The Importance of Accuracy in Health Reporting

Over the years I have been in the health professions I have noticed real change in the way health information is reported.  This applies to medical journals, TV and other broadcast media, newspapers, and other venues.

Now too we have now the on-line purveyors of what lay people turned health expert believe to be factual.

I think it has become pretty difficult to wade your way through all that is out there in the info universe to make some sense of it all for your health and that of those for whom you care.

Even though one site I favor is focused on mainstream health, I continue to learn more about the issues that have been important to me for decades from his sites: Integrity and truth in coverage.

Recently this was the focus of some very good information -

SHOULD YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR OR READ ABOUT HEALTH CARE? 

Related articles:

U.S. Scientists Top Research-Fraud List

How indistinguishable...are the political figures and the journalists

Read more »

Posted in: ethics,Health News Review,integrity in reporting,natural health news,truth in reporting

FDA and Avandia: Ethics Lacking

FDA-Sanctioned International Diabetes Drug Trial Is Unethical and Dangerous
“Surely no patient would willingly participate in a trial in which they have a substantial likelihood of taking a drug that, in the opinion of a large group of experts, has no role in present day therapeutics because of its risks,” Wolfe said. “The trial shouldn’t continue because the question has been answered. If the trial continues, the health of thousands of patients will be jeopardized. It is unethical to continue this trial. As unethical as it is in developed countries such as the U.S. and Canada, it is even more unconscionable to subject people in developing countries such as Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Latvia, Pakistan and India to a drug known to be more dangerous than the drugs it is being compared to.” 
Complete areticle

Read more »

Posted in: Avandia,ethics,FDA

Ethics and SEO Schemes: An editorial comment

It never ceases to amaze me just how gullible people are, especially when it comes to having the wool pulled over their heads.  Its one such operation that gets its way by copying the work of others, back-linking its array of 500+ websites to each other to make you believe they are on top of the heap when it comes to health information.

What's even worse is there is NO transparency.

I guess you have to be the judge as to whether or not this is what you wish to support.

As for me I certainly support free speech but I cannot condone any one who has, for now over five years, copied a lot of my work and failed to credit it properly.  And as I have heard from many, many others, I am not alone.

In addition this operation guru has attacked me in an effort to proffer from my work, yet made no effort to contact me.  He chooses only those where he sees he can gain from getting to their works as well.

Just some guy from Missouri, Montana, Arizona, Taiwan, or elsewhere ? Might it be Villacamba Mike?  Perhaps is it Memorex, or just a copy production center pushing out high cost low quality publications with no new original material?

Cut and Paste can do wonders....
------------------------------------------------

A comment received in regard to this opinion -

"Plagiarism is the dominant game now. Theft is considered perfectly 'moral' and the stealing of other peoples' honest research is the norm. People like Gayle, who have spent a lifetime of back-breaking work serving human kind, must be disgusted beyond measure to see hucksters and internet health 'celebs' posting her material as their own. 'Attribution' is a four-letter word for them. The internet is loaded with frauds and the average reader is essentially helpless in their hands. Here is a good piece to consider which relates to this issue...in terms of fear-mongering and messianic egomaniacs. http://rense.com/general88/talk.htm"

Read more »

Posted in: ethics,Mike Adams,natural health news,natural news

Vioxx maker Merck drew up hit list

This representation of corporate culture is just one reason why US healthcare costs are so high. It has nothing to do with helping people be healthy and well, its all about the product at what ever the price.

Interestingly enough a Merck detail rep in Anchorage is know to me to have engaged in a similar deceptive practice while making willful false statements about some help I provided him.

I guess Merck seeks out the unethical and dishonest to fill the ranks of their employees, they'll do what ever it takes to keep their job, or harm someone else, when they know they are lying.

When I think how degraded the health industry has become at the expense of people, I still fondly recall our neighbor from childhood, one of the top MSD executives.

Milanda Rout | April 01, 2009
Article from: The Australian
An international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be "neutralised" or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.

