Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Former Drug Rep on Manipulating Doctors
We applaud Gwen Olsen for her courage in coming forward with this information.
Dr. Heather Ashton on Benzodiazepine Withdrawal
More videos in this series are available at Youtube.
The Ashton Manual is online here: http://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/
Sunday, March 8, 2009
NYT: Crackdown on Doctors Who Take Kickbacks
'A common problem in illegal drug and device marketing cases is doctors’ willingness to delude themselves into thinking that cash, lucrative trips and other kickbacks do not affect them, said Mr. Morris, the chief counsel.
“Somehow physicians think they’re different from the rest of us,” Mr. Morris said. “But money works on them just like everybody else.”
Mr. Sullivan, the United States attorney, said officials hoped to send a strong message to doctors. “I have been shocked at what appears to be willful blindness by folks in the physician community to the criminal conduct that corrupts the patient-physician relationship,” he said.'
Link
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Death Cab for Lilly
'Eli Lilly & Company's rap sheet as a public menace is so long that for Lilly watchers to overcome the "banality-of-Lilly-sleaziness" phenomenon, the drug company must break some type of record measuring egregiousness. Lilly obliged earlier this year, receiving the largest criminal fine ever imposed on a corporation.
If Americans are ever going to revoke the publicly granted charters of reckless, giant corporations -- well within our rights -- we might want to get the ball rolling with Lilly, whose recent actions appalled even the mainstream media. And with Lilly's chums, the Bush family, out of power, now might be the right time.
On January 15, 2009, Lilly pled guilty to charges that it had illegally marketed its blockbuster drug Zyprexa for unapproved uses to children and the elderly, two populations especially vulnerable to its dangerous side effect. Lilly plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and agreed to pay $1.42 billion, which included $615 million to end the criminal investigation and approximately $800 million to settle the civil case.
One of the eight whistle-blowers in this case, former Lilly sales representative Robert Rudolph, says the settlement will not completely change Lilly's business practices, and he wants jail time for executives. "You have to remember, with Zyprexa," said Rudolph, "people lost their lives."'
The case for giving Eli Lilly the corporate death penalty
Friday, March 6, 2009
GSK Head: most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people
'Do we need pharma?
The global market for pharmaceuticals in 2007 was estimated at US $712 bn. The BMJ Clinical Evidence website documents that only 13% of medical treatments examined have been demonstrated to have a beneficial effect, and the largest proportion, 47%, are of unknown effectiveness. But this story is little-told.
The benefits of some of the key earners are far from impressive:
Cancer chemotherapy ($13bn worldwide) 2% impact on 5-year survival
Statins ($30bn) 17% reduction in coronary events, but 25% muscle symptoms if the patient exercises
HAART ($10bn) 4-12 years delay in progression to AIDS in USA and Europe, but 4-12 months in sub-Saharan Africa
So the evidence is there that pharmaceuticals work in some cases—but at a price.
Do we hear the truth?
A 2008 study looked at the effect of pharmaceutical advertising on what journals publish about dietary supplements, and found a powerful influence; in journals with the most of such adverts, 67% of studies had negative (unsafe or ineffective) conclusions, while in those with the fewest adverts the figure was 4%. But negative findings are commonly hyped in the media (which costs money in PR and lobbying) and the positive ones go unheard.
Several years ago Hickey and Roberts wrote about specific ways to design a trial to show the absence of a benefit from these vitamins in heart disease (Hickey S. Roberts H. (2004) Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, Lulu Press). In relation to a recent study critical of nutrients they commented: “We intended our advice to show how NOT to perform a trial of vitamin C and E in heart disease. Perhaps someone should explain that to them”.
Can we afford pharma?
The ecological effect of pharma is considerable. In the UK healthcare represents 8.4% of the GDP (twice that in the USA). That makes healthcare a major player in terms of carbon footprint, pollution and even resource depletion.
Pharmaceuticals contaminate the environment:
- via factory run-offs; a study in India in 2007 found “astronomical” amounts of antibiotics in a major river, coming from manufacturing plants
- via patients’ urine; bioactive levels of contraceptives have been found in urban water systems worldwide
- via disposal of unused medications; Associated Press estimated that as much as 250 million pounds of unused pharmaceuticals may be flushed into US sewers every year by hospitals and care homes.
Incinerators, including hospital incinerators, which are often in urban locations, release quantities of particulates, pesticides and heavy metals that have been shown to cause damage to health, increasing rates of cancer, heart disease and even autism.
What is coming next?
In 2003, GSK’s Vice President for Pharmacogenetics, Dr Allen Roses, said, “the vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people……I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people.”'
Link
The global market for pharmaceuticals in 2007 was estimated at US $712 bn. The BMJ Clinical Evidence website documents that only 13% of medical treatments examined have been demonstrated to have a beneficial effect, and the largest proportion, 47%, are of unknown effectiveness. But this story is little-told.
The benefits of some of the key earners are far from impressive:
Cancer chemotherapy ($13bn worldwide) 2% impact on 5-year survival
Statins ($30bn) 17% reduction in coronary events, but 25% muscle symptoms if the patient exercises
HAART ($10bn) 4-12 years delay in progression to AIDS in USA and Europe, but 4-12 months in sub-Saharan Africa
So the evidence is there that pharmaceuticals work in some cases—but at a price.
Do we hear the truth?
A 2008 study looked at the effect of pharmaceutical advertising on what journals publish about dietary supplements, and found a powerful influence; in journals with the most of such adverts, 67% of studies had negative (unsafe or ineffective) conclusions, while in those with the fewest adverts the figure was 4%. But negative findings are commonly hyped in the media (which costs money in PR and lobbying) and the positive ones go unheard.
Several years ago Hickey and Roberts wrote about specific ways to design a trial to show the absence of a benefit from these vitamins in heart disease (Hickey S. Roberts H. (2004) Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, Lulu Press). In relation to a recent study critical of nutrients they commented: “We intended our advice to show how NOT to perform a trial of vitamin C and E in heart disease. Perhaps someone should explain that to them”.
Can we afford pharma?
The ecological effect of pharma is considerable. In the UK healthcare represents 8.4% of the GDP (twice that in the USA). That makes healthcare a major player in terms of carbon footprint, pollution and even resource depletion.
Pharmaceuticals contaminate the environment:
- via factory run-offs; a study in India in 2007 found “astronomical” amounts of antibiotics in a major river, coming from manufacturing plants
- via patients’ urine; bioactive levels of contraceptives have been found in urban water systems worldwide
- via disposal of unused medications; Associated Press estimated that as much as 250 million pounds of unused pharmaceuticals may be flushed into US sewers every year by hospitals and care homes.
Incinerators, including hospital incinerators, which are often in urban locations, release quantities of particulates, pesticides and heavy metals that have been shown to cause damage to health, increasing rates of cancer, heart disease and even autism.
What is coming next?
In 2003, GSK’s Vice President for Pharmacogenetics, Dr Allen Roses, said, “the vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people……I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people.”'
Link
Stories of Corruption and Big Pharma
"The New York Times looks at three books that basically focus on the same thing – how we’ve been co-opted into believing that there is “a pill for every ill” by billion dollar drug companies, which bolster favorable opinion from leading medical authorities by greasing the wheels."
Link
Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
