Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

Call for Accountability of Medical and Pharmaceutical Industries

Saturday, August 7th, 2010

In “The Greening of Medicine, Part 1” published in The Epoch Times, June 24-30, 2010, MD Ronald D. Whitmont demands that the “medical and pharmaceutical industries be held accountable for their role in the current environmental crisis.” He points to mounting evidence that growing levels of pharmaceutical waste is accumulating in water supplies all over the world. Whitmont also points to growing evidence that allopathic medicines hurt patients more than help them.

Whitmont’s is one of many vociferous voices raised in protest against environmental degradation and assault by pharmaceuticals, and the ineffectiveness of drugs in medical intervention.

These ineffective drugs are consumed routinely and then excreted into the environment, invading areas once held to be “pristine and remote.” Whitmont charges, “The medical industry, long known to over-prescribe and over-utilize medications in most conditions, has sown the seeds of a disturbing environmental crisis.”

Because the pharmaceutical industry does not accept the premise that its products can cause harm, it has not attempted to monitor the effects of these products on the environment. However, studies show that anti-inflammatory medicines and derivatives of estrogen affect other living systems in ways that are not yet understood but are beginning to manifest in changes in mating behavior and sexual development in fish and mammals.

Whitmont`s contentions about the gradual saturation of global water supplies are supported by many studies. Two recent studies of the effect of effluent water on adult fish in the UK and Canada found intersexual changes due to estrogen derivatives. Other effects were altered DNA integrity and immune cell numbers and the loss of ability to breakdown pollutants.

Concern about the effects of pharmaceuticals on water supplies began in Europe approximately ten years ago when German environmental scientists found contaminants in groundwater. Other European researchers also found chemotherapy and other drugs in groundwater.

In the mid 1990s a chemist in Wiesbaden, Germany investigated what happens to prescribed medicines. Expecting to find only a few excreted medicinal compounds, he found many: lipid-lowering drugs, antibiotics, analgesics, antiseptics, beta-blocker heart drugs and others.

The Human Genome Project will result in many more drugs, researchers fear, as this project aims to find drug targets for common diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer`s. Drug companies are investing substantial amounts of money into mapping the human genome in the hope that new drug targets will be developed, leading to substantial profits for drug companies. Christian G. Daughton and Thomas A. Ternes wrote, “This explosion in new drugs will severely exacerbate our limited knowledge of drugs in the environment and possibly increase the exposure/effects risks to nontarget organisms.”

Finally, the overprescribing of medication is staggering. In 2003 3.4 billion prescriptions were filled in the US, or 11.7 prescriptions for each of the 290 million people in the country. Many of those patients are given inappropriate drugs. More than 1.5 million people are hospitalized and more than 100,000 die each year from adverse reactions to drugs.

Drugs of questionable effect, that result in death or injury to humans at one end of the scale, later enter the environment where they proceed to contaminate effluent and groundwater throughout the world at the other end. They are then ingested by wildlife for whom they were never intended, and so continue to spread destruction in an ever-widening swath like water ripples on a pond.

Pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession should be held accountable for what they have done.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/029201_Big_Pharma_accountability.html

Elderly Being Poisoned by Cocktail of Prescription Drugs at Hospitals

Friday, April 10th, 2009

An estimated one in seven hospital patients suffer an adverse reaction to a drug they are prescribed there, with many of those reactions caused by drug combination effects, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital Trust, and published in the journal PLoS One.

The researchers observed more than 3,000 patients at 12 hospital wards for a period of six months. They found that taking a larger number of drugs placed patients at a much higher risk of dangerous side effects, and that adverse reactions were most common among the elderly.

A significant predictor of adverse drug reactions in hospitals is the number of medications a patient is taking; each additional drug treatment increases the risk of experiencing an adverse drug reaction,” said researcher Munir Pirmohamed. “This is one of the reasons why elderly people experience a higher incidence of reactions than young people, as they have more health conditions and generally take more medications.”

In more than 80 percent of cases, the drug that caused the adverse reaction was first given to the patient inside the hospital. The most common culprits were anticoagulants (blood thinners), analgesics (painkillers) and diuretics.

Patients who had adverse reactions ended up spending an average of six hours longer in the hospital than those who did not. Reactions ranged from the relatively mild, such as constipation, to more severe effects such as confusion, drug-resistant infection, kidney damage or internal bleeding. Over the course of the study, 14 patients died in part due to adverse drug reactions, and one was killed directly by such a reaction.

