why is it that if a person is strung out on a street drug - and they go and shoot up a bunch of people, it is a crime and others are screaming for a crack-down on drugs?
but if someone shoots up a school because their anti-depressants make them violent, there isn't a peep?
does the responsibility lie with the pusher/pharmacist or does it die with the shooter? does the responsibility lie with the drug itself? something to think about.
yes, i know, anti-depressants work for some people. for others, they have the potential to cause violence, something that is underreported widely. for some, something really awful occurs - and no one is really trying to find out why that is. it's kind of a toss up, really. maybe the meds will help you - maybe they will turn you into a monster. just try it and see!
and no, i don't know anything about what the shooter may have been on yesterday in illinois, but i have a guess. pretty much all of the shooters in these school/mall/target store scenarios, pre-dating columbine even, were taking prescription anti-depressants.
ssri = most commonly prescribed anti-depressant
about the following video:
The so-called "antidepressants" blunt feelings but are actually not very effective in diminishing depression per se. On the other hand, in a small number of cases, they lead to tragic violence.
In this video, psychiatrist Loren Mosher, M.D., former Chief of Schizophrenia Studies at NIMH, journalist Bob Whitaker, author of the acclaimed "Mad in America: The Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill," and psychologist Dan Kriegman, Ph.D., founder of Zuzu's Place, examine the way in which Big Pharma exaggerates the efficacy of their products and hides evidence of their dangers. Evidence is also presented to show that Big Pharma is composed of "true believers," i.e., the psychiatrists and drug execs are not just pushers; they're users!
i'm bumping this back up - kinda risky gamble to make, considering they may or may not even "work":
Antidepressants Under Scrutiny Over Efficacy Sweeping Overview Suggests Suppression of Negative Data Has Distorted View of Drugs By DAVID ARMSTRONG and KEITH J. WINSTEIN January 17, 2008; Page D1
The effectiveness of a dozen popular antidepressants has been exaggerated by selective publication of favorable results, according to a review of unpublished data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE
A review of research submitted to the FDA: • Of 74 studies reviewed, 38 were judged to be positive by the FDA. All but one were published, researchers said. • Most of the studies found to have negative or questionable results were not published, researchers found. Source: The New England Journal of Medicine
As a result, doctors and patients are getting a distorted view of how well blockbuster antidepressants like Wyeth's Effexor and Pfizer Inc.'s Zoloft really work, researchers asserted in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.
Since the overwhelming amount of published data on the drugs show they are effective, doctors unaware of the unpublished data are making inappropriate prescribing decisions that aren't in the best interest of their patients, according to researchers led by Erick Turner, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health & Science University. Sales of antidepressants total about $21 billion a year, according to IMS Health.
Wyeth and Pfizer declined to comment on the study results. Both companies said they had committed to disclose all study results, although not necessarily in medical journals. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, maker of Wellbutrin and Paxil, said it has posted the results of more than 3,000 trials involving 82 medications on its Web site, and also has filed information on 1,060 continuing trials at a federal government Web site.
Schering-Plough Corp., whose Organon Corp. unit markets Remeron, and Eli Lilly & Co., which makes Prozac, said their study results were indeed published -- not individually, but as part of larger medical articles that combined data from more than one study at a time. The New England Journal study counted a clinical trial as published only if it was the sole subject of an article. "Lilly has a policy that we disclose and publish all the results from our clinical trials, regardless of the outcomes from them," a Lilly spokeswoman said.
Pharmaceutical companies are under no obligation to publish the studies they sponsor and submit to the FDA, nor are the researchers they hire to do the work. The researchers publishing in the New England Journal were able to identify unpublished studies by obtaining and comparing documents filed by the companies with the FDA against databases of medical publications.
"There is no effort on the part of the FDA to withhold or to not post drug review documents," an FDA representative said. For newer drugs, information is posted online "as soon as possible." Older documents aren't always available online and efforts to add those files to the Web are slowed by "a lack of resources," the agency said, acknowledging that there is a backlog in complying with records requests.
A total of 74 studies involving a dozen antidepressants and 12,564 patients were registered with the FDA from 1987 through 2004. The FDA considered 38 of the studies to be positive. All but one of those studies was published, the researchers said.
The other 36 were found to have negative or questionable results by the FDA. Most of those studies -- 22 out of 36 -- weren't published, the researchers found. Of the 14 that were published, the researchers said at least 11 of those studies mischaracterized the results and presented a negative study as positive.
