#but also made them worry that related conflicts of interest might affect U.S. policy. Business Insider's recent review of nearly 9 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Did The Republicans View The Alien And Sedition Acts

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-the-republicans-view-the-alien-and-sedition-acts/

How Did The Republicans View The Alien And Sedition Acts

How Did Republicans View The Alien And Sedition Acts Quizlet

The Alien and Sedition Acts

How did the Republicans view the Alien and Sedition Acts? Republicans viewed the Sedition Act as an attack on the rights of free speech and free press. Why did most Federalists favor good relations with Great Britain? Some were merchants and shippers whose business depended on trade with Americas former enemy.

John Adams : The Second President Of The United States

John Adams was known for being the second president of the United States. He was a man of will power and strength that was an advocate of independence from Britain. Adams, along with other supporters of America wrote the Declaration of Independence. He was one of the most influential leaders that America has had. He did anything and everything to break away from Britain and become an independent country. Aside from being of the nations greatest leaders he was also a loving husband and a father

Did Democratic Republicans Support The Alien And Sedition Acts

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalist-dominated 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798. At the time, the majority of immigrants supported Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the political opponents of the Federalists.

Recommended Reading: Are There Any Other Republicans Running For President

Module 8: Growing Pains The New Republic

Identify key examples of partisan wrangling between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans

Describe how foreign relations affected American politics

Assess the importance of the Louisiana Purchase

George Washington, who had been reelected in 1792 by an overwhelming majority, refused to run for a third term, thus setting a precedent for future presidents. In the presidential election of 1796, the two partiesFederalist and Democratic-Republicancompeted for the first time. Partisan rancor over the French Revolution and the Whiskey Rebellion fueled the divide between them, and Federalist John Adams defeated his Democratic-Republican rival Thomas Jefferson by a narrow margin of only three electoral votes. In 1800, another close election swung the other way, and Jefferson began a long period of Democratic-Republican government.

For Discussion And Writing

What was the Sedition Act? Why was it passed? Do you think it was constitutional? Explain.

How did the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans differ regarding criticism of the government and freedom of speech and the press?

Write a letter to the editor of a 1798 newspaper, expressing your views about the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Also Check: Why Did Radical Republicans Impeach Johnson

Federalists Thought Seditious Libel Law Was Part Of Common Law

Federalists genuinely worried that the French threat, both military and ideological, might be enough to topple the infant republic. To them, a seditious libel law was part of the English common law, constitutional under the necessary and proper clause, and an obvious instrument of defense. They believed the First Amendment embodied only the common law protection of forbidding prior restraint. Leading Federalists thought that it was impossible to attack members of the government without attacking the very foundation of;government itself.

The Federalists argued that the Sedition Act in reality expanded civil liberties. The act allowed the truth of the matter contained in publication as evidence in defense and gave the jury a right to determine the law and the fact. This contrasted with English common law, which did not admit truth as a defense and limited the role of the jury to establishing the fact of publication.

Why Did Democratic Republican Leaders Pressure Congress To Repeal The Alien And Sedition Acts

Why did Democratic-Republican leaders pressure Congress to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts? They argued that the acts violated the Neutrality Proclamation. They believed that the acts hurt the interests of farmers in southern states.

Recommended Reading: Are There More Registered Democrats Or Republicans

The United States And The French Revolution 17891799

The French Revolution lasted from 1789 until 1799. The Revolution precipitated a series of European wars, forcing the United States to articulate a clear policy of neutrality in order to avoid being embroiled in these European conflicts. The French Revolution also influenced U.S. politics, as pro- and anti- Revolutionary factions sought to influence American domestic and foreign policy.

From 1790 to 1794, the French Revolution became increasingly radical. After French King Louis XVI was tried and executed on January 21, 1793, war between France and monarchal nations Great Britain and Spain was inevitable. These two powers joined Austria and other European nations in the war against Revolutionary France that had already started in 1791. The United States remained neutral, as both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans saw that war would lead to economic disaster and the possibility of invasion. This policy was made difficult by heavy-handed British and French actions. The British harassed neutral American merchant ships, while the French Government dispatched a controversial Minister to the United States, Edmond-Charles Genêt, whose violations of the American neutrality policy embroiled the two countries in theCitizen Genêt Affair until his recall in 1794.

Alien And Sedition Acts

Alien and Sedition Acts

The Alien and Sedition Acts were a series of four laws passed by the U.S. Congress in 1798 amid widespread fear that war with France was imminent. The four lawswhich remain controversial to this dayrestricted the activities of foreign residents in the country and limited freedom of speech and of the press.

