BMJ Fails to Disclose Money Link to Vaccine Manufacturers

Considering we are experiencing another wave of pertussis in places where the vaccine was greatly utilized, just as we face more flu cases in vaccinated people, one rally has to see beyond the dogma of a failed paradigm.

The money wasted on vaccine programs can be better spent on improving access to health promoting foods that support your immune system and help you stay free from disease.  This is a well known public health dictate: host health status as a barrier to disease.

Alliance for Human Research Protection

A Catalyst for Debate

www.ahrp.org

The editor in chief of the BMJ acknowledges that AHRP was right to criticize the BMJ and its editor for failing to disclose to its readership, the BMJ financial ties to Merck--manufacturer of 13 vaccines. She also acknowledges income from GSK--manufacturer of several vaccines as well. 

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335/reply#bmj_el_251470 

"Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to Vera Hassner Sharav's comment, [1] which for those of you who haven't seen it is reproduced below.

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/766/9/  

Although Vera's claims may seem far-fetched on this occasion, she is right that we should have declared the BMJ Group's income from Merck as a competing interest to the editorial (and the two editor's choice articles) that accompanied Brian Deer's series on the Secrets of the MMR scare.[2] [3] [4] We should also, as you say, have declared the group's income from GSK as a competing interest in relation to these articles. We will publish clarifications." 

However, her statement, "We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so " is startling. How seriously are we to take her strongly articulated stance against researchers who fail to disclose their financial conflicts of interest--if she doesn't recognize her journal's blatant conflict of interest?

Either she is being disingenuous or downright cynical about the BMJs declared stand against financial conflicts of interest that are undermining the integrity of medical research reports, and its own clandestine partnerships with industry.

Let's be clear: financial conflicts of interest ALWAYS influence the position one defends-- human nature is no different between politicians whose campaign chests are filled by vested interests, government officials, or academics who have grown dependent on financial support from special interests. Each delivers the service for which he /she is paid.

Read more »

Posted in: BMJ,first natural health news,first natural news,GSK,independent health news,Merck,vaccines

An Interesting Take on How You Can Trust the FDA

Most who know me know that I have worked in mental health and psych for many years, albeit, mainly with a keen interest in natural mental health.

I believe nutrition has a very important role in health, physical and mental.  However, with the furor over S510 it does concern me that good, sound nutrition won't be part of the landscape.

And as you can see here in the following three articles, leaving it to the FDA leads us down a very slippery slope.

Looks like more and more no one in Congress or government is doing too much of a good job for the electorate these days.

And outside the issue of risky antidepressant drugs, FDA allows so many more that we have alerted our readers to their dangers for many, many years... 

The antidepressant reboxetine: A headdesk moment in science

By SciCurious Nov 30, 2010 08:44 AM 

Every so often there comes a truly "headdesk" moment in science. A moment where you sit there, stunned by a new finding, and thinking, blankly..."ok, now what?"
For psychiatry and behavioral pharmacology, one of those moments came a few weeks ago with the findings of a meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal (Eyding et al., 2010). The meta-analysis showed that an antidepressant, reboxetine (marketed by Pfizer in Europe, but not in the US, under the names Edronax, Norebox, Prolift, Solvex, Davedax or Vestra) doesn’t work. Not only does it not work, it REALLY doesn’t work, and it turns out that Pfizer hadn’t published data on the putative antidepressant from 74% of their patients. Some people have reported that the study found that reboxetine was even "possibly harmful," but that’s not quite true. What the study DID find is that reboxetine produced more side effects (noted as "adverse events") than placebo (as might be expected), but with no positive effects at all. While many antidepressants on the market today are not great, most are effective in around 60% of patients, reboxetine turns out to be even worse than that.
SOURCE and complete article

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next two reports come from the Alliance for Human Research Protection news feed, www.ahrp.org

A letter of complaint by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) was sent to the director of the National Institutes of Health, documenting $66.8 million in NIH grants over the last five years awarded to a handful of psychiatrists who used ghostwriters for scientific publications. 

The instances in the letter involve ghostwriting by only one company--Scientific Therapeutics Information-- and involve only one drug--GlaxoSmithkline's antidepressant, Paxil.

Duff Wilson of The New York Times reports that previously sealed GlaxoSmithKline documents reveal that a textbook in psychiatry, whose listed authors are  Charles Nemeroff, MD and Alan Schatzberg, MD, was actually ghostwritten by Sally Laden of STI. GSK paid the ghostwriter and the "authors" who penned their names to the book.

The sheer audacity prompted former FDA commissioner, Dr. David Kessler to exclaim: "To ghostwrite an entire textbook is a new level of chutzpah. "I've never heard of that before. It takes your breath away."  Surely that is a
dubious distinction in academic medicine!

and

On November 23, 2010, Terry Vermillion, Director of FDA's Office of Criminal Investigation announced his  retirement next month amid a brewing scandal involving corrupt practices.

