Bone-Strengthening Drug Linked to Fractures
March 15, 2010
ABC News
BY CHRISTINE ROMO and LARA SALAHI
Sandy Potter, 59 of Queens, New York, was jumping rope with neighborhood children when she felt her thigh bone snap.
“I went up in the air and I came straight down to the ground,” Potter said. “The pain was excruciating.”
Potter, who was diagnosed with osteoporosis at age 48, had been taking the popular osteoporosis drug Fosamax for eight years before her femur literally snapped in two.
Fosamax, one in a class of drugs called bisphosphonates, is supposed to make bones stronger. But now there’s mounting evidence that for some women, taking Fosamax or its generic alendronate for more than five years could cause spontaneous fractures.
“We are seeing people just walking, walking down the steps, patients who are doing low-energy exercise,” said Dr. Kenneth Egol, professor of orthopedic surgery at NYU Langone Medical Center. “Very unusual, the femur is one of the strongest bones in the body.”
Egol said X-rays of some of his patients look more like an injury endured by a car accident than an otherwise minimal fall.
“Over the last 18 months we are seeing this more frequently,” he said.
Sue Heller, 60, of Castle Rock, Colo., had been on Fosamax for almost 10 years. She broke both of her femur bones.
“I’m sure there are a lot of women who have brittle bones right now that maybe are ready to break, and they’re not aware of it,” said Heller. “And my heart aches for them.”
Sales of the popular drug increased when doctors began prescribing it not only to women showing signs of osteoporosis, but also those who were osteopenic, and thus, at risk for the disease. Now some doctors worry that staying on the drug for more than five years can cause some women’s bones to become more brittle.
This is not the first time that many doctors have reported an opposite effect for many people taking the drug. Fosamax has already been linked to severe musculoskeletal pain, as well as to a serious bone-related jaw disease called osteonecrosis.
“In worldwide post-marketing experience with FOSAMAX/FOSAMAX Plus D, rare reports consistent with osteonecrosis of the jaw have been received. Many of these reports lack sufficient clinical details to make definitive assessments and/or are confounded, particularly since a generally accepted definition of ONJ in the general population is unknown,” responded Merck in a written response to the suggested link. “Rare cases of ONJ have also been reported in patients who do not have osteoporosis and who have not taken any bisphosphonate medicines.”
In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration reached out to the pharmaceutical company Merck about the reports of femur fractures. After 16 months, Merck added patients’ reports of femur fractures to the list of possible side effects reported by patients included in the drug’s package insert.
“It took Merck an entire year to respond,” said ABC News senior health and medical editor, Dr. Richard Besser. “Just six words: ‘low energy femoral shaft and subtrochanteric fractures.’”
The FDA has also never made an effort to inform the public or doctors across the country who prescribe bisphosphonates of the possible side effect, said Besser.
Both the FDA and Merck declined ABC News’ request for an interview. The FDA said they are looking into reports of fractures.
“Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety of its medicines,” according to a written statement by Merck to ABC News. A causal relationship between Fosamax and these fractures has not been established, according to Merck.
“The drug companies have to recognize when there is a problem, they have to be up front with the public. If there’s a concern, they have to voice it and at least give everybody a fair chance to look at this carefully,” said Dr. Joseph Lane, orthopedic trauma surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.
Click here for the full report
Using Pharmaceuticals as Weapons
March 1, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Most people are familiar with traditional weapons of mass destruction such biological weapons, nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. The point of all such weapons of mass destruction is to inflict a large number of casualties on civilian populations as a way to cripple a nation into political or military submission.
When it comes to actually deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against civilian populations, no country has murdered more innocent civilians than the United States of America through its bombing of two Japanese cities during World War II. (This isn’t rhetoric, it’s an historical fact.)
Atomic bombs were very visible WMDs deployed in World War II as a way to force the empire of Japan to surrender to western forces. Since that time, full-scale nuclear weapons have never again been used directly on civilian targets, meaning the United States of America maintains the distinction of being the only nation in the history of human civilization to have dropped atomic weapons on civilian populations.