Five Trials
For example, Pfizer submitted five trials on its drug Zoloft to the FDA, the study says. The drug seemed to work better than the placebo in two of them. In three other trials, the placebo did just as well at reducing indications of depression. Only the two favorable trials were published, researchers found, and Pfizer discusses only the positive results in Zoloft's literature for doctors.
One way of turning the study results upside down is to ignore a negative finding for the "primary outcome" -- the main question the study was designed to answer -- and highlight a positive secondary outcome. In nine of the negative studies that were published, the authors simply omitted any mention of the primary outcome, the researchers said.
The resulting publication bias threatens to skew the medical professional's understanding of how effective a drug is for a particular condition, the researchers say. This is particularly significant as the growing movement toward "evidence-based medicine" depends on analysis of published studies to make treatment decisions.
Colleagues' Questions
Dr. Turner, who once worked at the FDA reviewing data on psychotropic drugs, said the idea for the study was triggered in part by colleagues who questioned the need for further clinical drug trials looking at the effectiveness of antidepressants.
"There is a view that these drugs are effective all the time," he said. "I would say they only work 40% to 50% of the time," based on his reviews of the research at the FDA, "and they would say, 'What are you talking about? I have never seen a negative study.'" Dr. Turner, said he knew from his time with the agency that there were negative studies that hadn't been published.
The suppression of negative studies isn't a new concern. The tobacco industry was accused of sitting on research that showed nicotine was addictive, for instance. The issue has come up before notably with antidepressants: In 2004, the New York state attorney general sued GlaxoSmithKline for alleged fraud, saying it suppressed studies showing that the antidepressant Paxil was no better than a placebo in treating depression in children. Glaxo denied the charge and eventually settled with the attorney general. The company later posted on its Web site the full reports of all of the studies of Paxil in children. [nejm]
But publication of negative studies is an issue that cuts across all medical specialties. And it has engendered some strong reactions in the medical-research world: To make it harder to conceal negative study findings, an association of medical journal editors began requiring in 2005 that clinical trials be publicly disclosed at the outset to be considered for publication later. The system isn't foolproof, since manufacturers often run exploratory studies without registering them and can selectively disclose favorable results. The rule only applies to studies intended for publication in a medical journal.
Some studies that don't eventually get published are registered with online trial registries, including the federal government's www.clinicaltrials.gov. Nonetheless, many studies still aren't being registered or reported, says Kay Dickersin, the director of the Center for Clinical Trials at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "We need something more meaningful," she said. "The average person has no idea that www.clinicaltrials.gov is not comprehensive."
The New England Journal study also points to the need for the FDA to disclose more information about the studies it receives, says Robert Hedaya, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Georgetown University Hospital. He said it was "disturbing" that the information on the negative studies wasn't made widely available by the FDA.
The FDA does post information, including unpublished studies, for some drugs on its Web site, says Dr. Turner. But information that hasn't yet made it online is hard to come by. Dr. Turner said he made public records requests for information not on the Web site more than a year ago, but the requests have gone largely unfulfilled. He said he was able to get some of the FDA's information on unpublished studies from other researchers who acquired it from the agency through their own record requests.
The 'Effect Size'
In this week's study, the researchers found that failing to publish negative findings inflated the reported effectiveness of all 12 of the antidepressants studied, which were approved between 1987 and 2004. The researchers used a measurement called effect size. The larger the effect size, the greater the impact of a treatment.
The average effect size of the antidepressant Zoloft rose 64% by the failure to publish negative or questionable data on the drug, the researchers found.
Write to David Armstrong at david.armstrong@wsj.com1 and Keith J. Winstein at keith.winstein@wsj.com2
until i received a message on myspace from someone that i have never met. i went over to her page to try and figure out who she was and ended up reading a blog post that she'd written that matched the topic she'd messaged me about. how's that for a mouthful?
turns out, she didn't mean for me to get the message. but now i can't stop thinking about it. she wrote:
subject line: jena 6, sick, six Shine some 'light' on the issue. Grow up and leave the past in the past. Tolerant One!
her blog post goes on to essentially attack the jena 6 - and calls out people, in general, for "living in the past." i'm still trying to get my brain around that one. 50 years ago wasn't all that long ago. and to steal a line from ani, "now that lynching is frowned upon, we've moved on to the electric chair."
jena, louisianna - in a nutshell.
dark skinned students ASK PERMISSION to sit under the shade of the "WHITE TREE" during some school function. wtf?!?!?!