The announcement came after complaints by Republicans in Congress who raised concern about his misdirection of the Office's resources: instead of pursuing drug companies and researchers who commit crimes when seeking FDA approval for drugs, OCI pursued drug-abuse cases--which are the purview of the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The issue came to a head when Senator Chuck Grassley sent a complaint to the Acting Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office (GAO) about a "less than stellar" GAO investigative report which whitewashed misconduct at OCI. 

The investigation and the report were compromised by a GAO mole who tipped off someone at the Office of Criminal Investigations.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/grassleyletter.pdf   

Read more »

Posted in: Alliance for Human Research Protection,Big PhRMA,FDA,GSK,OIG,Pfizer

TV Drug Ads, Celebrities and FDA Propaganda

UPDATE: May 27, 2010 - FDA Adds Liver Injury Warning to Diet Drug

WASHINGTON -- The weight-loss medication orlistat, marketed both by prescription as Xenical (120 mg) and over-the-counter as Alli (60 mg), will carry a warning about the potential for severe liver injury, the FDA announced ... full story http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/tb/20310

UPDATE: August 25 - FDA probes liver damage with weight loss pill alli
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted 2/13/09
As we shall see over comings months the stimulus package is not going to be all you think it is because of smoke, mirrors and an ever expanding bureaucracy.

Not too far removed from the stimulus issue is how TV ads for drugs push up profits for Big Pharma.

One example of just how thick as thieves things are between drug companies and their PR programs is a recent story about how Wyeth promoted risky HRT through a media program aimed at increasing prescription writing for their well know hormone product just as they moved to be bought out by Pfizer.

Now, as if this $12 million isn't enough of a tax write off for the drug industry, GSK is leading us all down the pike to fairy land with its ad featuring Wynonna for its over-the-counter weight loss drug 'alli'.

During the commercial featuring Wynonna, whom we all know has had some serious weight problems, is shown serving herself some vegetables during a family meal. Then the camera moves to a tight head shot where we learn that she could not erccomend anything that sin't safe but she is gald that alli is FDA approved.

These days FDA approval and a quarter don't get you a cup of coffee.

And here is probably a fairly reliable take on what the glossy ad that cost plenty of money alone, not including air time fees, might be what GSK doesn't want you to know.

Alli Weight Loss Pill: Expectations Vs. Reality
January 02, 2008 by Big Momma
It's the time of year when our thoughts focus on shedding a few pounds. We are inundated with commercial advertisements promoting the best, easiest or fastest way to lose weight.

Alli is the newest over the counter weight loss pill that promises hope to the masses by blocking fat absorption in the body. Alli is FDA approved, is not absorbed into your body and works only in the digestive track.

My first red flag regarding Alli was the product statement that Alli is to be used together with a reduced calorie diet to promote weight loss. A reduced calorie diet by itself will promote weight loss, but let's see the results that one Alli user has had.

An acquaintance of mine has been using Alli for several months, her expectations from the Alli pills were to help her jump start a weight loss program that she could stick with and ultimately help her reach her goal weight.

The Alli usage pamphlet warns users of 'treatment effects', which include greasy/oily leakage in undergarments, gas with discharge, change in stool color and/or fatty deposits in stools, inability to control bowel movements, stomach pain, rectal pain, teeth/gum problems or flu like symptoms. Alli users are advised to wear dark clothing and pads to protect against the leakage.

This is the reality she got from using Alli: Large amounts of uncontrollable leakage of a greasy substance that permanently stained her clothing. Dark clothing and pads could not contain or hide the leakage most of the time. She had a significant increase in gas and odor, with gas bubbles being expelled along with the greasy substance. She had no control over this.

Abdominal cramping became a part of her daily life, she likened the feeling to a gall stone attack. She felt tired all the time, even though she was taking the additional vitamins that are recommended by Alli. She also experienced hair loss while taking Alli.

After using Alli for six months, she had lost a total of 15 pounds. Yes, 15 pounds.

Another 'treatment effect' of Alli is that even after you stop taking it, you experience the greasy leakage and abdominal pains for up to two months, until the product works it's way completely out ofyour system.

A new wardrobe is eagerly anticipated at the end of a diet, but having to buy new clothing during the diet due to your body leaking grease, is altogether different.

Six months and 15 pounds later, the expectations from the weight loss pill Alli and the reality of it did not even come close.

NB: Natural Health News posted this information in 2008.  It took Mike Adams another 2 years to inform you, yet his backers are continually continually monitoring this website, now for 6 years, to get their story ideas. 1 June,10.

Read more »

Posted in: alli,consumer health,drug ads on TV,FDA,GSK,natural health news,Pfizer,Wyeth