Recommended Reading: How Many Senate Seats Did The Republicans Pick Up

What Was The Purpose Of The Alien And Sedition Acts

As a result, a Federalist-controlled Congress passed four laws, known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws raised the residency requirements for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, authorized the President to deport aliens and permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation during wartime.

What Is The Legal Definition Of Insurrection

insurrection n : the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. ;also. : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States

Also Check: Did Republicans Block Funding For Election Security

What Were The Alien And Sedition Acts

Amid mounting tensions, Federalists accused Republicans of being in league with France against their own countrys government. Writing in June 1798 in the Gazette of the United States, Alexander Hamilton called the Jeffersonians more Frenchmen than Americans and claimed that they were prepared to immolate the independence and welfare of their country at the shrine of France.

Fears of an imminent French invasion led the Adams administration to begin war preparations and pass a new land tax to pay for them.

With fears of enemy spies infiltrating American society, the Federalist majority in Congress passed four new laws in June and July 1798, collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts.

With the Naturalization Act, Congress increased residency requirements for U.S. citizenship to 14 years from five.

The Alien Enemies Act permitted the government to arrest and deport all male citizens of an enemy nation in the event of war, while the Alien Friends Act allowed the president to deport any non-citizen suspected of plotting against the government, even in peacetime.

How Does The Constitution Allow For Enduring Debate

America has what Hamilton designed because we have national banks and what Jefferson designed because he disapproved in the Alien and Sedition acts recently history the Patriot act and Obama Care have pushed The Constitution in to debate.The U.S. Constitution is always up for debate and alive though the debates because it has the amendment clause and the Supreme Court. It can also cause debate because it is so vague in the elastic clause. The elastic clause is the

Read Also: Why Do Democrats And Republicans Hate Each Other

Effects On Foreign Relations

Genêt continued to defy the wishes of the U.S. government, sending American recruits to capture British ships and rearm them as privateers. Washington sent Genêt an 8,000-word letter of complaint on Jefferson and Hamiltons recommendation. Genêt refused to cease his activities, challenging Washingtons executive authority and blatantly disregarding official American policy.

The Citizen Genêt Affair spurred Great Britain to instruct its naval commanders in the West Indies to seize all ships trading with the French. The British captured hundreds of American ships and their cargoes, increasing the possibility of war between the two countries. The Affair came to an end when the Jacobins, having taken power in France in January 1794, sent an arrest notice to Washington that demanded that Genêt return to France. Genêt, knowing that he would likely be sent to the guillotine, asked Washington for asylum. It was HamiltonGenêts fiercest opponent in the cabinetwho convinced Washington to grant him safe haven in the United States. With his mission and life of public service officially over, Genêt relocated to New York and lived the rest of his life as a private gentleman farmer.

Sketch of Citizen Genêt: Edmond-Charles Genêt came dangerously close to violating President Washingtons Proclamation of Neutrality.

For What Reason Were The Alien And Sedition Acts Unpopular With Most Americans

For what reason were the Alien and Sedition Acts unpopular with most Americans? They were at odds with the U.S. Constitution. Which War of 1812 battle was the most decisive in asserting American dominance over the British in the Old Northwest? What was the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v.

Don’t Miss: How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

The Alien Enemies Act In The 20th And 21st Centuries

The Alien Enemies Acts remained in effect at the outset of World War I and remains U.S. law today. It was recodified to be part of the US war and national defense statutes .

On December 7, 1941, responding to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the authority of the revised Alien Enemies Act to issue presidential proclamations #2525 , #2526 , and #2527 , to apprehend, restrain, secure and remove Japanese, German, and Italian non-citizens. On February 19, 1942, citing authority of the wartime powers of the president and commander in chief, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe military areas and giving him authority that superseded the authority of other executives under Proclamations 25257. EO 9066 led to the internment of Japanese Americans, whereby over 110,000;people of Japanese ancestry, 62% of whom were United States citizens, not aliens, living on the Pacific coast were forcibly relocated and forced to live in camps in the interior of the country.

Reaction To The Alien And Sedition Acts

Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

Matthew Lyon, a Republican congressman from Vermont, became the first person tried under the new law in October 1798. A grand jury indicted Lyon for publishing letters in Republican newspapers during his reelection campaign that showed intent and design to defame the government and President Adams, among other charges. Lyon acted as his own attorney, and defended himself by claiming the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, and that he had not intended to damage the government.