It begs the question: If national leaders believe dropping atomic weapons on civilian populations is justified, what other weapons might they feel justified in unleashing upon civilian populations?
Weapons of Mass Prescription
What if a nation wanted to reduce its own civilian population but do it covertly? One way to accomplish that would be to slowly poison the civilian population through exposure to toxic chemicals, heavy metals, hormone-disrupting molecules and nerve toxins.
And as any terrorist can tell you, the most covert way to accomplish that would be to inject such chemicals into the everyday products that people routinely consume: Water, food, personal care products and medicines. I even published a cartoon with this theme a couple of years ago.
Here’s another interesting fact: If you examine what’s in the water, food, products and medicines sold across North America, you’ll discover a dangerous assortment of chemicals that, taken together, could quite reasonably be considered weapons of mass destruction.
Interestingly, the fluoride dumped into public water supplies was originally an offshoot of the enrichment processing facilities for uranium to be used in nuclear weapons. These days, however, fluoride is usually just the toxic waste from fertilizer manufacturing factories or the waste from smokestack scrubbers of coal-fired power plants. Either way, it’s not good for your teeth: The entire fluoride agenda largely a convenient, low-cost way to dispose of industrial waste chemicals while calling it a public health program.
Antibacterial soaps derive their antibacterial properties from chemicals that are molecularly quite similar to the infamous Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War. And yet these products are openly marketed for use by children.
Similarly, children and adults continue to be poisoned by heavy metals like mercury thanks to the highly toxic practices of modern dentistry — an industry which astoundingly has still failed to admit to the obvious toxicity of a heavy metal its practitioners continue to install in people’s mouths as “silver fillings” (which actually contain more mercury than silver).
There are hormone-disrupting chemicals in most of the plastics used in the processed food industry — especially canned soups which are often highly toxic for a variety of other reasons. MSG and other nervous system destroyers are used throughout the food supply in soups, snack foods, salad dressings, flavorings and dips.
These are all chemical assaults of one kind or another, but the greatest assault on the minds and bodies of western consumers comes in the form of pharmaceutical chemicals. That’s why I call them ‘Weapons of Mass Prescription.’
Destroy any nation by destroying the health of its citizens
If you want to destroy any nation, simply unleash Big Pharma into its medical system. Within just two generations, its people will suffer widespread organ damage, sharp decline in cognitive function and rampant degenerative disease brought on by the side effects of everyday pharmaceuticals.
Click here for the full report
The Men Who Run The Global Phamaceutical Industry
February 26, 2010
24/7 Wall St.
By Douglas A. McIntyre and Michael B. Sauter
There are twelve major pharmaceutical firms that dominate this industry worldwide. Their combined market value is over $1 trillion with total annual sales of over $500 billion. The firms have developed and marketed most of the global blockbuster drugs. Most of the significant actions take by the FDA and other drug and medical device regulatory bodies involve the medications, devices, and vaccines developed by these firms.
These twelve companies are also involved in most of the large product liability actions and class action suits regarding prescription drugs. The largest pharmaceutical firms spend tens of million of dollars in legal fees and lobbying expenses every year to protect the intellectual property they have created and to defend themselves when side effects from their products injure customers.
The twelve CEOs on this list are the global drugs lords. They operate in a heavily regulated industry and have close and often fractious relationships with the governments whose agencies work with them. 24/7 Wall St. has looked at each company, its blockbuster drugs, and its most valuable board members. These members are often not the most well-known people on the boards. They are, however, individuals from the medical community, former regulators, academicians involved in the medical research world, and fixers who serve on large numbers of boards and whose contacts in the world of government and industry are invaluable.
The drug industry is under seige by generics and rising costs of R&D. Many of the largest firms in the sector, the companies on this list, have been though substantial restructurings and have fired tens of thousand of people, cutting R&D budgets in the process. This generation of CEOs and board members will shape the rapidly changing industry more than any other group in decades.