Staff at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of doctors - mainly researchers and academics - who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.

IN-DEPTH COVERAGE: The Vioxx Trial

The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.

It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.

"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.

Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians, who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx.

The drug was launched in 1999 and at its height of popularity was used by 80 million people worldwide because it did not cause stomach problems as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs.

It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2004 after concerns were raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes and a clinical trial testing these potential side affects was aborted for safety reasons.

Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, 58, claims the drug caused him to have a heart attack in 2003 after he took it for back pain and arthritis every day from May 2001.

Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion ($7.14 billion) but made no admission of guilt.

The company is fighting the class action in Australia.

The Federal Court was told yesterday that Merck wanted to gain the backing of researchers and doctors - or "opinion leaders" - in the fields of arthritis to help promote the drug to medical professionals when it was launched in 1999.

Mr Burnside said internal emails in April 1999 from Merck staff showed the company was not happy with what some researchers and doctors were saying about the drug.

"It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders ... if (they) say things you don't like to hear, you have to neutralise them," he said. "It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you."

The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

"Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.

"This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators ... I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues."

Mr Burnside told the court Dr Fries went on to describe instances of intimidation, including one colleague who thought his academic appointment had been jeopardised and another who received phone calls alleging "anti-Merck" bias.

Dr Fries said in the letter that Merck had been systematically playing down the side effects of Vioxx and said the company's behaviour "seriously impinges on academic freedom". The court was also told a rheumatologist on Merck's Australian arthritis advisory board was angry he did not find out about Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx until an ABC journalist rang to tell him. Mr Burnside said James Bertouch wrote to other members of the board saying he was "extremely disillusioned" with the company.

"In every possible way the company exerted itself to present the impression to the world at large that Vioxx did not provide any increased cardio risk ... when (a) it probably would and (b) it probably did," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.

Peter Garling, acting for Merck, accused Mr Peterson of not taking the drug Vioxx in the months leading up to his heart attack in December 2003.

He said Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme figures showed he did not fill a Vioxx prescription for the drug in the two months before his heart attack.

Mr Garling put to Mr Peterson during his cross-examination that this was because he had retired from his job as a safety consultant and therefore he did not need to take Vioxx because his back pain lessened.

Mr Peterson denied this meant he was not taking the drug.

"No, I wouldn't accept that at all," he said. "I can remember taking Vioxx regularly."

The trial, before Justice Chris Jessop, continues.

Further reading on Corporations -

When I was first in college in the 60s, the popular book to read was "The Organization Man", now it seems that this is a replacement.
Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy by Ted Nace

"A good book to read is called: "The Gangs of America"; which chronicles how with about one dozen supreme court cases (because the northeastern railroads payed off congress to pack the Supreme Court with pro corporate constitutional personhood rights justices) that have given corporations with the "myth" of constitutional personhood....the second american revolution's central causes are twofold: the first being the federal reserve controlling our politics; business and quality of life through inflation and deflation and control of the issuance of money.....the second cause will be the corporate oligarchy and the mythic "rights" that have been fraudulently bestowed on the corporate entity in our nation beginning in the 1870's....if you don't believe me; purchase and read the book that I mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph....and make up your own mind....if we all work together we can get back to a nation where most of the American population is self employed; or work for small locally owned businesses; a nation where we are once again self reliant; and we can in this nation place the corporate charter model and the anti democratic and anti republican tendencies of it into the dust bin of history forever...."

Read more »

Posted in: ethics,Greg Sipe,Merck,natural health news,VIOXX

Texas Doctor Files Against Big Insurance

More power to another Mad As Hell Doctor and his effort to stop Big Insurance methods that destroy medical care for profit.

Texas Doctor Files Case Pro Se in U.S. Supreme Court Against Insurance Giant on Integrity and Unethical Practices

DALLAS, Texas, Sept. 24 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) -- Dr. Dralves Edwards, a board-certified family physician in Dallas today filed a civil case in the U.S. Supreme Court against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, the contractor for Medicare. For the past 13 years, Edwards has challenged the integrity and unethical practices of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) and is confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in a responsible way that every Medicare provider and patient benefits.