they are told to sit where they want and do so. ok, good. apparently the bleachers, in the sun, are the designated are for dark-skinned kids to sit under, while the light skinned students sit under the tree. segregation? say it isn't so. isn't that ILLEGAL?
so the next day, three nooses appear hanging from the white tree. i'd call that a threat. not good.
the students responsible for the hanging of the nooses face expulsion. ok, good. instead, they received three days of in school suspension. not good. (i received three days of in school suspension once - for ditching after school detention for being late - not for attempting to threaten other students with a hanging death that was a very real and sick and disgusting phenomen just 50 years ago.) i call bullshit.
naturally, the racial violence intensifies, as it typically tends to do when an injustice to this extreme occurs. several situations take place over the following days. it all eventually results in 6 dark skinned students attacking a light skinned student. light skinned student is knocked unconscious and kicked. 6 dark skinned students are arrested.
here's where it gets really twisted. the 6 were facing second degree attempted murder convictions. for a fight, similar to a few of which i witnessed in my own high school days. tell me this had nothing to do race with a straight face. had those 6 been light skinned kids, the charges would have been assault, at best, if ever even reported - or had charges been pressed. guaranteed.
my light shedding says this: as long as anyone is treated in this back asswards fashion of being publicly threatened when they sit under a fucking tree based on skin tone, violence is going to be the outcome. and as long as we have an injustice system in place that condones people who make death threats, but goes completely overboard in their punishments for "some people"...
i find it interesting that anyone would hold the opinion that the hanging of those nooses was just a little funny prank. when i first read about this, i was appalled. WHO finds it clever to ever hang a noose???
there is NO WAY these kids got or can get a fair trial. the initial jury was comprised of light skinned people! you are entitled in this country to a jury of your peers.
in one of the cases, charges are dropped for now, as he was a minor at the time. in two others, they were reduced down to assault and conspiracy. from what i can gather, the final four will be tried as adults, and could face imprisonment until they are 50. years. old. it should also be noted that the kid that was beat up was well enough to be at a ring ceremony party the same night. for an attmepted murder, that's quite a speedy recovery, wouldn't you say?
that, my friends, is not justice. it is wrong. and to the girl that accidentally sent me a message, there's a lot of growing up to do - on many many many levels.
"If you're going to hold someone down you're going to have to hold on by the other end of the chain. You are confined by your own repression." ~toni morrison and a song:
subdivision
white people are so scared of black people they bulldoze out to the country and put up houses on little loop-dee-loop streets and while america gets its heart cut right out of its chest the berlin wall still runs down main street separating east side from west and nothing is stirring, not even a mouse in the boarded-up stores and the broken-down houses so they hang colorful banners off all the street lamps just to prove they got no manners no mercy and no sense
and i'm wondering what it will take for my city to rise first we admit our mistakes then we open our eyes the ghosts of old buildings are haunting parking lots in the city of good neighbors that history forgot
i remember the first time i saw someone lying on the cold street i thought: i can't just walk past here this can't just be true but i learned by example to just keep moving my feet it's amazing the things that we all learn to do
so we're led by denial like lambs to the slaughter serving empires of style and carbonated sugar water and the old farm road's a four-lane that leads to the mall and our dreams are all guillotines waiting to fall
i'm wondering what it will take for my country to rise first we admit our mistakes and then we open our eyes or nature succumbs to one last dumb decision and america the beautiful is just one big subdivision
more senseless killing that very well could have been avoided.
i just heard about this awful attack today. i caught a bit on npr about one of the professors that was killed - how he had survived the holocaust, and put himself against the door, blocking the gunman's entrance, to allow his students time to escape through the windows. i listened to the memories being shared about the others who lost their lives yesterday. i cried until i was dry.
and as i listened, i thought of other school shootings - and i kept thinking, "wonder what antidepressant he was taking?"
i just remembed to google "virginia tech shooter medicated" and lo and behold - the first result was a piece in which his parents told authorities that he had been being medicated for depression for some time and that his behavior had become more and more eratic and violent astime went on.
what the fuck is it going to take to make sure that people are being properly monitored while taking meds that the pharma companies know good and well can provoke these types of violent thoughts/actions? this isn't the first time. it won't be the last.
i also found this, written by steve wagner, the director of litigation & prosecution for the advocate group citizens commission on human rights, www.cchr.org.