Click here for the full report
Antics of Drug Companies Disenchanting Population
February 26, 2010
Forbes
By Harlan Krumholz
I want to believe in America’s pharmaceutical companies. I want to believe that people in these companies believe that the best strategy for success is to do what is best for patients. I want to believe that they are interested in scientific truth and eager to know of any safety issues and ready to share that information with the public.
This week I was disappointed again.
Over the years GlaxoSmithKline ( GSK – news – people ) has repeatedly reassured the public about the safety of its blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia. But this weekend the Senate Finance Committee released a report revealing that inside the company Glaxo’s own experts and advisors were raising concerns about whether the drug could cause heart problems all along.
The report, based on more than 250,000 internal documents, provides a rare and unsettling glimpse into the decision by company executives to deflect safety issues–even as their own experts agreed with conclusions of outside researchers who were warning the public about possible harms.
The documents reveal that company researchers were deeply concerned about the cardiovascular safety of the drug as far back as 2003. The pages of the Senate report read like a spy novel: Glaxo receiving confidential documents leaked by a sympathetic academic who consulted for the company; the company embarking on a campaign to intimidate critics who warned about potential safety issues with the drug; and executives pulling strings to release data early from a scientific study that was supposedly controlled by an “independent” committee of researchers.
While Glaxo was publicly downplaying safety worries, a company statistician indicated that concerns raised by critics, including Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steven Nissen, were legitimate. In one internal document the head of research states that analyses from the FDA, Nissen and GSK all suggested that Avandia could be causing heart attacks. Meanwhile, Glaxo’s media relations department was telling the public that there was no link between the drug and heart disease.
Click here for the full report
‘Female Sexual Dysfunction’ – is it Real or Did the Pharmaceutical Industry Make it up?
February 26, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
The pharmaceutical industry is attempting to convince the public that a variety of normal conditions affecting the majority of women should be classified as “female sexual dysfunction” and treated with drugs.
The medical establishment has a long history of treating the female body as sexually dysfunctional, from when Hippocrates first attributed “hysteria” to a wandering uterus. According to JoAnn Wypijewski, former senior editor of The Nation, this perspective fell out of favor with the sexual revolution of the 1970s but has since re-emerged.
“Today the cultural air is thick with sex, but the rhetoric of freedom and rights largely serves a commodified notion of sexual satisfaction,” Wypijewski said. “The politics has dropped out, and without politics we’re all just … potential patients.”
A 2005 article in the medical journal BMJ noted the emergence of drugs intended to treat “female sexual dysfunction.” In spite of skepticism from the medical establishment, the pharmaceutical industry has pressed ahead, insisting that conditions such as an inability to regularly achieve orgasm through intercourse alone, low levels of sexual desire, and sexual dissatisfaction are medical disorders in need of treatment.
All these conditions are normal for women at various points throughout their lives. Yet proponents of the label “female sexual dysfunction” claim that anywhere from 43 percent to 70 percent of women are actually ill; Oprah has called it as an “epidemic.”
The cure, according to the pharmaceutical industry, is testosterone treatment or other drugs. Meanwhile, Wypijewski notes that rates of “vaginal rejuvenation” (tightening) among middle-aged women and “laser labiaplasty” (reshaping of the labia) among younger women continue to rise. A doctor in North Carolina even offers to implant an electrode in women’s spinal columns to help them achieve orgasm during sex.
“Female sexual dysfunction, it turns out, was wholly created by drug companies,” Wypijewski said. “The more obstinate question is … whether a resistant politics can grow up to say … ‘We want out’ of the profit system and … out of a medical model that elevates a doctor over … a more sensual ease with oneself and others.”
Click here for the full report
Top Lobbyist for Pharmaceutical Industry Resigns
February 12th, 2010
Reuters
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO Billy Tauzin said late Thursday he was resigning effective June 30 after five years as head of one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington.
