Blogging bad for mental health?

Two weeks ago, the NYTimes wrote a story about the pressure that blog writers have to keep on blogging. The article points out that three bloggers died (it’s assumed that it’s due in part to the nature of their work?) and that many more suffer from weight problems, sleep disorders, and a whole host of other sicknesses or illnesses because of their addiction to blogging. Many of these bloggers (the article cites the techies) are paid and get little sleep lest they not be the first to post about the latest news.

I don’t have the problem about being first about anything. I never am and don’t expect myself to be. I do know how it feels to place pressure on yourself to keep blogging, blogging, blogging. Especially when you take a look at your stats and see your readership increasing every day.

My readership hits reached a daily high last month with my two posts on the FDA’s investigation on the Singulair-suicide link. That rarely happens. But it gave me the impetus to keep digging for stories that might be of similar significant relevance. (I haven’t found any since so far.)

But it hasn’t kept me tethered to the computer although I can be if I’m in the right mood. I’m pretty slow at typing my posts and can sit here for at least an hour before hitting the publish button.

Blogging has been lucrative for some, but those on the lower rungs of the business can earn as little as $10 a post, and in some cases are paid on a sliding bonus scale that rewards success with a demand for even more work.

I’d like to get paid $10 a post as opposed to getting paid $0. (In fact, I’m paying $12 a month!) Anyone have any ideas to get revenue going on a blog apart from Google Ads?

(Hat tip: Six Until Me)

Freelance writing, editing, and proofreading

I’m thankful that I’ve been able to obtain a part-time job at an ad/marketing agency where I can do some freelance editing and proofreading. I charge them $10 more than what I made at my last job right now, but in retrospect, I think I underestimated my value. However, I cut the company some slack because I haven’t been editing or proofreading in quite a while. I figure I’m a good deal considering my kick-butt skills at the rate that I’m charging. (Woo-hoo! Confidence!)

This leaves me with two free days to do some writing. I’ve mentioned in the past that I haven’t done any form of reporting since 2005, which scares me. In the past, I’ve had editors tell me what stories they think are important or relevant to the locals and I just went out, covered the story, wrote up my assignment, turned it in, then basked in the glow of seeing my name glistening in print. Now, it’s up to me to be up on what’s important and relevant to the community that I live in and decide what I think editors will want to publish. It’s a tricky game and I’m bound for rejection. Considering my history of rejection from my peers, I don’t know if I’m particularly apt for constant rejection from editors. I know I’m not supposed to take it personally but I’m Ms. Overly Sensitive. My recent experience with Joe (here and here) from the magazine I interviewed for has actually taught me a lot. It’s been an annoyance to endure but it’s been a valuable lesson. I’m learning not to take his treatment of me personally. Perhaps I read him all wrong and he’s not the jerk that I think he is. Regardless, he at least sent me a copy of the  issue my work was published in — wouldn’t you know — sans that elusive $75 check. I’m particularly angry with him, mainly because I feel like I got played for the fool. Part of me wants to pursue my writing career even more now to show him that he lost out by not hiring me. The other part of me knows that I’m so unmotivated to do anything that I won’t get anywhere with anything. Better to have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised than to have high expectations and be significantly disappointed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Are Big Pharma murderers?

An book review in the NYTimes today focuses on Melody Petersen, a former reporter of the Times, who has written a book against  Big Pharma's marketing tactics called Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves Into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs. In the book, she asks:

“Could drugs be killing people but escaping all blame, leaving them to harm even more Americans until someone, finally, catches on?” Ms. Petersen asks.

Few of us have. Most of America hasn't. Petersen outlines in great detail – the point of repetition according to Janet Maslin's review – Big Pharma's propensity for skewing clinical trial results so that their drugs perform better than placebo, the increased and ubiquitous DTC marketing, and the "payola-dispensing drug company representatives."

(“Hotel too cold inside,” one said, in an evaluation of a June 1998
drug company program, adding, “Resort places preferred.” From a
different doctor, miffed at the lack of a chauffeur at another event:
“Hired car would have been much preferable.”

Petersen also covers Big Pharma's tactic of fixing side effects of medications by creating medications to fix the side effects leading to medication on medication.

And when the side effects of sleeping pills or antidepressants mean
more elderly people fall down, the solution is not likely to be the
scaling back of such prescriptions. “Instead,” she writes, “the
companies have used the statistics on falls to create a new blockbuster
pharmaceutical market for drugs they claim will reduce the chances of
breaking a bone.”

According to the Maslin's review, the book calls for non-government watchdog agencies and closer oversight on published studies, which Petersen says are ghostwritten by pharma spokespeople. Overall, Petersen's book sounds like a must-read for anyone who is skeptical of Big Pharma's activities. However, I doubt her book will get much press or coverage considering that you can't read any major publication without turning the page and seeing a drug ad then the required 2-page side effect warning that everyone skips over. If anyone reads the book, I'd like to know your thoughts about it.

Sorry if this post sounds hastily written. I'm off to an interview to freelance for a company.

