Give up election duties, reader urges Blackwell

Give up election duties,reader urges Blackwell
EDITOR:
I just don't get it. How can a person who is running for governor in a state also be in charge of election procedures for that state? There is already a cloud over Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's conduct during the 2004 elections. As we know, he oversaw the voting procedures for Ohio while serving as the Ohio campaign manager for George W. Bush.
There were dozens of allegations of misconduct against him, ranging from allocating too few voting machines in heavily Democratic precincts to illegally disenfranchising thousands of Ohio citizens when he insisted that all voter registrations had to be on 80-pound stock.
Now Ken Blackwell is at it again as we gear up for a very competitive gubernatorial election. He has instituted regulations that could hit voter registration workers with criminal penalties for (legal) registration procedures. The New York Times calls these new regulations & quot;draconian & quot; and says they could shut down registration drives in Ohio.
I understand that Ted Strickland and his running mate Lee Fisher have called on Blackwell to step down from overseeing the gubernatorial election procedures, saying, & quot;His decision this week to suppress Ohio votes for personal gain is where we draw the line. & quot;
Blackwell has a reputation of being fiercely partisan and is eager to please his Republican base. It seems to me that if he would like to shed the pall that has been cast over his integrity and that of his party, he will step down from his duties. It remains to be seen if he has the fortitude (some would call it decency) to do it.
BEA DELPAPA
Lisbon
A skeptical editorial reader
EDITOR:
I was disappointed to see the "Cancer breakthrough" editorial picked up from the Providence Journal on the June 22 editorial page under "How Others See It." Gardasil, is actually a vaccine to prevent a sexually transmitted disease, the Human papillomavirus (HPV). To call it a cancer vaccine is quite a stretch and actually quite a medical coup on Merck's part. In truth, it should be called a sexually transmitted disease vaccine, but people might have a problem with that.
The Journal's opinion was written like an advertisement worthy of a Park Avenue PR firm. Not one mention of any potential side effects. Only accolades for a vaccine that really has only been tested through its own manufacturer. That might account for no mention of side effects. Merck, as you may recall, is the maker of Vioxx -- the drug that was pulled from the market due to numerous cases of heart attacks and strokes. Now, thousands of Vioxx lawsuits are pending and Merck needs some blockbuster profits. Enter Gardasil?
I am also growing tired of the false sense of security brought on by approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Maybe at one time FDA approval actually meant something, but now the FDA seems to function as part of a revolving door between drug companies and government agencies. Many former pharmaceutical employees leave the market to go and work at government overseeing agencies like the FDA and vice versa. However, many don't leave their financial ties to the industry behind when they go. I would think a thick stock portfolio might "cloud" someone's decisions when approving a potential vaccine or medication. Although, I am certain that the FDA would want us to believe people who sit on their drug approval committees are above such things, and financial gain would not in the least bit influence their decision to approve drugs.
The "studies" used to determine safety and efficacy are funded by the vaccine/drug manufacturer. So, Merck paid for the study that helped win Gardasil FDA approval, and moved it one step closer to a doctor's office near you -- at a whopping $360 for a series of three shots.
ANDREA KELLER
Canfield