The group, which represents Pfizer, Merck and other top drugmakers, has been one of the biggest backers of Democrats’ legislation to expand access to health insurance, among other reforms.
“The bottom line is: this is not good for the (healthcare) bill,” said lobbying expert James Thurber, head of the Center for Congressional and Presidential studies at American University. “PhRMA played a key role and without Billy Tauzin, who is trusted by both parties, there … it doesn’t help the cause for getting the reform through.”
PhRMA pledged to pay $80 billion over 10 years in price cuts and other concessions as part of a deal with the Obama administration and top Senate Democrats last June. The cost was seen as a small price for the $315 billion drug industry to pay in exchange for potentially 30 million more insured customers.
In a statement, Tauzin said he had committed to serve PhRMA for more than five years and would meet his obligation this June.
Still, his departure adds uncertainty to the future of Democratic legislation currently stalled in Congress and PhRMA’s deal. Despite the industry’s backing, Democrats are struggling to find a path forward to pass a final measure after losing their supermajority in the Senate last month.
‘STRATEGIC BLUNDER’
Tauzin, who served 26 years in the U.S. House of Representatives first as a Democrat before switching to the Republican party, was the major force behind PhRMA’s deal. His group reported spending $26,150,520 in 2009 for lobbying, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
“His members think he gave away the farm for nothing. So he was really tossed because of a falling out with the board over miscalculating how to negotiate,” a source familiar with the situation said.
Another industry source, however, said Tauzin’s move was not linked to reform but rather a personality clash between the former Louisiana lawmaker and incoming PhRMA chairman, Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler — a Democrat who replaces current PhRMA chairman and AstraZeneca CEO David Brennan on March 18.
However, both PhRMA and Pfizer said the two men looked forward to working with each other.
“Billy has great relations with our board members,” said PhRMA Senior Vice President Ken Johnson.
Brennan added the group was grateful for Tauzin’s “strong leadership and many accomplishments … including his efforts to bring about healthcare reform.”
Still, Republican strategist Scott Reed cited flaws with Tauzin’s approach, saying he “got seduced by Obama world, and it turned out to be a strategic blunder for his industry.”
It is unclear what changes, if any, PhRMA would make in pressing the case for health reform as Democrats try to ramp up support, or what impact the change could have on the industry. PhRMA’s steep pockets all but guarantee its continuing role in shaping health reform negotiations going forward.
As for Tauzin, his tenure is probably best marked by his vocal support for the industry after surviving cancer. He denied his departure was due to any illness. His plans include writing a book, traveling and consulting, a PhRMA source said.
“As the first-ever cancer patient to lead PhRMA as its CEO, I now believe it is time I move on,” Tauzin wrote. “My health is excellent and I look forward to exciting new challenges ahead.”
Click here for the full report
Policy Changes in Doctor/Pharmaceutical Activity
February 16th, 2010
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
Congressional investigation over the unethical relationships between doctors and drug companies has led to a change in policy at Partners HealthCare, a Boston based hospital system affiliated with Harvard Medical School, that prohibits its physicians who sit on the boards of various biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies from receiving company stock and unlimited fees for their presence. They are now limited to only $500 an hour, or $5,000 a day, for their services which include things like attending board meetings.
The fact that about 25 vice presidents, clinical department heads, and other top executives in the system will be affected by this new rule illustrates the degree to which the medical system has been influenced by pharmaceutical interests. Physicians from top medical centers, including academic ones, often join the ranks of drug companies and are paid top dollar to push various drugs and treatments. They are even paid with company stock.
This blatant conflict of interest is not isolated to Partners, as many different organizations and academic institutions have come under fire by state regulators, Congress, and even hospitals themselves for allowing this practice to occur. Nationally, there has been a heavy push to stop the drug industry’s control over doctors whether it be through perks, incentives or comfortable board positions.
The new policy at Partners prohibits doctors from touring the nation as paid drug company spokesmen, a practice commonly utilized by drug companies to promote their products. Partners will not, however, ban its physicians from working for drug companies altogether. They will still be allowed to sit on their boards and receive compensation – it will merely be “reduced” to $500 per hour.