Blogs vs. Mainstream Media

“Mr. [James B.] Gottstein, [a lawyer from Alaska, who was pursuing unrelated litigation for mentally ill patients in his state], sends [Dr. David Egilman, a consulting witness in ongoing litigation against Lilly] a subpoena for copies. Hell begins breaking loose.” – Tom Zeller, Jr. in The New York Times

I think Furious Seasons originally linked to this (I can’t remember the source of the post), but I read this on the NYT and had a few thoughts, regarding brick-and-mortar courts vs. “teh Internets.”

Warning: Rant ahead.

I can’t help but think back to the 2004 showdown between Dan Rather and CBS (endearingly named Rathergate) vs. political blogs regarding a memo about George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. From NewsMax:

“Added [Matthew] Sheffield [of RatherBiased.com]: A virtual think-tank was born… Forty-seven posts later, a person who called himself ‘Buckhead’ offered the proposition that he thought the documents were forgeries.’

Sheffield and his Web site jumped on the bandwagon, searching the Web for experts on 1970’s typewriters. Another blogger site, PowerlineBlog.com, raised the question of forgery. ‘Matt Drudge and his DrudgeReport.com then linked to the Powerline piece, and the story took off,’ recounted Sheffield.”

Someone please tell Drudge about Zyprexa, Risperdal, Cymbalta, Seroquel, Abilify, and blah blah blah, psych med, blah blah blah.

“Some media observers now contend the “Blogosphere” is rapidly replacing CBS and the rest of the mainstream media.

“You’ll note that several blogs rank higher than mid-size daily newspapers and some are pushing the sites of papers in the top 50 (by daily circulation). The data suggest that the question isn’t “When will blogs arrive?” but rather “Blogs HAVE arrived, what now?” [said Kevin Aylward of Wizbangblog.]”

I’ll probably have a string of quotes from the newsmax article, but I will eventually get to my point.

I quoted this previously, but it’s worth requoting:

“It’s great that [Philip] Dawdy [of Furious Seasons] has stepped up for a huge, mainly voiceless population, but on the other hand, it’s weird to see citizen journalists so responsible for watchdogging our mental health industry. When we hear newspapers complain about declining readership, we can’t help but think it’s mainly because — gosh, this is awkward — the shit they’re reporting on isn’t newsworthy. And this shit is.” – Seattlest

Read the rest of this entry »

An Interesting Observation

Time’s Quote of the Year:
“Actually, I thought we were going to do fine yesterday – shows what I know.” – President Bush on the midterm elections

CLASSIC.


An interesting observation I don’t know if anyone has already made or if anyone will pay attention to – Time‘s 2006 POTY issue carried 14 medically- or pharmaceutically-related ads. Two of those ads were full-color spreads related to two major pharma companies: AstraZeneca (an ad letting you know they can help/care) and Eli Lilly (touting the benefits of Cymbalta). I couldn’t help but stop and stare at Ambien CR’s ad pages. Ambien CR, a version of the popular sleep aid developed sanofi aventis has a WHOPPING 3.5 pages. Three-quarters of the first page is the Ambien CR color ad and the bottom quarted is  “Important Safety Information” in a blue box. Turn the page and there is nothing but fine print black text streaming across TWO pages. As if a quarter-page of safety information and a FULL two pages weren’t enough, flip the page again, and more “information for patients” continues for a half-page. I’d like to  know someone that’s actually read ALL those warning/safety information things. How many people actually READ all two and three-quarters (2 3/4) of safety information? I’ll be honest with you; I sure don’t. I skip all that stuff. But it’s there so when people suffer side effects, the company can say, “Hey! We  included this in our advertisement! It’s everywhere; you have no basis to sue.”

AstraZeneca, the maker of antipsychotic drug, Seroquel, writes in its ad (click on the thumbnail to see the modified scanned version):

AZ“A pharmaceutical company saving you the money on the medicines it makes.Imagine that. [larger font]

If you take any AstraZeneca medicines, you may be surprised that there’s someone you can turn to for help if you can’t afford them: Us. A family of four without prescription covrage making up to $60,000 per year may qualify for patient assistance. The AstraZeneca Personal Assistants can assist you in signing up for programs that can provide you free medicines or significant savings IF you qualify. [emphasis mine]
We’ll be the first to admit we don’t have all the answers. But as a pharmaceutical company, we recognize that when you trust us to help you, we feel we owe you the same trust in return. That’s what AZ&Me is all about. A place we’re creating to put the personal touch back into healthcare.

Please visit AZandMe.com or call 1-800-AZandMe.”

AstraZeneca Personal Assistants??? What is this? A department store? I can hear it over the loudspeaker now: “Now, calling all patients who use AstraZeneca medicines, we have personal assistants who can help you select the right care and plan to help you get the medicines you need.” And the cute slogan AZ&Me slogan. How adorable. It just makes you want to cuddle right up to Big Pharma! Because remember, they’re putting the “care” back in “healthcare.”  (sarcasm)

If anyone has used AZ&Me to get Seroquel for free or at a discount, e-mail me ASAP at suicidal.recovery AT gmail.com. I’d love to communicate with you.