In 2003, the original suit was filed in Dallas district court alleging that BCBS engaged in fraud, gross negligence, and criminal acts that, according to Edwards, forced him to close his doors. Today, he works as a hospital emergency room physician.

BCBS responded to the suit by removing it to federal court, but the case was remanded back to district court. BCBS then filed a "No Evidence" Motion for Summary Judgment that was granted sovereign immunity by the lower courts.

Edwards acknowledges that lower court decisions have historically disagreed with well established U.S. Supreme Court cases (i.e., Ardary vs. Aetna; Heckler vs. Ringer; and Kelly vs. Advantage Health, Rochester vs. Travelers).

In 1997, Edwards says BCBS caused irreparable harm to his thriving practice and marred his professional name when he was placed on a 100 percent prepayment review. For three consecutive years, 96 percent of his claims were denied; his practice was 90 percent Medicare.

"I provided free transportation and made house calls that saved Medicare millions of dollars," reports Edwards. "These were patients who probably would have ended up in the emergency room."

In October 1996, Edwards was featured in USA Today as, "One of the few doctors in America making house calls."

BCBS denied most of Edwards' claims as "non-covered services and not reasonable and medically necessary."

Medical conditions like breast cancer, diabetes, and decubitus ulcers were denied. However, after the course of five years, claims were appealed through Medicare's administrative process and paid.

"Something was terribly wrong," Edwards says. "Other doctors were being paid by BCBS for these same medical conditions, but payment continued to be denied to me."

Edwards alleges that, "BCBS was tested for profiling and got caught."

He explains what happened. One doctor employed by him applied for a new Medicare group number. Dr. Edwards' name was deliberately left off of the original application. The group number was granted, 300 claims were submitted, and BCBS paid 98 percent of them. A month later, Edwards' name was added, 300 claims were submitted and all were denied.

BCBS told Edwards he had a documentation problem. However, after meeting with a Medicare representative to review the denied claims, no problems were discovered. It was recommended that he sign his progress notes and resubmit the claims for payment. He did and they were still denied as "non-covered services and not reasonable and medically necessary."

Edwards then obtained the list of 100 doctors on the prepayment review list for 1997 through 1998. He contacted most all of these doctors and discovered that they knew nothing about a "prepayment review."

"This evidence was highlighted in the suit, but ignored by the courts," says Edwards.

It was becoming apparent that some unethical practices were in play.

To date, this 13-year ordeal has led to thousands of dollars spent; countless hours; a five-year administrative process; five summary-judgment hearings; numerous investigations; nine attorneys; 19 judges; a 100 percent prepayment review; and protectionism from the lower courts.

"Justice for the innocent has not been served," Edwards says. "The guilty remain in business. Right now, it rests in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court."

To view the video: "D.G. Edwards vs. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas," visit YouTube: www.youtube.com/sevlard or follow on Twitter at: twitter.com/sevlard.

Media Contact: Dr. D. G. Edwards
+1-214-215-4425
Dralves51@msn.com

NEWS SOURCE: Dr. Dralves Edwards

Send2Press® is the originating wire service for this story.

PRESS RELEASE PERMALINK: http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2009-09-0924-001.shtml

For more information about this news release, contact Dr. Dralves Edwards directly through their Web site found in the above press release, and NOT Send2Press.

Read more »

Posted in: Dr. D. G. Edwards. Send2Press,ethics,natural health news,Texas Blue Cross Blue Shield

Real Age? Real Cagey...

Oprah's doctors, Oz and Roizen, are linked to RealAge, an on-line actuarial questionnaire that evaluates your lifestyle to give you an age that reflects how healthy your choices are. You may end up older or younger than your chronological age as a result of their quiz.

I took it once when they first published it and came out about 20 years younger than my chronological age.

Then along came one of their daily facts I disagreed with, and so did the science.