29 people have been killed and 62 wounded by school shooters taking violence- and suicide-inducing psychiatric drugs. These notorious schoolyard crimes include, among others, the 2005 Red Lake Indian Reservation shooting by Jeff Weise—on Prozac, the 1999 Columbine shooting by Eric Harris—on Luvox, and a 1998 shooting in Springfield, Oregon by Kip Kinkel—on Prozac. Including Monday morning's murder in a one-room schoolhouse in Pennsylvania, three shootings have occurred within the last week. One of these three shootings occurred at a school in Bailey, Colorado, less than an hour's drive from Columbine. Rocky Mountain News reports that outside Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado, antidepressants were recovered from shooter Duane Morrison's jeep, after he took several girls hostage and killed one of the school girls before taking his own life.
This is to say nothing of the numerous other acts of seemingly "senseless violence" carried out by adults who were later exposed as having been under psychiatric treatment, including "Unabomber" Ted Kaczinski, Michael McDermott (on Prozac when he shot and killed seven co-workers in December 2000), John Hinckley, Jr. (attempted assassination of President Reagan), Byran Uyesugi (Hawaiian Xerox employee who shot and killed seven co-workers in November 1999), Mark David Chapman (assassinated John Lennon) and many others.
Was Charles Carl Roberts IV, who murdered five Amish schoolgirls before shooting himself, on these behavior-altering drugs, like so many ofther perpetrators of "senseless violence?"
The U.S. FDA warns that antidepressants can cause suicidal ideation, mania and psychosis. The manufacturers of one antidepressant, Effexor, now warn that the drug can cause homicidal ideation. This month, a study came out in the Public Library of Science-Medicine journal, conducted by Dr. David Healy, director of Cardiff's University's North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine, which found that the antidepressant Paxil raises the risk of violence. Though the study focuses specifically on Paxil, Healy reasoned that other antidepressant drugs like Prozac, Celexa and Zoloft, most likely pose the same risk of violence. "We've got good evidence that the drugs can make people violent and you'd have to reason from that that there may be more episodes of violence," Healy said.
The connection to psychiatry's violence-inducing drugs and treatments has been made in incident after incident. It is acknowedged by the FDA and reputable medical researchers. With this knowledge, one can finally put some sense into these "senseless acts."
With three such incidents in the last week alone, investigators must look in the most obvious place for the causes for such psychotic, suicidal behavior and consider the potential culpability of the psychiatrists who prescribe such drugs.
this year's theme is ending impunity for violence against women. bring THAT on!!!!
how to? "First is to send a very strong message that in today’s world women…are saying zero tolerance. A real political message that the women are tired of abuse…that anybody who abuses women sexually, battering and other forms of violence, we are calling on the authorities in the institutions to take practical action to deal with this issue. Therefore the whole issue of enforcement of the existing laws becomes very, very important in addition to ensuring that there is justice.” ~Nyaradzai Gumbonzvanda
with so many holes in the current system, so little justice being served, and so many women that are victimized unable or unwilling to come forward as a result - here's to hoping that things do change for all of the women in the world. they must. in 1908, 15,000 women marched the streets of new york city seeking better pay, shorter working hours and the right to vote. one down, two to go. but the fact is, we still live in a country where gaining the right to vote is still often framed as something that was given - something that we should be so grateful for that we should pipe down on all other fronts - not a right that we should've had from the get-go.
i found this the topic in a couple of other blogs i frequent, but h/t to pam for linking me the article: speaking of impunity, the dude that decided to cuddle up next to a sleeping woman on a red eye flight out of seattle and ejaculate on her back after lifting her shirt will face a maximum of 6 months in prison. 6. months.
while this may not seem like "that big of a big deal," i beg to differ.
even though this happened close to 13 and 10 years ago now respectively, it still disgusts/angers me every time i think of it.
the first time, i had made a quick stop at a grocery store near my house after getting off work. when i parked my car, it was alone in the parking lot, save for a beat up old multi-colored pickup truck near the street. i remember it vividly, it had a pair of jumper cable handle thingies attached to the broken off antennae. i noted it as i went in, 'cause it creeped me out.
when i came out of the store, he was parked right next to me - his passenger door next to my driver's. i couldn't see anyone in the truck and i assumed he'd gone in, though i felt really weird about the whole thing. i made sure my door key was in my hand. i walked quickly to my car, turned the key and opened the door. as i was sliding in, i looked over into the truck. he was there, all scrunched down with his dick in his hand, going to town. he was reaching for his door handle and i got out of there as quick as i could. i was shaking and i alternated from being scared and pissed all the way home. like i wanted to see that guy's junk. like i wanted him to be getting off on me, on any level, without my permission.
the next time i was at the grocery, i told the manager about it.