There is no easy solution, but we can and have to do better as it is putting a burden on the National Health Service,” Pirmohamed said. “Hospitals should look to improve their monitoring of patients and doctors should also consider in what situations patients are given drugs, how long they are put on them and consider if it is always necessary. It is vital that doctors and patients understand the need to regularly review prescriptions and personally tailor treatment to clinical need.”

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/026026.html

Fast-Track FDA Drug Approvals Leads to Deadly Drugs Entering Market

Monday, January 12th, 2009

Drugs that receive FDA approval right before deadline are more likely to cause serious side effects than those approved with more time to spare, according to a study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

The article is a wake-up call,” said renowned cardiologist Steven Nissen, who was not involved in the study. “It puts the FDA in a very difficult situation when they’re trying to make complex decisions under these very, very tight deadlines. We’ve got to reevaluate now whether that’s good public policy.”

In order to speed up the rate at which new medicines hit the market, Congress has imposed strict deadlines by which the FDA must approve or reject a drug. But critics have charged that this policy encourages the FDA to rush to approve drugs without being sure that they are safe.

The researchers said that over the last few decades, drugs approved just before the deadline were between four and five times as likely to require serious safety warnings or be withdrawn from the market.

Drugs withdrawn from the market included diabetes drug Rezulin, which caused liver problems; cholesterol drug Baycol, which caused muscle damage; painkiller Vioxx, which increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes; and painkiller Bextra, withdrawn for similar reasons. Another drug approved just before deadline was the diabetes drug Avandia, which later had its label revised to warn of severe heart risks.

The researchers also found that a drug was 3.4 times more likely to be approved within two months of the deadline than at any other time in the approval process.

FDA staffers by their own admission feel very much under the gun as these deadlines loom,” said study co-author Jerry Avorn of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “If they’re forced to make decisions prematurely, they may not make the right decisions. That needs to be debated openly.”

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/025272.html

U.S. Ranks Last in Preventable Deaths Due to a Flawed Medical System

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

The Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit foundation that funds research related to improving the U.S. healthcare system, recently reported that 75,000 to 101,000 deaths could have been prevented in the U.S. in 2002. The conclusion is based on the study Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The U.S. currently ranks at the bottom of 19 industrialized countries based on data measured between 2002-2003. According to study data, France ranked first in preventable deaths followed by Japan and Australia.

The Commonwealth Fund reports that “Even the more conservative estimate of 75,000 (preventable) deaths is almost twice the Institute of Medicine’s (lower) estimate of the number of deaths attributable to medical errors in the U.S. each year”.

The abysmal ranking of the U.S. points to “weaknesses in the nation’s health system that requires attention”. In reality, the number of preventable deaths in the U.S. each year is many times more than those reported by this study.

In his book Malignant Medicine, Joel M Kauffman, PhD (Organic Chemistry from MIT) writes that in 2000 the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences issued a report authored by Barbara Stanfield, MD, MPH that found “over-medicalization from excessive testing and treatment, not medical error to blame” for poor international rankings and increasingly poor health of Americans.

According to Dr. Kauffman, the report listed the following statistics for annual preventable deaths:

* 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals

* 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery

* 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals

* 80,000 deaths/year from infections contracted in hospitals

* 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of drugs

That totals 225,000 “premature deaths per year in the U.S.A. from medical care”. These figures are from data analyzed almost 8 years ago.

Since this data was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, pharmaceutical sales have significantly escalated. Pharmacy Times reports that between 2005 and 2006 “total drug sales increased by 8.3% from 2005, to $274.9 billion and prescriptions dispensed grew to 3.7 billion, an increase of 4.6%”.

These numbers are a stark illustration that the potential for “over-medication” is on the rise in the US. And that if this trend continues unchecked, the US rankings for preventable deaths compared to other industrialized nations will inexcusably remain in last place.

Worst of all, these preventable deaths are the deaths of loved ones and our own.

Sources:

About the Commonwealth Fund:
(http://www.commonwealthfund.org/aboutus/)

E.Nolte and C.M.McKee, Measuring the Health of nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis, Health Affairs, Jan/Feb 2008, 27(1):58-71

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Malignant Medicine, p. 278

Stanfield, B., (2000) Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4):483-485

(http://www.pharmacytimes.com/issues/articles/2007-05_4629.asp)

About the author
Teri Lee Gruss, MS Human Nutrition

Doctors Are Clueless About Medication for Kids

Thursday, December 20th, 2007

Information on how to prescribe medications to children is scarce, and doctors often rely on the flawed assumption that children are simply smaller versions of adults when doing so.