It is virtually impossible for a physician to be both a physician and an executive for a drug company. For the drug company, he will be responsible for helping it achieve financial success, while for the hospital, he will be responsible for objectively treating patients. A physician cannot objectively treat a patient while at the same time be paid to use a company’s drugs to treat that patient.
According to Dr. Dennis Auseillo, chief scientific officer at Partners and cochairman of drug-giant Pfizer’s science and technology committee, all drug companies have at least a couple physicians on their boards. After being named a director of Pfizer in 2006 himself, Auseillo has received over $700,000 in company stocks and compensation. He plans to continue working for Pfizer under the new rules.
Click here for the full report
Tantrums in Children May be Labeled ‘Psychiatric Disorder’
February 15, 2010
Guardian
By Daniel Nasaw
Childhood temper tantrums, teenage irritability and binge eating may soon rate as psychiatric disorders in the US, according to proposed changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of the psychiatric profession.
The proposals are the product of a 10-year effort to update the handbook, which influences the vast network of American healthcare providers, insurance companies, courts, prisons and universities. At stake are billions of dollars in insurance payments, pharmaceutical sales and medical fees. The proposed revisions, published online today , will be subject to public comment until late April.
“It not only determines how mental disorders are diagnosed, it can impact how people see themselves and how we see each other,” Alan Schatzberg, president of the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the guide, told reporters. “It influences how research is conducted as well as what is researched. It affects legal matters, industry and government programmes.”
The DSM is in its fourth edition. It has been criticised for formalising character traits and emotions into mental conditions and for encouraging their medical treatment, often with drugs that have powerful side effects.
Christopher Lane, a professor at Northwestern University and author of 2007 DSM critique Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness, said: “The organisation is clearly opening another Pandora’s box here, as well as paving the way for the medication of even-greater numbers of children and teenagers cycling through emotional stages as part of normal development.”
In an email, Lane said that categorising binge eating as a psychiatric disorder risks classifying millions of Americans as mentally ill at a time when the country is trying to rein in health care costs.
Among the proposals is a new condition, “temper dysregulation with dysphoria”, characterised by “severe, recurrent outbursts of temper” several times a week, that are “grossly out of proportion to the situation or provocation and that interfere significantly with functioning”. To be considered, the “symptoms” must have been “diagnosed” before age 10.
The proposed revisions would also recognise binge eating as a disorder. The condition is “characterised by recurring episodes of the consumption of unusually large amounts of food, accompanied by a sense of loss of control and strong feelings of embarrassment and guilt”. These episodes would need to occur at least once a week over the last three months, and the writers were keen to distinguish it from mere overeating.
“While overeating is a challenge for many Americans, recurrent binge eating is much less common and far more severe and is associated with significant physical and psychological problems,” wrote Dr B Timothy Walsh.
The panels proposed a new category of condition called “risk syndromes”, in which a patient is at risk for a mental disorder that is not yet present.
For example, a moody teenager who displays “excessive suspicion, delusions and disorganised speech or behaviour” may be labelled as having psychosis risk syndrome. The panel estimated that a quarter to a third of people who suffer from those “symptoms” go on to develop a psychotic disorder, and the writers acknowledged the new category could lead to inaccurate diagnosis of some who are not at risk.
“Given the severity of psychotic disorders, and evidence that early treatment may mitigate its long-term consequences, we believed that it was important to begin to recognise these conditions as early as possible,” wrote Dr William Carpenter of the American Psychiatric Association’s psychotic disorders work group.
The panels who proposed the revisions also took into account how race, ethnicity and gender affect the incidence of psychiatric disorders, and studied how those categories affect the expression of symptoms. For example, researchers noted differing ways of experiencing and describing symptoms of panic among some Asian and Hispanic patients.
The panel also recommended discarding the term “mental retardation” in diagnoses, replacing it with “intellectual disability”.