"oh, yeah," he said "that happens all the time! mostly on sunday afternoons. they park right by the door and catch all the women coming out. i've not heard of anyone have it happen at night yet."
oh, so it's normal. that's cool. (?!)
but wait, there's more.
the second time.
a couple of years later, i had dropped a co-worker off and was headed home. i noticed that a car i didn't recognize was following me - no matter where i turned. as we approached the stop light, i double checked all my doors to be sure they were locked. he pulled into the turn lane beside me. i looked over to see him making a sex face at me, panting. he also had his junk out and was working it. i turned away and didn't react - this time i was just pissed. i tried to flag down a cop, but he sped off.
the next day as i was getting gas, i saw a cop. i told him what had happened and if there was anything i could do about it. he told me if i got his license plate number they could go question him, and, if i wasn't doing anything later that night, would i like to go have a drink? seriously. what are the odds? on all levels?
a couple of weeks after that, i was again heading home and i saw the second beater-offer pass me as i was waiting for traffic to clear to pull out. he looked right at me. i realized that i had a disposable camera in my bag and got it out. he. was. going. down. i intended on getting up next to him and taking pictures of he and his car to plaster all over town with the story of what he'd done. hopefully, he would have his gnarly junk out again and i would have proof.
i finally pulled out and though he was a ways away from me, i knew i could catch him. he was turning right at the light. i sped and turned too, heading up the hill. next thing i know, i see him parked, headlights off, facing the opposite direction in a parking lot. as i passed, he flicked his lights on and sped off the other direction. HE WAS HIDING FROM ME!
i've always been a little amazed that i had virtually the same experience, years apart, with two different people. could this be far more common than we even realize? in it's own way, though neither man never laid a hand on me - i felt very very very violated - to me, it was an act of violence, being that of an act of aggression. needless to say - i can't imagine what that had to have been like for that woman, that he actually touched her and ejaculated ON her. and now he may face 6 months in jail? we live in a culture that says it's bad to violate women, yet, when it comes down to it, rarely is anything ever even done. and to get justice is such a battle in and of itself, it stands to further beat down women trying to do the right thing, trying to get justice and insure that what has happened to them never happens to anyone else again.
i can't even bear to think of what it must be like in the rest of the world, in times of war - where women are thought of less than human.
instead today, i have to have hope that things will change - for all my sisters here and in the world.
h/t tochuckfor this vid. i go back and forth on the question of whether or not violent video games spur violent acts in those that play them. and violence in music. i always think of chris rock asking what was in hitler's cd case. i do think that both of these things play a role in desensitizing kiddos. even adults.
the world is a violent place and our children are sadly taught not to hit while their countries are actively bombing the crap out of other countries, or witnessing the slaughtering of others. it confuses me - i can't imagine how confusing this "do as i say not as i do" mentality is to a child.
all in all, i imagine that it's a whole slew of factors. even the anti-depresssants given to children these days carry a warning that they may actually cause violent outbursts in those under the age of 18. i think of columbine and eric harris who was taking luvox at the time of his attack. and heisn't the only one. but we don't like to talk about that...
You are beyond wise. You are so smart, you're almost prophetic.
Your inner voice always speaks the truth, and you take the time to listen to it.
You are good at seeing who people are... including the darkness of others.
As a result, you tend to have a rather dark - yet realistic - outlook on life.
A: Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Q: Is the earth really getting hotter?
A: Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.
Q: Are warmer temperatures causing bad things to happen?
A: Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington. Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.
Q: Is global warming making hurricanes worse?
A: Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm. In fact, scientists have found that the destructive potential of hurricanes has greatly increased along with ocean temperature over the past 35 years.
Q: Is there really cause for serious concern?
A: Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:
1. Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.
2. Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.
3. Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
4. Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.
5. Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.
Q: Could global warming trigger a sudden catastrophe?
A: Recently, researchers -- and even the U.S. Defense Department -- have investigated the possibility of abrupt climate change, in which gradual global warming triggers a sudden shift in the earth's climate, causing parts of the world to dramatically heat up or cool down in the span of a few years.
Q: What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?
A: The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.
Q: How can we cut global warming pollution?
A: It's simple: By reducing pollution from vehicles and power plants. Right away, we should put existing technologies for building cleaner cars and more modern electricity generators into widespread use. We can increase our reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and geothermal. And we can manufacture more efficient appliances and conserve energy.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We have posted it here in an effort to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific,
social justice and other issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The material in this site is
provided for educational and informational purposes only.