He was convicted, and the judge sentenced him to four months in prison and a fine of $1,000. Lyon won reelection while sitting in jail, and would later defeat a Federalist attempt to kick him out of the House.

Another individual famously prosecuted under the Sedition Act was the Republican-friendly journalist James Callender. Sentenced to nine months in prison for his false, scandalous, and malicious writing, against the said President of the United States, Callender wrote articles from jail supporting Jeffersons campaign for president in 1800.

After Jefferson won, Callender demanded a government post in return for his service. When he failed to get one, he retaliated by revealing the first public allegations of Jeffersons long-rumored relationship with a slave woman, Sally Hemings, in a series of newspaper articles.

You May Like: Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

Who Can Suppress An Insurrection

Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed

How Did People Feel About The Alien And Sedition Act Passed In The 1700s

Who are the experts?Our certified Educators are real professors, teachers, and scholars who use their academic expertise to tackle your toughest questions. Educators go through a rigorous application process, and every answer they submit is reviewed by our in-house editorial team.

The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the administration of President John Adams, were hugely controversial. The government claimed that these measures were necessary to protect national security from both internal and external threats. Opponents, however, saw them as unnecessary and draconian . They saw them as…

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Voted In The Texas Primary

Acts Concerning Aliens And Alien Enemies

The Naturalization Act was followed by the Act Concerning Aliens, and the Act Concerning Alien Enemies.

These two bills gave the president sweeping powers to act against those who were still only immigrants, by permitting their arrest and deportation if they were suspected of treasonable or secret leanings.

The bills sponsor, Harrison Gray Otis, explained pretty candidly that his legislation was prompted by his desire that we not wish to invite hordes of wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all parts of the world to come here with a view to disturb our tranquility, after having succeeded in the overthrow of their own governments. So let immigrants be put on notice by these bills, that if they immigrate to the United States, they can be sent back at a moments notice, by order of the president if there was a suspicion that they have been involved in treasonous or seditious activities. The definition of treasonous or seditious activities was left unexplained.

Learn more about;the place where European ideas of society no longer applied.

Is It Treason To Kill A Swan

All swans are the property of the Queen, and killing one is an act of treason. Not quite Since the 12th century, the Crown has held the right to ownership over all wild, unmarked mute swans in open water. Killing one of the Queens mute swans may be unlawful, but it has never been an act of treason.

Read Also: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

The Xyz Affair And The Threat Of War

Their fight over the Alien and Sedition Acts was just one example of how Americas first two political parties were split over foreign policy. In 1794, Britain was at war with France. When Federalist President George Washington signed the Jay Treaty with Britain it greatly improved Anglo-American relations but enraged France, Americas Revolutionary War ally.;

Shortly after taking office in 1797, President John Adams tried to smooth things over with France by sending diplomats Elbridge Gerry, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and John Marshall to Paris to meet face-to-face with French foreign minister, Charles Talleyrand. Instead, Talleyrand sent three of his representativesreferred to as X, Y, and Z by President Adamswho demanded a $250,000 bribe and a $10 million loan as conditions of meeting with Talleyrand.

After the U.S. diplomats rejected Talleyrands demands, and the American people became angered by the so-called XYZ Affair, fears of an outright war with France spread.

While it never escalated beyond a series of naval confrontations, the resulting undeclared Quasi-War with France further strengthened the Federalists’ argument for passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.;

What Was The Reaction To The Alien And Sedition Acts

These laws were designed to silence and weaken the Democratic-Republican Party. Negative reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts helped contribute to the Democratic-Republican victory in the 1800 elections. Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802, while the other acts were allowed to expire.

You May Like: Did Republicans Cut Funding For Benghazi

How Do You Use Sedition In A Sentence

Sedition in a Sentence ?

The newspaper editor was accused of sedition when he encouraged his fans to rise up against police officers.

In some nations, the government censors television networks in order to prevent sedition.

The rebels were arrested for sedition when they protested outside of the dictators palace.

How Did The Democratic Republicans Viewed The Alien And Sedition Acts

Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act | AF-419

The democratic republicans viewed the alien and sedition acts by the misuse of the government powers unconstitutional

Registered users can ask questions, leave comments, and earn points for submitting new answers.

