U.S. military needs energy independence

A new climate for national security | Sept. 20, Perspective story

America's military needs independence from oil

In his article, Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Retired) produced an irrefutable case for immediately changing the way America powers itself. The U.S. Senate will soon consider this task, and as they do, they should heed Vice Adm. McGinn's call that reforming our energy policy is important for our military and our national security.

As an Air Force pilot, I know the importance of fuel. You simply cannot complete your mission without it. Our current fuel, oil, is largely concentrated in countries that are hostile toward us, and it is they who can determine our military effectiveness. This threatens our ability to complete our missions and places our bravest young people in harm's way.

Our military is confronting 21st century enemies and fighting 21st century wars, but it is handicapped by a 20th century energy source. Rather, we need clean, renewable, American fuel sources that give our fighting men and women the security to succeed.

Vice Adm. McGinn mentioned some of the programs that will begin to wean our military off of oil. For the safety of all of our future soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, we must integrate them into our nation's energy policies.

Lt. Col. Bill Moline, USAF (Retired), Tampa

Public transit is way to go

This recent Times article connects energy use in America with climate change and national security. Military leaders see that we are using too much energy, and getting that energy from dirty, dangerous sources.

Increased public transportation is one way to reduce oil use — and Floridians are voting with their feet by driving less and taking more public transportation. Here in Florida, transit usage grew by 3 percent last year. Transportation is responsible for more than two-thirds of America's dependence on oil, and about one-third of our carbon dioxide pollution.

Right now, Congress is moving forward with legislation (CLEAN TEA — S.575) that would dedicate 10 percent of the current climate bill's investments to public transportation. We're calling on Sens. George LeMieux and Bill Nelson to invest more in transportation choices, which will increase our energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and get us out of traffic.

Sarah Bucci, Environment Florida organizer, Tallahassee

Do drug authors write, or sign ++off? | Sept. 20, story

Ghostwriting should come with disclosure

Understanding the drug approval process helps explain how some companies have taken advantage of the ghostwriting process. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration requires a series of human clinical trials be performed on all drugs prior to approval. The majority of these expensive trials are funded by drug companies who use a team of professionals to design and oversee the trials. This team often includes a professional writer as well as members from the preclinical, toxicology, pharmacology, clinical, chemistry, medical, statistics, and regulatory departments.

Physicians at clinics, hospitals and research centers around the world are invited to conduct these trials. During and after the completion of a trial, results from the numerous tests performed on patients taking a novel drug, placebo, or comparative drug are collected by the drug company. These data are analyzed and results are often written as articles for submission to journals for publication.

Many of the renowned physicians conducting the trials are far too busy to write the articles or in some instances, they are not the best of writers. By including a ghostwriter on the team, it helps ensure the articles will be clear and concise.

Everyone in the industry agrees full disclosure should be mandatory by the authors (the authors being the physicians who participated in the trials) at the time an article is submitted for publication. This disclosure should include acknowledgement each author has reviewed and agrees to the content of the article. It is worth noting few companies have written and submitted articles for publication without the author's knowledge. Those that have done this have been caught and fined severely. They have also run the risk of delaying the drug's approval, which can cost a company millions of dollars.

Dale Owens, St. Petersburg

Tainting medical practice

The recent articles regarding drugmakers Wyeth and Eli Lilly and Co. prompted me to reflect on how our society has changed the medical profession into a business. At the University of Chicago in the 1950s and '60s, patient care was improved by research and teaching supported by private endowments, foundations, government grants and not-for-profit organizations such as the American Heart Association. Never was there any support from drug companies, insurance companies or medical equipment companies. The doctors were allowed to practice medicine unencumbered, without a duty or obligation to any of the above.

The recent examples regarding the drug companies are but a small sampling of the insidious encroachment that medical companies have made on the practice and ethics of medicine. Beyond giving out pens and tote bags, these companies have spent millions on research, lectureships, cruises for continuing medical education programs, lunches for the office staff, dinners/talks in expensive restaurants, and even sponsorship of major medical meetings. These meetings were the last vestige of unadulterated exchange of information to fall.

I do not fault the doctors who have lost some professionalism and succumbed to the lure of business. I do fault societal changes that have occurred over the last 50 years and tainted the practice of medicine.

George Daicoff, M.D., St. Petersburg

Health care pricey, but burden is on employers | Sept. 24, PolitiFact

It's part of worker earnings

Your rating in the Thursday PolitiFact about health care insurance costs and Rep. Bruce Braley should have either been "true" or "nearly true."

Yes, the majority of the payment for health insurance in these cases comes from the employer, but the fact is the employer is only paying for it because the person worked the prescribed time for the employer. The health insurance payment is not charity or a gift — the payment goes out only because the worker completed the tasks assigned. The employer did not just send money for anybody.

In many cases it is because of labor agreements that clearly state the worker receives money and other benefits instead of actual money. In other cases it is because an employer realized that health insurance is a good investment to keep good employees. Workers earn their health insurance and they "pay" every day on the job.

If any of you who have health insurance through and with your employer doubt the position stated above, then quit your job and see if your ex-employer still sends in your health insurance payment.

Robert P. Curran, Beverly Hills