Do you think they would correct the error of their ways? No way, Jose!

Now it appears - according to some data dug up by Public Citizen, that the folks who bring you the RealAge questionnaire also sell your info and email to pharmaceutical companies.

Website Collects Medical Data and Uses That Data for Drug Company Solicitations

Online Age Quiz Is a Window for Drug Makers

A word to the wise: You'd better skip this test.

Read more »

Posted in: 2009,Dr. Oz,Dr. Roizen,ethics,natural health news,Oprah,privacy,Public Citizen,RealAge sells your data to Big Pharma

Doctors: Disclose Off-label Prescribing To Patients

There exists a culture today in mainstream medicine, and sadly in the hybrid called naturopathic medicine, to treat patients like objects. Failing to explain medications or treatments is one of the missing links and a basic but forgotten ethic of health care practice.

There are just too many people who have not understanding of why they are given a drug for a symptom or what the drug or treatment might do or the adverse effects.

Arrogance fails to heal: Here take this drug, maybe it will make you sicker or kill you, but we're not telling.

Roulette anyone?

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2008) — Doctors should be required to disclose when they are prescribing drugs off-label, argues a new article in this week's PLoS Medicine. Michael Wilkes and Margaret Johns from the University of California Davis argue that the ethics related to informed consent and shared decision-making provide an imperative for doctors to inform patients about the risks of a medical treatment when their use has not been approved by regulators.

Off-label prescriptions are those that do not comply with the use approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the drug. While off-label prescribing is legal and accounts for roughly half of all prescriptions currently written in the US, it is often not supported by sound scientific evidence. Worse, say the authors, off-label prescribing can put patients at risk and drive up healthcare costs.

The public often assumes that all common uses of prescription drugs have been approved by the FDA, say the authors. But current law does not prevent doctors from prescribing a drug to any patient for any use whether it was approved for this use or not.

And while off-label prescribing is common and sometimes necessary (as in the area of paediatrics where many drugs have not been tested on children), Wilkes and Johns argue that off-label prescribing can also pose potentially serious risks. By definition no governmental body has conducted a review of the effectiveness or safety of the drug for the off-label use, they say. As a result, an off-label prescription may be ineffective or detrimental, and could be more costly than existing drugs.

Wilkes and Johns argue that the strict requirement that doctors obtain informed consent from patients before enrolling in a research study means they should obtain the same consent when a drug is being prescribed off-label as each such prescription is just like a mini research study. The contemporary expectation for shared decision-making between doctors and patients also supports full disclosure about off-label prescribing, leaving the option open for patients to opt for a drug which has received FDA approval for the condition in question.

"From an ethical perspective," say Wilkes and Johns, "[what is required is] open, honest discussions where doctors tell their patients that the use of the drug will be off-label and thus not approved for this indication, explain the risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and then ask patients for their permission to proceed."

A recent PLoS Medicine paper (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050210) described techniques by which drug companies covertly promote off-label use. Adriane Fugh-Berman (Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC) and Douglas Melnick (a preventive medicine physician working in North Hollywood, California) discussed the use of "decoy indications" and drug representatives to engage in illegal pharmaceutical marketing. Pharmaceutical marketing, they say, has "distorted the discourse on off-label uses and encouraged the unmonitored, potentially dangerous use of drugs by patients for whom risks and benefits are unknown."

"Companies that engage in off-label promotion should be heavily fined and their future marketing practices subject to increased scrutiny by regulatory agencies," say Fugh-Berman and Melnick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081110223328.htm

Journal reference: Wilkes M, Johns M. Informed consent and shared decision-making: A requirement to disclose to patients off-label prescriptions. PLoS Med, 5(11): e223

Public Library of Science (2008, November 11). Doctors Should Disclose Off-label Prescribing To Their Patients, Experts Argue. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com? /releases/2008/11/081110223328.htm

Read more »

Posted in: ethics,health news,informed consent,natural health news,natural news,off-label prescribing