In reality, drugs act much differently in children, yet few studies have been conducted to determine their effectiveness, safety and proper dosages.

Federal regulators have enticed or forced pharmaceutical companies to conduct studies on more than 200 drugs geared for children, but more than two-thirds of the medications given to children remain untested. Among those that were tested, it was found that:

  • One-fifth of drugs that work in adults are ineffective in children
  • One-fifth of the drugs were being prescribed at the wrong dosage
  • One-third of the drugs caused unexpected side effects, some of which were potentially fatal


Other alarming factors discovered were that children process drugs more quickly than adults do, and because children are still developing, drugs could stunt physical growth or impair emotional and cognitive development.

Researchers have identified categories of drugs that they say should be a priority for testing. These include drugs to treat cancers, infections, asthma, high blood pressure and hyperactivity, among others.

Hurdles still remain, however. Drug companies are often reluctant to study pediatric drugs because they represent only a small fraction of the market. Further, the drugs must be evaluated in four separate age groups, which makes analyzing data more difficult.

Parents are also wary about letting their children participate in studies for fear that they will be used as guinea pigs.

They don’t want their child to be thought of as a guinea pig or a rat in a study. What I try to explain is that if they are receiving a medication that hasn’t been studied, then they are essentially participating in an experiment anyway,” said Robert M. Ward, director of the pediatric pharmacology program at the University of Utah.


Sources: Washington Post November 23, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Children have long been given “off-label” medications that have never been proven “safe” for their tiny, developing bodies. Some estimates say that as many as 90 percent of babies in neonatal intensive care units are prescribed such drugs, at the expense of three times more side effects.

It’s worth noting that the primary reason why drugmakers have not invested part of their multi-billion-dollar research and development budgets on pediatric drugs is because they represent too small a portion of the market share.

In other words, there is not enough money to be made.

But make no mistake.

Just because a drug has been studied for children does not make it safe. Even drugs that are meant for kids can have horrifying side effects like suicidal tendencies and blindness.

A classic example of the dangers surrounding medications for kids came just recently with children’s over-the-counter cold medicines. These drugs were over prescribed to well-intentioned parents looking to soothe their children, despite the fact that there was very little evidence that they worked. In fact, there was growing evidence that many of these drugs were fraught with side effects.

How Many Drugs Are Your Kids Taking?

The sad reality is that kids in the United States are being vastly overmedicated, both with drugs meant for them and those that have yet to be tested. Consider these sobering facts:

  • Kids may be prescribed addictive protein-pump inhibitors (PPIs) for heartburn. This is simply inexcusable. There is virtually never a medical justification to use these dangerous and untested for safety drugs in children. Avoid them at all costs.
  • Another ridiculous and absolutely unnecessary use of drugs is the American Heart Association’s recommendation for statin cholesterol-lowering drugs for kids.
  • More than three-quarters of surveyed U.S. pediatricians have recommended over-the-counter sleep aids to children, and more than 50 percent have prescribed a sleep aid.
  • Some 1.6 million children and teens take at least two psychiatric drugs, and close to 20 percent of them are under age 10.
  • Two out of three babies receive antibiotics by their first birthday.

Please realize that nearly all of the problems for which kids are given drugs can be resolved using natural methods. For example, one of the most commonly misunderstood reasons why parents rush their children to a doctor is because they have a fever.

Well, a fever is actually a good thing.

High fevers are especially good as they are far better than any immunization at building an authentic, life-long immune response. When you suppress these fevers with Tylenol or another medication, you can cause far more harm than good. (I advise avoiding most all of the anti-fever medications unless your child is absolutely miserable or the fever is over 104 degrees F.) A tepid bath can be a soothing and effective alternative also.

Behavioral problems can also be treated without drugs. Kids with ADHD, for instance, often improve greatly by taking these simple steps:

  • Eliminate grains and sugars from their diet
  • Replace soft drinks, fruit juices and pasteurized milk with pure water
  • Increase their omega-3 fats by giving them krill oil

I would strongly encourage you to do the research before giving your child any medication, and only do so if there is truly no other option (you may need to seek out the opinion of a doctor who is knowledgeable about natural medicine).