Already have an account? Log in

Ask questions, submit answers, leave comments

Earn points for using the site

Already have an account? Log in

Read Also: How Many Registered Republicans In Texas

Alien And Sedition Acts Of 1798

Justin Florence

In the summer of 1798 the young United States was on the brink of war with France, one of the mightiest powers in the world. Some worried America faced not only a powerful enemy abroad, but also a threatening undercurrent of opposition at home. Hoping to strengthen the nation during war, and at the same time crush their political rivals, the Federalist party in power passed a series of four laws collectively termed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist, believed as a result of the new laws “there will shortly be national unanimity.”

Hamilton, like most other Americans in the eighteenth century, maintained that political factions or parties threatened the stability of the newnation. Yet hardly had the first Congress convened before proto-parties began to form. An array of congressmen known as Republicans joined Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposing Hamilton’s economic plans. Newly founded political newspapers helped congressmen and party leaders attract the support of ordinary voters. Newspaper editors in the 1790s actively aligned themselves with national figures and parties, while launching fierce attacks against political rivals.

See also: Naturalization Act; Espionage Act and Sedition Act .

0 notes

mikemortgage · 5 years

Text

China’s spreading influence in Eastern Europe worries West

BELGRADE, Serbia — Coal-powered plants, mobile networks, major bridges, roads and railways: Chinese investments have been booming throughout Central and Eastern Europe’s cash-strapped developing countries, even as European Union officials scramble to counter Beijing’s mounting economic and political influence on the continent.

EU member Croatia is hosting a summit Thursday between China and 16 regional countries — the 8th so far — that focuses on expanding business and other links between China and the region, which Beijing sees as a gateway into Europe.

The gathering in Dubrovnik of the so-called 16+1 initiative consists of Central and Eastern European countries that have endorsed China’s ambitious global “Belt and Road” investment project, which has triggered concerns among some key EU states about increased Chinese political and economic clout in the region.

China has already invested billions of dollars in various infrastructure projects in Central and Eastern Europe. Western leaders worry that further investment in the states that are EU members — or those hoping to join — could mean lower environmental and other standards than those in the rest of the bloc.

Thorny issues include the flouting of EU competition rules, potential over-borrowing by some of the states, the quality of constructions, and security concerns over high-speed 5G network technology supplied by Chinese companies. Critics also say that in return for allowing Chinese expansion into the region, Beijing should give better reciprocal access for European companies to Chinese markets.

Top Chinese officials have sought to alleviate EU fears of unfair competition from Chinese state-controlled companies, which benefit from the government’s financial backing. Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed during a recent visit to Paris to work with European leaders to seek fairer international trade rules.

Of the 16 participating countries — Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia — 11 are EU member states, and the remaining five want to join.

Beijing has marketed its expanding initiative as a way to give some of Europe’s neediest countries a financial boost, helping them gain access to more trade and investment. That has been mostly welcomed by the Central and Eastern European nations.

Linda Tjia, an expert on Chinese development strategy at the City University of Hong Kong, said there is no evidence to support concerns that Beijing is harbouring “neo-colonial” goals to exploit Eastern Europe, Africa and other developing economies.

European leaders “have to somehow show their people they are trying to protect national interests,” Tija said.

Major Chinese-led infrastructure projects in the region include a planned high-speed railway from the Hungarian capital, Budapest, to Belgrade in neighbouring Serbia. The line will link up with the Chinese- controlled port of Piraeus in Greece as an entry point for Chinese goods to Central and Eastern Europe.

The project has drawn scrutiny from the EU because Chinese state-owned banks would provide financing, and Chinese companies would supply technology and the actual building. That conflicts with EU rules requiring public works to be broken into segments small enough to attract multiple bidders.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose own government often has been criticized for anti-democratic policies, says Hungary’s relations with China should be based on “mutual respect.”

Hungary last year did not sign an EU report criticizing China’s human rights record and business policies.

In Serbia, an EU membership candidate, Chinese companies are building major bridges and highways. They are also constructing a large coal-powered electricity plant even as China is trying to curb pollution at home by implementing renewable energy projects and reducing the use of lignite, by far the most polluting fossil fuel.

Serbian analyst Mijat Lakicevic said the strategically-located Balkan country situated between East and West is a perfect place where “China can realize its economic concept, the way it wants to enter (Eastern European) markets,” without much concern over fair bidding processes or pollution standards.

Bosnia, a potential EU candidate, is at odds with the bloc over its decision to issue a public guarantee for a 600-million euro ($676 million) loan from China’s Export-Import Bank to expand Bosnia’s largest coal-fired power plant.

EU’s energy watchdog has warned that the move could eventually harm Bosnia’s bid to join the EU because the agreement violates EU’s subsidy and environment rules. Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn has said the issue “raises serious questions” about the Balkan country’s “commitment to international treaties (and) European rules.”

