updates and expansions to this in the future).
Some of the Actions you as an individual can take:
Call your Congressperson or Senator
Voice your opinion at a Town Hall
Join a March or Protest
Huddle with other like-minded folks and figure out how to coordinate actions/protests together.
Write an op-ed, letter to your MoC, or take to Social Media.
I’ll discuss some of these other options in future blog posts for now I’ll focus on one of the easier and more effective ones: Call you MoC! As I stated above, the Constitution guarantees your right to call and visit your Congressperson and Senator!
A colleague, Reba Bandyopadhyay, compiled this amazing list of tips.
Just to reiterate some of the main points from Reba’s tip sheet:
Know if your issue is handled at the Local, State, or Federal level.
You’ll get more bang-for-your-buck if the person you’re calling actually deals with your issue. Your state representative is likely to have more of an impact on issues specific to your state than your senator. (the exception to this is simply to register an ideological position on an issue).
Important: only call a MoC from your district or state!
If your MoC doesn’t have to worry about your vote, then he/she won’t care about your opinion.
You’ll probably be speaking to a staffer and not the actual representative.
The call will be very brief, probably no more than a minute. It’s OK to use a script but not necessary. Congressional offices are busy so be polite and be concise!
First, state your name, what you do, and where you live.
Have a specific “ask”. For example, please vote yes/no on bill X or please vote no on the confirmation of person Y.
You don’t need to be an expert on the piece of legislation that you are calling about.
Don’t worry about being quizzed about your position. The point of the call is for them to list to you!
Don’t be intimidated if your MoC has a different position than you.
In fact, that’s the point: make your voice heard!
Calls don’t have to be negative. If your MoC, is doing a great job and voting the right way, let them know it!
A MoC can use support from their constituents to help make the case to their colleagues as well!
Of course, as I stated above, a single call probably won’t do anything but 1,000’s might. Below are some other resources you can use to find activist groups in your area, get more info on actions you can take, and even get suggestions for specific actions to take and when to take them.
This thing is pretty incredible. This guide was compiled by former Congressional staffers and provides realistic strategies for opposing the Trump agenda. Kudos to these folks for compiling this awesome and concise document! I highly recommend reading, internalizing, and distributing! Those also send out “Calls to Action” to keep people working together and on task.
Regardless of whether you marched or not, the Women’s March official website makes it easy to get involved with 10 actions in 100 days. Join local groups and get involved with other like-minded activists!
This site is similar to Indivisible and The Women’s March in that is provides a calendar with weekly actions you can take. Great way to have important issues highlighted and good way to stay motivated. But also do your own research and support the issues that matter most to you!
This comicoffers some tips for those with social anxiety or just nervous about cold calling their MoC.
Ok, get to it! Stay tuned for other tips sheets for resisting the Orange Man.
Well, I’m a little late to the punch on this one but National Drug and Alcohol Facts week has been going and ends tonight. This public awareness campaign is now in it’s seventh year and is all about shattering the myths about addiction.I might as well throw my belated hat in the ring and share 5 facts about the opioid epidemic.
Fact #1: The opioid epidemic in the U.S. has hit all demographic groups, regardless of race, gender, age, location, or socioeconomic status.
Fact #2: Prescription opioid pain medications like oxycodone can be just as addictive as heroin, even if taken as prescribed.
Fact #3: There is no scientific evidence that prescription opioids are effective at managing chronic pain; they are extremely effect for short-term, acute pain.
Fact #4: Naloxone is a drug that counters the effects of opioids and can immediately reverse an overdose; you cannot get addicted to naloxone.
Fact #5: Buprenorphine and methadone are opioids that can help a person to fight their heroin addiction by satisfying their craving for the drug.
To learn more, here’s a short “Best of” from Dr. Simon Says Science on the Opioid Epidemic. Check out the posts below for oodles of info on opioids.
Instead, I’ll present some of the key findings from a relatively new (April 2016) review article about the science of sexual orientation by JM Bailey and colleagues in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest. This is by far one of the most comprehensive and most even handed review articles written on the subject. The authors take an extremely academic approach because let’s face, the science surrounding sexual orientation has been used and abused by both pro- and anti- gay rights folks. (note: this article does not really discuss with transgenderism or gender identity issues)
This article is too long to go into all the details so instead I’m just going to present the main highlights that I prepared for a research report a few months back. Enjoy!
Political controversies pertaining to the acceptance of non-heterosexual (lesbian, gay, bisexual) orientation often overlap with controversies surrounding the science of sexual orientation. In an attempt to clarify the erroneous use of scientific information from both sides of the debate, this article 1) provides a comprehensive review of the current science of sexual orientation, and 2) considers the relevance of scientific findings to political discussions on sexual orientation.
Top Takeaways from the Review:
The scientific evidence strongly supports non-social versus social causes of sexual orientation.
The science of sexual orientation is often poorly used in political debates but scientific evidence can be relevant to specific, limited number of issues that may have political consequences.
The scientific evidence strongly supports non-social versus social causes of sexual orientation (nature vs nurture).
Prevalence of non-heterosexual orientation (analysis of 9 large studies): 5% of U.S. adults.
Summary of the major, scientifically well-founded findings supporting non-social causes:
Gender non-conformity during childhood (before the onset of sexual attraction) strongly correlates with non-heterosexuality as an adult.
Occurrence of same-sex behavior has been documented in hundreds of species and regular occurrence of such behavior in a few species (mostly primates, sheep).
Reported differences in the structure of a specific brain region (SDN-POA) between heterosexual and homosexual men.
Hormone-induced changes in the SDN-POA during development in animal studies and subsequent altered adult sexual behavior (the organizational hypothesis).
Reports of males reared as females but who exhibit heterosexual attractions as adults.
Twin studies suggest only moderate genetic/heritable influence on sexual orientation.
Several reports identify a region on the X chromosome associated with homosexuality.
The most consistent finding is that homosexual men tend to have a greater number of biological older brothers than heterosexual men. (fraternal-birth-order effect)
The science of sexual orientation is often poorly used in political debates, but scientific evidence can be relevant to a specific, limited number of issues that may have political consequences.
The question of whether sexual orientation is a “choice” is logically and semantically confusing and cannot be scientifically proven. It should not be included in political discussions.
Examples of scientifically reasonable questions include:
Is sexual orientation determined by non-social (genetic/hormonal/etc.) or social causes? (nature vs nurture)
Is sexual orientation primarily determined by genetics or environment?
Specific cases in which scientific evidence can be used to inform political decisions:
The belief that homosexual people recruit others to homosexuality (recruitment hypothesis). This type of belief was espoused by by President Museveni of Uganda in 2014 and was used to justify Uganda’s notorious anti-homosexuality bill (since repealed).
No studies exist that provide any type of evidence in support of this hypothesis.