If you are still skeptical about the toxic effects drugs have on kids, I urge you to invest some time to watch The Drugging of Our Children, a documentary by Gary Null. It is a powerful testimony to the urgent need for change.

Source: www.mercola.com

Study Reveals 17 Different Pharmaceuticals In Wastewater

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

What happens to medicines after they leave your body? Norwegian researchers have examined the presence of twenty toxic pharmaceuticals in the wastewater coming from two Oslo hospitals. Their stunning conclusion is that seventeen of these toxins were actually present in the wastewater! When they examined the wastewater flowing into the water treatment works (WTWs), they again found twelve pharmaceuticals.

Ok, so there are chemical compounds in our wastewater you might say, that’s why it’s waste. Wrong. Although there are a lot of wastewater treatment works (WTWs) on our planet, a considerable amount of wastewater still flows back into nature. In this case, the pharmaceutically polluted water flows into the Oslo fjord environment. Furthermore, when they examined the purified water coming from the WTWs, the researchers were still able to detect eleven pharmaceuticals in the ‘clean’ water. This is cause for concern about the environment, people, and animals living in these fjords. This scientific study was commissioned by the The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT). The SFT wanted to study the presence of 20 pharmaceuticals in the wastewater during a twelve week period.

Pharmaceutical drugs are polluting our water

When Norwegian researchers examined the wastewater coming from two hospitals (Rikshopitalet and Ulleväl) they were able to detect all of the 20 studied substances, with the exception of three. Then they examined the water just before it entered the purification plant. At this point in the chain, the chemicals were already diluted. Still, the researchers were able to find twelve different substances above detection level. The third phase in this scientific study focused on the quality of purified water. When they checked the water flowing out of the water treatment works, there were still eleven pharmaceutical substances present.

The substances that were present in the highest concentration throughout this research study were paracetamol, iboprufen, diclofenac and metoprolol. After purification, these substances were still detectable in the water (along with seven others). This means that the WTWs are not able to filter out pharmaceutical drugs, on the contrary, they might even be responsible for toxic by-products left in the purified water:

Scientists around the world often find drugs in water samples taken from streams and other waterways, but little is known about by-products of those drugs created during chlorine treatment or time spent in the environment,” said the researchers, headed by NIST chemist Mary Bedner.

In an earlier study done in 2004, researchers from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) examined what happens to chemical pharmaceuticals when they react with chlorine - a disinfectant commonly used in wastewater treatment. One of their conclusions was that paracetamol, which is highly present even in purified water, forms multiple byproducts when combined with chlorine, two of which are highly toxic. When pharmaceutical drugs react with chlorine, they mostly form hydrophobic compounds, which tend to build up in the body. This study agrees with the Norwegian study, that water treatment works cannot fully purify water.

What can we do about it?

There are still large areas that are not covered by water purification plants throughout the globe. In our chemical age, we almost forget that maybe our dishwasher water (or medicated urine) flows into a nearby brook. And even if our waste goes to WTWs, it is not guaranteed that it will be totally detoxified.

Preventing is better than curing

Use natural products whenever you can. Try to avoid buying any products from drug companies. There are lots of natural alternatives available. You can even build a pharmaceutical factory in your back yard and grow your medicine for free!

If everyone starts taking responsibility and stops listening to the drug companies, we might be able to turn the results of the next SFT study drastically around. Saving the earth begins by saving ourselves!

About the author
Dorien Herremans is a commercial engineer (MSc University of Antwerp) and is currently a lecturer at Gesthotel University. She is the founder of raw-vegan.org, a living food network in Europe and runs a raw vegan Bed and Breakfast and retreat center in a 100% natural loghome in the Swiss Alps. For more information about the center or staying in Naturalp, please visite naturalp.org

Source: www.newstarget.com

Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs: What Are Drugmakers Hiding?

Thursday, December 13th, 2007

Nearly two years after a clinical trial of the cholesterol-lowering drugs Zetia and Vytorin was finished, the results have still not been released by the drugs’ makers (Merck and Schering-Plough).

Yet, close to 800,000 prescriptions for the drugs are written each week in the United States, bringing in close to $4 billion for the year.

The companies have responded to cardiologists’ concerns over the lack of safety data for the drugs by promising to publish only a portion of the results in March, a move that critics are calling highly unusual.

Currently, no one knows whether Zetia and Vytorin are as effective as other cholesterol-lowering medications called statins. If they turn out to be less so, patients may be unnecessarily at risk of heart attacks.