Chinese companies are also involved in the construction of a $380-million Peljesac bridge in Croatia, which links two coastal parts over the Adriatic Sea, as well as a highway linking the Adriatic in Montenegro to neighbouring Serbia.

In the Czech Republic, the National Cyber and Information Security Agency followed U.S. authorities’ warning against the use of hardware or software made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE. That, however, did not change Czech President Milos Zeman’s positive stance toward Huawei.

Zeman publicly criticized the Czech watchdog, saying it harms the Czech Republic’s business interests as it could affect Huawei’s plan to invest $370 million in 5G networks in the Czech Republic.

U.S. officials mounted an international campaign to keep Huawei gear out of any foreign 5G network that might carry sensitive U.S. intelligence.

——

Associated Press journalists Joe McDonald in Beijing; Karel Janicek in Prague; Pablo Gorondi in Budapest, Hungary; Sabina Niksic in Sarajevo, Bosnia; and Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; contributed to this report.

from Financial Post http://bit.ly/2IbMOGU via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

0 notes

titheguerrero · 7 years

Text

A Stealth Marketer Goes Through the Revolving Door to ... the President's Council of Economic Advisors?!

Stealthy, deceptive systematic marketing, lobbying, and policy advocacy campaigns on behalf of big health care organizations, often pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies, have long been a subject of Health Care Renewal. A relatively recently revealed example was the stealth marketing campaign used by GlaxoSmithKline to sell its antidepressant Paxil. This campaign included manipulating and suppressing clinical research, bribing physicians to prescribe the drug, use of key opinion leaders as disguised marketers, and manipulation of continuing medical education. Other notable examples included Johnson and Johnson's campaign to sell Respirdal (look here), and the infamous Pfizer campaign to sell Neurontin (look here and here). Notably, stealth marketing seemed to be one reason for the growing popularity of narcotics (opioids) starting in the 1990s (look here). Such campaigns have gotten more exposure in the media and the scholarly literature, so we have not written as much about them in the last few years as previously. So I confess we did not directly discuss a February, 2017, investigative report by ProPublica about Precision Health Economics, a company that has orchestrated several such campaigns (although we did allude to it here). Prof Tomas Philipson Named to President's Council of Economic Advisors This week this report suddnely appears very salient, since Yahoo News just revealed that a top leader of Precision Health Economics, Prof Tomas Philipson, has been nominated to the President's Council of Economic Advisors by Donald Trump.

Donald Trump’s new senior economic adviser has helped pharmaceutical companies lobby to charge astronomical prices for crucial drugs. Last Monday, the White House confirmed that Tomas J. Philipson, a health care economist, was joining the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. That announcement was made just hours after Trump publicly accused Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier of charging patients 'ripoff prices' for drugs after he resigned from the President’s Manufacturing Council in protest at the president’s response to the violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend. Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President's Manufacturing Council,he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2017 .@Merck Pharma is a leader in higher & higher drug prices while at the same time taking jobs out of the U.S. Bring jobs back & LOWER PRICES! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2017

Precision Health Economics Given the potential influence of Prof Philipson on the Council of Economic Advisors, it is worth summarizing what ProPublic said about his career at Precision Health Economics. PHE as Orchestrator of Stealth Marketing and Policy Advocacy First, the business of PHE is to help pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies market their products and influence public policy in their favor.

While collaboration between higher education and industry is hardly unusual, the professors at Precision Health Economics have taken it to the next level, sharpening the conflicts between their scholarly and commercial roles, which they don’t always disclose. Their activities illustrate the growing influence of academics-for-hire in shaping the national debate on issues from climate change to antitrust policy, which ultimately affect the quality of life and the household budgets of ordinary Americans — including what they pay for critical medications.

Furthermore,

'This is just an extension of the way that the drug industry has been involved in every phase of medical education and medical research,' said Harvard Medical School professor Eric G. Campbell, who studies medical conflicts of interest. 'They are using this group of economists it appears to provide data in high-profile journals to have a positive impact on policy.' The firm participates in many aspects of a drug’s launch, both advising on 'pricing strategies' and then demonstrating the value of a drug once it comes on the market, according to its brochure. 'Led by professors at elite research universities,' the group boasts of a range of valuable services it has delivered to clients, including generating 'academic publications in the world’s leading research journals' and helping to lead 'formal public debates in prestigious, closely watched forums.'