Click here for the full report
San Francisco’s Toxic Biosolids Good For You?
February 12, 2010
PR Watch
By Organic Consumer Association
Fifteen years ago, CMD’s book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! first exposed the hidden government and industry PR campaign greenwashing toxic sewage sludge as “biosolids,” an invented PR euphemism used to cynically re-brand toxic waste as “fertilizer” given free to farmers. Today, unfortunately, the biosolids scam is bigger than ever. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reports that “San Francisco has come up with an ingenious plot to trick city residents into taking their toxic sewage sludge back and disposing of it in their own gardens. San Francisco is having Synagro, the corporate giant of the toxic sludge industry, ‘compost’ some of the toxic sewage sludge. Then they give it away to San Francisco’s gardeners telling us it’s ‘high-quality, nutrient-rich, organic Biosolids Compost.’ ” OCA has launched a grassroots campaign calling on San Francisco’s mayor to stop the practice, noting “municipal sewage sludge routinely contains thousands of dangerous pathogens, toxic heavy metals, flame retardants, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and other hazardous chemicals coming from residential drains, storm water runoff, hospitals, and industrial plants.”
Click here for the full report
Swine Flu ‘Pandemic’ Was a Hoax
February 11, 2010
Prison Planet
By Paul Jospeh Watson
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, outgoing Chair of the Council of Europe’s Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg said that his panel’s investigation into the 2009 swine flu outbreak has found that the pandemic was a fake hoax manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in league with the WHO to make vast profits while endangering public health.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a 47 nation body encompassing democratically elected members of parliament, began hearings last month to investigate whether the H1N1 swine flu pandemic was falsified or exaggerated in an attempt to profit from vaccine sales.
Wodarg said that governments were “threatened” by special interest groups within the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so, and yet in countries like Germany and France only around 6 per cent took the vaccine despite enough being available to cover 90 per cent of the population.
Wodarg said he was alarmed when the WHO cited early cases in Mexico as a threat and quickly moved to pandemic status, despite the fact that the cases were relatively mild and the virus was not new.
“This was the mildest flu ever and the people were much more clever than the government so we have to find out what was going on with WHO – why did they do this pandemic alarm,” asked Wodarg, noting that pharmaceutical interests within the World Health Organization were instrumental in creating the panic and reaping the financial dividends.
“We don’t know what really happened, we only know that they changed the definition of a pandemic, which was a very dangerous thing before and now is just a normal flu, and this is why business for pharmaceutical companies was open,” said Wodarg, adding that select pharmaceutical companies were handed a monopoly on creating the vaccine.
“It is their trick that they always try to monopolize this and we pay much more like this,” said Wodarg, noting that if patents were left open, vaccines would be produced much quicker and far cheaper.
Wodarg said there was “no other explanation” for what happened than the fact that the WHO worked in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture the panic in order to generate vast profits, agreeing with host Alex Jones that the entire farce was a hoax.
He also explained how health authorities were “already waiting for something to happen” before the pandemic started and then exploited the virus for their own purposes.
Wodarg said that the investigation was likely to recommend an end to the undue influence of pharmaceutical companies on public health institutions in Europe.
However, Wodarg pointed out, “There is no law for WHO, there is no one who punishes those people in WHO, we only have national law, so this is very important that we collect the information and on the national level we try to find those people responsible and we try to punish them.”
“Have investigations, have a deep look, we cannot tolerate such a development, we cannot have this next winter again, we don’t want such fake pandemics,” concluded Wodarg.
Wodarg said that vast quantities of unused vaccines were now being dumped on the third world and that other countries were simply trying to push ahead with vaccination programs even though the virus has proven not to be a major threat.
“The Japanese bought vaccines for 110 million people and they cannot return from this vaccine contract so they are in a very big political dilemma now and they already have problems because the Japanese people already know it wouldn’t be necessary to get vaccinated,” Wodarg told The Alex Jones Show.
Click here for the full report