Zetia was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2002 because it was found to lower LDL cholesterol by 15 to 20 percent. Vytorin combines Zetia with Merck’s statin drug, Zocor.

Together, the drugs have acquired close to 20 percent of the U.S. market for cholesterol-lowering drugs.

However, because Zetia and Vytorin work differently than standard statin drugs, cardiologists have expressed concerns that they may not protect the cardiovascular system as much as using a statin does.

Drugmakers Changed the Trial’s Endpoint

Along with announcing that they will only be releasing part of the clinical trial’s results, Merck and Schering-Plough said they had changed the trial’s endpoint, or the final result the study was supposed to measure.

Typically, the trial’s endpoint is supposed to remain constant because otherwise the study’s authors could change their goals to conform to the data they received.

The delay in publishing the study’s results raise further questions as to whether the drug industry is improving their disclosure of clinical trials.

Two years ago drugmakers promised to disclose study results publicly, however they face few penalties for failing to do so.


New York Times November 21, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

It is a common trick of the drug cartel to overwhelmingly make public only the positive results to their clinical trials. And if it doesn’t look like you’re going to get any positives, well then you just change what you were looking for (which could easily be the purpose behind Merck and Schering-Plough’s decision to change their trials endpoint).

But the thing that gets me the most riled up is the blatant fact that millions of Americans have been taking these drugs, and paying for the privilege, without any solid evidence whether they’re truly effective (let alone what the real risks are).

The cardiologists referred to in the New York Times article are right to express concern over prescribing drugs that may or may not work. But they missed the boat in comparing these newer cholesterol-lowering drugs to their “gold standard,” the statins. In reality, neither drug is the answer.

PLEASE Understand — Drugs are Not Your Answer to High Cholesterol

It may surprise you to learn that cholesterol is not the major culprit in heart disease or any disease. It may surprise you even more to learn that the guidelines that dictate what number your cholesterol levels should be to keep you “healthy” are fraught with conflict of interest — and have never been proven to be good for you.

It is VERY rare for anyone to need cholesterol-lowering drugs. Among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic challenges that required it. If you or someone you know is taking them, odds are very high, greater than 100 to 1, that you or they don’t need it.

This is true whether the drugs are statins or the newer Zetia and Vytorin.

You should know that among the many dangers of statins drugs is an increased risk of heart disease. This is because patients taking statins become depleted in Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which leads to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness and, ironically, heart failure.

The FDA has had a petition to label statin packages with a warning about statin-induced CoQ10 depletion for years, but nothing has been done about it. Some of the other risks of statin drugs include:

  • Weakness
  • Muscle aches
  • An increase in cancer risk
  • Immune system suppression
  • Serious degenerative muscle tissue condition (rhabdomyolysis)
  • Potential increase in liver enzymes so patients must be monitored for normal liver function

What can you do to protect your heart and keep your cholesterol levels where they naturally should be, without exposing yourself to these outlandish risks?

  • Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your daily diet.
  • Eat the right foods for your nutritional type.
  • Get the right amount of exercise.

For the vast majority of people, it really is as simple as that.

www.mercola.com

Virtually All U.S. Doctors Accept Money, Freebies from Drug Companies

Thursday, October 4th, 2007

Based on four different papers, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the PLoS Medicine, and the Journal of General Internal Medicine, the efforts to curb drug companies’ courting of your doctors is still ineffective.

In fact, the industry is working harder than ever to influence which medicines you are prescribed, by sending out sales representatives with greater frequency, bringing gifts, meals and offering consulting fees to high prescribers.

According to the study published in The New England Journal of Medicine,

  • 94 percent of doctors have some type of relationship with the drug industry
  • 80 percent of doctors commonly accept free food and drug samples
  • One-third of doctors were reimbursed by the drug industry for going to professional meetings or continuing education classes
  • 28 percent of doctors have been paid for consulting, giving lectures, or signing their patients up for clinical trials


Contacts between doctors and sales reps have jumped from an average of 4.4 visits per month in 2000, to an average of:

  • 16 times per month with cardiologists
  • 9-10 times per month with internists
  • 8 times per month with pediatricians
  • 4 times per month with surgeons


The only group appearing to be meeting drug company representatives less often than before is anesthesiologists, who now see reps twice a month.