Again, some people may naively imagine that academic publications are written by unbiased academics, not hired guns for industry, and that formal debates on major issues ought to again by led by people who are disintered and authoritative, not hired guns. That would be very naive. So PHE has set itself up as a vehicle to market and advocate on behalf of big corporations while making that work appear to be unbaised academic discourse. In particular,

Precision Health Economics has counted at least 25 pharmaceutical and biotech companies and trade groups as clients. The roster includes Abbott Nutrition, AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead, Intuitive Surgical, Janssen [a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson], Merck, the National Pharmaceutical Council, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, PhRMA, rEVO Biologics, Shire and Takeda.

Note that many of these companies are known for perpetrating the kinds of marketing shenanigans that we discuss on this blog. See the links above. PHE Has Been Accused of Biased Work for Pharma Prettied by Its Principals' Academic Credentials

To justify the value of expensive drugs, the professors affiliated with Precision Health Economics rely on complicated economic models that purport to quantify the net social benefits that the drugs will create.

However,

Critics have at times questioned the assumptions underlying the consultants’ economic models, such as the choice of patient populations, and suggested that some of their findings tilt toward their industry clients. For example, some have tried and failed to reproduce their results justifying the value of cancer treatments. Precision Health Economics allows drugmakers to review articles by its academics prior to publication in academic journals, said a former business development manager of the consulting group. Such prior review is controversial in higher education because it can be seen as impinging on academic freedom.

In addition,

About 75 percent of publications by the firm’s employees in the past three years have either been funded by the pharmaceutical industry or have been done in collaboration with drug companies, a ProPublica review found. Some academics worry that a tight relationship with industry might suggest bias. 'I personally find, when your enterprise relies so substantially on a particular source of funds, you will tend to favor that source,' said Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt.

Thus several of the firm's campaigns have produced considerable controversy. For example, Advocating Increased Pricing for Oncology Drugs

Precision Health Economics raised its profile in 2013 when the president’s annual economic report cited a cancer study by several of the firm’s principals and consultants. To some critics, though, the study showed how industry funding can taint academic research. Originally published in Health Affairs, where [PHE founder Dana] Goldman also serves on the editorial board, the study found that Americans paid more for cancer care than Europeans but had better survival gains. As the study acknowledged, it was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, a company that at the time was developing a much-anticipated cancer treatment. It was priced at more than $150,000 per year when it eventually came on the market. All three founders of Precision Health Economics were listed as authors of the Health Affairs article, alongside one of their employees, yet none of the founders disclosed their ties to their consulting firm in the published study. In an interview, Goldman said this might have been an 'oversight.'

In addition,

As the cancer study gained national recognition, its methodology and findings came under fire. Researchers from Dartmouth College tried and failed to reproduce the results. Cancer care in the U.S., their research found, may actually provide less value than cancer care in Europe, considering cost. 'We know that [the U.S. health care system] is more disorganized and disorganization is more expensive, so it’s surprising to believe that the U.S. would perform better in a cost-effectiveness sense,' said Samir Soneji, one of the authors of the counter-study and an assistant professor of health policy at Dartmouth. The science in the original study, Soneji says, was 'questionable.' Soneji was not alone in his criticism. Aaron Carroll, a pediatrics professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine, reviewed the methodology and concluded that the Precision Health Economics researchers had used a measure that can frequently be misinterpreted. Instead of relying on mortality rates, which factor in a patient’s age of death, the study employed survival rates, looking at how long people live after diagnosis. Cancer screening, which can increase survival rates, is more frequent for some cancers in the U.S. than in other countries, Carroll says. 'When they wrote that paper using survival rates, they were clearly cherry picking,' Carroll told ProPublica. 'If the arguments are flawed and people keep using them, I would be concerned that they have some other motive.'

PHE Work on Behalf of PCSK9 Inhibitors

Not long after the controversy over its cancer research, Precision Health Economics became embroiled in another academic spat related to a client’s product. This time, it was over a breakthrough treatment that, injected one to two times per month, could help millions of Americans with high cholesterol. At the $14,000-per-year price set by one of its makers, Amgen, the PCSK9 inhibitor could also hike the nation’s annual prescription drug costs by an unprecedented $125 billion, or 38 percent. Its price in the U.S. is twice as much as in the U.K. The U.S. price of the drug has come under vigorous attack from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. ICER, which began as a small research project at Harvard Medical School, studies the cost-effectiveness of drugs, balancing their value to patients against the impact of their cost on society. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a new rule in March 2016 that includes the use of value-based pricing studies, specifically citing the work of ICER. The industry has attacked many of the institute’s studies, particularly those that find a treatment is overpriced.

PHE orchesterated an attack on the ICER conclusions.

ICER concluded in 2015 that the new cholesterol treatment, the PCSK9 inhibitor, should cost about one-fifth what Amgen is charging. A few months later, Philipson, the Precision Health Economics co-founder, and Jena wrote an op-ed in Forbes, citing the institute’s research and deriding its approach to value pricing as 'pseudo-science and voodoo economics.' Only Philipson disclosed his ties to Precision Health Economics, and neither academic disclosed that Amgen was a client of the firm.

PHE Principals Have Failed to Disclose Their Conflicts of Interest

The professors’ disclosure of their ties to the firm and to the pharmaceutical industry in scholarly articles is inconsistent: sometimes extensive, sometimes scanty. Members of Precision Health tend to reveal less about their paid work in blogs, public forums like conferences, and legislative testimony. At the Capitol Hill briefing last May on hepatitis C drugs, Lakdawalla didn’t mention his affiliation with Precision Health Economics, though it was listed in the journal issue, which was provided to attendees.

One can argue that failing to disclose relevant conflicts of interest is deceptive. Prof Philipson's Role in PHE has Increased in Scope PHE was sold in 2015 to a "privately held biotech company, Precision for Value." Since the sale, "Philipson is listed as chief economist and the chair of the strategy and innovation board." A Problem Beyond the Revolving Door

We have frequently railed about the revolving door affecting health care. Prof Philipson clearly will be transiting the revolving door, in that he will be going directly from a responsible corporate position into a government role in which we will be able to influence policy that affects the corporation in question (as well as other corporate interests, of course). Nowadays, people frequently transit the revolving door from or to US government positions. We most recently posted about the revolving door affecting health care in the current US administration here. We previously opined about the revolving door....

The revolving door is a species of conflict of interest. Worse, some experts have suggested that the revolving door is in fact corruption. As we noted here, the experts from the distinguished European anti-corruption group U4 wrote,

The literature makes clear that the revolving door process is a source of valuable political connections for private firms. But it generates corruption risks and has strong distortionary effects on the economy, especially when this power is concentrated within a few firms.

The ongoing parade of people transiting the revolving door from industry to the Trump administration once again suggests how the revolving door may enable certain of those with private vested interests to have excess influence, way beyond that of ordinary citizens, on how the government works, and that the country is still increasingly being run by a cozy group of insiders with ties to both government and industry. The latest cohort of revolving door transits suggests that regulatory capture is likely to become much worse in the near future. So, as we have said before.... The continuing egregiousness of the revolving door in health care shows how health care leadership can play mutually beneficial games, regardless of the their effects on patients' and the public's health. Once again, true health care reform would cut the ties between government and corporate leaders and their cronies that have lead to government of, for and by corporate executives rather than the people at large.

However, the case of Prof Philipson raises issues beyond the revolving door. Prof Philipson is not a mere corporate executive. He is a master of stealth marketing/ lobbying advocacy. Stealth marketing, in particular, has been one of the scourges of US health care. Back in a 2006 blog post about the stealth marketing of Neurontin, I wrote:

Physicians must be increasingly skeptical about educational and scholarly activities that may be disguised efforts at drug marketing. Shame on the companies that have implemented such stealth marketing programs. Shame on the academic physicians who have taken money to help them out without revealing their financial interests to their physicians colleagues.

In a 2008 blog post about the same case, I wrote:

This unfortunately is another blow to the current paradigm of evidence-based medicine. The EBM paradigm calls for physicians to make optimal decisions for individual patients based on their knowledge of the clinical context, the patients' values and wishes, and a critical review of the best relevant evidence from clinical research. For the paradigm to work, the assumptions are that all relevant research can be found, and that the research studies, while imperfect, were not intentionally designed or reported to deceive the reader. Yet the case of gabapentin adds to fears that relevant evidence that is unfavorable to the interests of the drug, device, or biotechnology company which sponsored the work is likely to be suppressed by that sponsor, and that commercially sponsored research is often deliberately manipulated to make its results appear more favorable. Also, as Professor Dickersin noted (reported by the WSJ), "in exchange for being experimented upon in trials, patients are told they are contributing to human knowledge. To withhold negative results from the public breaks that ethical obligation to such patients...."