These sales tactics are working. In the second PLoS Medicine study, visits by drug detailers (sales reps) prompted nearly half of 97 doctors to increase their prescriptions for Gabapentin, an anti-seizure drug. In many cases the reps were advocating the use of Gabapentin for non-approved, so-called “off-label” uses.

The Journal of General Internal Medicine study found that physicians do understand the potential conflicts of interest, but that they still view their meetings with drug reps as both valuable and appropriate. According to the authors of that study, this proves that the voluntary guidelines currently in place are inadequate.

The New England Journal of Medicine April 26, 2007; 356:1742-1750 (Free Full Text Report)

PLoS Medicine April, 2007; 4(4):e150 (Free Full Text Report)

PLoS Medicine April, 2007; 4(4):e134 (Free Full Text Report)

Journal of General Internal Medicine February, 2007; 22(2): 184–190 (Free Full Text Report)

Washington Post April 28, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

If you do not believe your doctor is influenced to change their prescription patterns for personal attention, dinners, gifts, and cold hard cash, think again.

It’s not entirely their fault though, because drug company sales reps are highly trained in using very refined and specific psychological warfare techniques on your doctor. In many cases, they may not even realize they are being bamboozled.

Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion – which is why it works so well.

According to the in-depth report published in The New England Journal of Medicine, co-written by a former Eli Lilly drug rep, Shahram Ahari, and Adriane Fugh-Berman, an associate professor of physiology and biophysics, pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world.

It’s a fascinating read. I have supplied a link to the full text report above, so you can find out for yourself just how meticulously trained these drug reps are to spot the “in’s” and weaknesses of every client.

Remember, pharmaceutical companies spend more than $20 billion each year promoting prescription drugs in the United States.

These campaigns are designed to effectively alter prescribing behavior, in order to sell more of the high-profit drugs, as opposed to the most effective, and least dangerous.

In the end, you are the one paying the price twice, by emptying out your wallet, and endangering your health with drugs you probably don’t—and never did—need in the first place.

But it doesn’t end there. In recent years, the additional practice of script tracking has gained momentum as well. Health information organizations, like IMS Health, Dendrite, Verispan, and Wolters Kluwer, buy pharmacy prescription records and resell them. This is how drug companies keep tabs on the return on their bribes, as it tells them the prescription rate of each individual doctor.

This information also reveals how many of a doctor’s patients receive specific drugs, how many competing drugs are prescribed compared with the target drug, and how the physicians prescribing habits change over time. It tells them if a drug is “in favor” or not, and gives them the tools to cook up a winning strategy for future manipulations.

Between 1990 and 2004, spending for prescription drugs increased five times, to a whopping $188.5 Billion, and drug reps increased from 38,000 to 100,000 strong. That’s a ratio of one drug rep for every 2.5 physicians targeted for “detailing.” Talk about having a personal “Big Brother.”

The idea that reps provide some kind of valuable, informative service to physicians is total fiction, created and perpetuated by the drug industry, to keep this deadly, but profitable, scheme going.

www.mercola.com

FDA seeks to bypass doctors with behind-the-counter drug sales via pharmacists

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

In a bold move designed to sell even more prescription drugs, the FDA has announced its intention to bypass doctors and allow pharmacists to prescribe certain drugs directly to consumers. The move would subject patients to prescription-strength pharmaceuticals even though they have not been examined, diagnosed with any condition or given any kind of non-drug treatment plan by the person prescribing the drugs. It is a “drugs only” approach that moves the U.S. medical system one step closer to what I call “drive-by medicine.”

The FDA is justifying this move by explaining that pharmacists have the training and knowledge to provide “interventions” to patients. As the FDA stated in a Federal Registry notice: “Some groups have asserted that pharmacist interaction with the consumer could ensure safe and effective use of a drug product that otherwise might require a prescription. Because pharmacists have the training and knowledge to provide certain interventions, they may be able to ensure that patients meet the conditions for use and educate patients on appropriate use of the drug product.”

What the FDA is not stating, however, is that pharmacists are remarkably ignorant about nutrition and disease prevention, and they receive absolutely no training on how to teach patients to be healthy without using pharmaceuticals. The entire training curriculum of a pharmacist is, of course, centered on treating symptoms with drugs. They’re very good at what they’ve studied, and most pharmacists are quite intelligent and capable in their particular field. But no pharmacist is required to learn anything substantial about nutrition, superfoods, exercise, medicinal herbs, sunlight therapy, homeopathy or other safer, more natural modalities for preventing and reversing disease.