I began to think in the years after 2008 that the increasing exposure of stealth marketing (and related stealth lobbying and policy advocacy) campaigns would lead to their eventual decrease. Never in my wildest dreams in 2008 did I foresee a stealth marketing master transiting the revolving door to be appointed to the President's Council of Economic Advisors. (But then again, back then I would have laughed out loud at the notion of Donald Trump as President). I seem to be really bad at prophecy. We are slipping farther and farther from my ideal of true health care reform. Article source:Health Care Renewal

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Did The Republicans View The Alien And Sedition Acts

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-the-republicans-view-the-alien-and-sedition-acts/

How Did The Republicans View The Alien And Sedition Acts

How Did Republicans View The Alien And Sedition Acts Quizlet

The Alien and Sedition Acts

John Adams : The Second President Of The United States

Did Democratic Republicans Support The Alien And Sedition Acts

Recommended Reading: Are There Any Other Republicans Running For President

Module 8: Growing Pains The New Republic

Identify key examples of partisan wrangling between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans

Describe how foreign relations affected American politics

Assess the importance of the Louisiana Purchase

For Discussion And Writing

What was the Sedition Act? Why was it passed? Do you think it was constitutional? Explain.

How did the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans differ regarding criticism of the government and freedom of speech and the press?

Write a letter to the editor of a 1798 newspaper, expressing your views about the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Also Check: Why Did Radical Republicans Impeach Johnson

Federalists Thought Seditious Libel Law Was Part Of Common Law

Why Did Democratic Republican Leaders Pressure Congress To Repeal The Alien And Sedition Acts

Recommended Reading: Are There More Registered Democrats Or Republicans

The United States And The French Revolution 17891799

Alien And Sedition Acts

Alien and Sedition Acts

Recommended Reading: How Many Senate Seats Did The Republicans Pick Up

What Was The Purpose Of The Alien And Sedition Acts

What Is The Legal Definition Of Insurrection

Also Check: Did Republicans Block Funding For Election Security

What Were The Alien And Sedition Acts

Fears of an imminent French invasion led the Adams administration to begin war preparations and pass a new land tax to pay for them.

With fears of enemy spies infiltrating American society, the Federalist majority in Congress passed four new laws in June and July 1798, collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts.

With the Naturalization Act, Congress increased residency requirements for U.S. citizenship to 14 years from five.

How Does The Constitution Allow For Enduring Debate

Read Also: Why Do Democrats And Republicans Hate Each Other

Effects On Foreign Relations

Sketch of Citizen Genêt: Edmond-Charles Genêt came dangerously close to violating President Washingtons Proclamation of Neutrality.

For What Reason Were The Alien And Sedition Acts Unpopular With Most Americans

Don’t Miss: How Did Republicans Do In The Primaries

The Alien Enemies Act In The 20th And 21st Centuries

The Alien Enemies Acts remained in effect at the outset of World War I and remains U.S. law today. It was recodified to be part of the US war and national defense statutes .

Reaction To The Alien And Sedition Acts

Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

You May Like: Is Economy Better Under Democrats Or Republicans

Who Can Suppress An Insurrection

How Did People Feel About The Alien And Sedition Act Passed In The 1700s

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Voted In The Texas Primary

Acts Concerning Aliens And Alien Enemies

The Naturalization Act was followed by the Act Concerning Aliens, and the Act Concerning Alien Enemies.

Learn more about;the place where European ideas of society no longer applied.

Is It Treason To Kill A Swan

Read Also: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

The Xyz Affair And The Threat Of War

After the U.S. diplomats rejected Talleyrands demands, and the American people became angered by the so-called XYZ Affair, fears of an outright war with France spread.

What Was The Reaction To The Alien And Sedition Acts

You May Like: Did Republicans Cut Funding For Benghazi

How Do You Use Sedition In A Sentence

Sedition in a Sentence ?

The newspaper editor was accused of sedition when he encouraged his fans to rise up against police officers.

In some nations, the government censors television networks in order to prevent sedition.

The rebels were arrested for sedition when they protested outside of the dictators palace.

How Did The Democratic Republicans Viewed The Alien And Sedition Acts

Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act | AF-419

The democratic republicans viewed the alien and sedition acts by the misuse of the government powers unconstitutional

Registered users can ask questions, leave comments, and earn points for submitting new answers.

Already have an account? Log in

Ask questions, submit answers, leave comments

Earn points for using the site

Already have an account? Log in

Read Also: How Many Registered Republicans In Texas

Alien And Sedition Acts Of 1798

Justin Florence

See also: Naturalization Act; Espionage Act and Sedition Act .

0 notes