As a result, pharmacists are one-trick ponies: For every health symptom observed, they see drugs as the primary treatment option. If you only carry a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you only know drugs, every health concern looks like it needs a pharmaceutical.

Drug Vending Machine

What the drug companies really want: A pharmaceutical vending machine!

The FDA has, for many years, functioned as the marketing branch of Big Pharma. And that explains this latest move: It’s a blatant attempt to bypass doctors, allowing drug companies to sell more products directly to consumers without the possibility of being discouraged by an intelligent gatekeeper (the physician).

The drug companies, you see, would prefer that the medical system worked like this:

  1. Patients are educated about disease through television advertisements. (They tell you what’s wrong with you! Please don’t confuse this form of “education” with “marketing propaganda.” The drug companies say their ads are merely educational in nature…)
  2. Patients self-diagnose their own symptoms based on what they learned in the television ads.
  3. Patients purchase drugs by name by asking their pharmacist for whatever they think they need. No doctor required. No medical exam necessary.
  4. Patients self-medicate by taking the drugs they purchased from the pharmacy. When they run out, they purchase more.

This is the system that Big Pharma would prefer to see. It would dramatically boost drug sales while eliminating the need to spend so much money bribing and influencing doctors.

When it comes right down to it, what the drug companies really want is a pharmaceutical vending machine. Insert your life savings (or a credit card with a huge credit limit), press the button for your “disease” or condition, and it dispenses drugs along with FDA black box warnings that are ignored by everyone. Through this vending machine concept, drug companies could actually bypass both doctors and pharmacists, distributing pharmaceuticals directly to patients who have been motivated to purchase them by watching highly deceptive drug advertisements.

It’s a brilliant way to greatly expand the sales of pharmaceuticals, regardless of who gets hurt in the process. But as readers of this website already know, Big Pharma has no regard whatsoever for who gets hurt as long as more drugs are sold.

What will the AMA do?

Interestingly, this move by the FDA actually pits the AMA (American Medical Association, which represents the interests of doctors) against the Food and Drug Administration. The AMA, not surprisingly, wants to keep doctors in the loop on all this, making sure doctors are the gatekeepers who decide which drugs get prescribed to which patients. Big Pharma and the FDA, on the other hand, want to bypass doctors, allowing patients to buy all the pharmaceuticals they want without needing to talk to a doctor.

This is partly why the FDA is pushing so hard to approve so many prescription drugs as over-the-counter drugs. This bypasses doctors and allows drug companies to sell prescription chemicals directly to consumers. (There’s a plan at the FDA right now to convert up to fifty percent of all prescription drugs to over-the-counter drugs in the next few years!)

A clever way to get there is to shift some drugs to “behind-the-counter” status first, meaning they are essentially prescribed by a pharmacist. Once the industry becomes comfortable with that, the FDA can shift those same drugs to over-the-counter status, bypassing both doctors and pharmacists. It’s a two-step plan designed to ease drugs into an over-the-counter status.

The AMA, of course, is likely to fight this move, arguing that doctors play an important role in knowing which drugs can be safely prescribed to which patients. Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that virtually all conventional M.D.s are easily influenced to prescribe whatever brand-name pharmaceuticals the drug companies want them to prescribe, I happen to agree with the AMA’s stance that doctors should remain the gatekeepers here. Although I strongly disagree with the current training of doctors (which still teaches virtually nothing about nutrition or disease prevention), I do agree that doctors are the ones qualified to prescribe these drugs and monitor their safety in a patient. Pharmacists have lots of technical knowledge about physiology, biochemistry and chemical interactions, but they are not doctors, and they do not have the diagnostic training that doctors receive.

All this could put the AMA in a political fight with the FDA. Until now, the AMA and FDA have been allies, mostly because they both support Big Pharma. But with the FDA trying to take over more turf and essentially attempting to force physicians out of the loop when it comes to prescribing drugs, we could see the AMA actually standing up and arguing that pharmaceuticals are too dangerous to allow direct sales to patients. This would be a hilarious position, of course, given how strongly the AMA has defended prescription drugs in the past.

Turf wars among rival mobs

These are all just turf wars, folks. It’s like watching two crooks fight over who gets to mug a little old lady first. Both the AMA and FDA, in my opinion, are extremely harmful, dishonest and unethical organizations who only seek to enhance their own power and control, regardless of who is harmed in the process. The FDA / Big Pharma gang, as I’ve stated many times, is operated much like an organized crime ring. (Where is the RICO Act when you really need it?)

Both the AMA and FDA are still primarily drug pushers, and neither one is willing to admit that medicinal herbs, superfoods or nutritional therapies have any ability to treat or cure any disease whatsoever. These groups are so stuck in the outdated mindset of drugs that they cannot see just how quickly they are both becoming obsolete.

The future of medicine is about using plants, sunlight, homeopathy, superfoods, living foods, mind-body medicine and other modalities that virtually no one in the conventional medical industry is willing to acknowledge. Even today, most pharmaceuticals are only used by low-IQ consumers who simply don’t know any better. Those people who are educated and intelligent are increasingly ditching their medicines and shifting to natural foods, herbs, nutritional supplements and natural therapies to prevent disease and enhance health.

Drug companies can bypass doctors and pharmacists in whatever way they want. They can even set up Rx vending machines with voice interaction that claims to offer a “virtual pharmacist” to prescribe drugs! But in the end, the only people stupid enough to actually use these machines will be the same people who frequent soda pop and junk food vending machines right now: The ignorant, easily-controlled segment of the population that still somehow believes drugs are good for them and that the FDA is looking out for their best interests.

www.newstarget.com

Absurd Vaccine Marketing — Cervical Cancer Vaccinations for Boys

Tuesday, September 18th, 2007

School-age boys are now being advised to get vaccinated with Gardasil, Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine, according to mainstream media reports. Previously, the vaccine was only recommended for girls.

The new male recommendation is based on the notion that boys could get throat cancer if they have oral sex with an HPV-infected girl.

According to some, however, recommending Gardasil to boys is little more than a scare campaign aimed at gaining market share from teenage boys.

Even the advice to give mandatory Gardasil vaccinations to young girls is simply disease mongering designed to sell vaccines. This is because girls who have HPV do not automatically get cervical cancer.

Girls who have healthy immune systems, and who lead healthy lifestyles, have little risk of developing cervical cancer from HPV. It is only girls who have compromised immune systems that may be vulnerable.

Medicine Net May 18, 2007

Dr. Mercola Comments

This could be a new low for the pharmaceutical companies, recommending a vaccine for boys that’s designed for a body part they do not have. It is my belief that this is an obvious and reprehensible attempt to sell more of their ineffective and potentially dangerous Gardasil vaccine.

After all, if Merck pulls this off, they will have doubled Gardasil’s target market, with a corresponding doubling of their profits as well.

Let’s face it. The topic of cancer can be a highly emotionally charged event with potentially devastating consequences. Drug companies are EXPERTS in understanding how to manipulate these negative emotions to their advantage. They employ some of the most effective marketers on the planet and know full well how to maximize these fears to their advantage.

This is an important decision, and if you have not carefully studied it, and are responsible for making the decision for yourself or for your children, then I would implore you to spend serious time CAREFULLY analyzing both sides of the argument. A wrong decision could have absolutely devastating consequences for you and your children.

You can use the links on my Favorites Page to start your journey.

Once you carefully study the evidence you will understand that the boys who receive the proposed Gardasil vaccine will begin to experience side effects, just as their female peers did.

Fear Drives Profits Up

Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the drug company’s marketing campaign is such that the majority of the public will believe this new campaign on how to “protect” their children using the Gardasil vaccine. Fortunately, you will know better.

This is the same old story as fear is typically the the driving force used to sell vaccines and other medications, as you can see by the links below.

Cancer is Not Caused by a “Vaccine Deficiency”

You may be wondering about the real cause of cancer, and for that matter any and all disease. Please realize that in no way, shape, or form is it related to a vaccine or drug deficiency. Nor is it caused by some random event that is waiting in the wings to strike you down.

I had previously believed that in the majority of cases, what “causes” cancer and illness is a breakdown in your system due to an unhealthy lifestyle and exposure to toxins in your environment. Now I am convinced that unresolved emotional trauma is the primary factor in most cancers, and the best approach to understanding this is German New Medicine.

While unresolved emotional trauma is likely the primary cause of cancer, you can influence your exposure to this by modifying traditional risk factors.

How?

With these 12 lifestyle changes that will cut your cancer risk in half.

Getting back to the topic of Gardasil, I’d urge each and every one of you to do your homework before deciding whether or not to vaccinate your son or daughter. If you do the research and decide this or another vaccination is NOT for you, you do have the legal right to refuse it.

www.mercola.com