Eli Lilly and Physician Malpractice Education: The Outrage Continues

Thursday, July 31, 2008

THE OUTRAGE OF COMBINED PSYCHIATRY (APA) BIG PHARMA CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY CONTINUES UNABATED WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THEIR VICTIMS
by Justice Lover

The following article was downloaded from Daniel Carlat, M.D. blog, a psychiatrist's blog. He correctly complains about the corrupt practices of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) of collaborating in the perpetration of crimes against humanity and of deceiving the public by Big Pharma.

However, as a practicing psychiatrist his basic assumption is that psychiatry, and the APA with it, can be reformed, and then all would be fine. Moreover, his wish to have an honest form of psychiatry, does not encompass the abolition of coercive psychiatric treatment (much less the "treatment" itself); does not include exposing the fundamental fraud of "mental illness", and does not include the outlaw of the fascist quackery called psychiatry, of course.

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2008/07/eli-lilly-and-physician-malpractice.html

Eli Lilly and Physician Malpractice Education: The Outrage Continues

Eli Lilly & Co. is continuing to pay a major insurance company to provide sham education to psychiatrists about the liability risks of prescribing potentially toxic medications like Zyprexa.

The courses, entitled "GET THE FACTS: Understanding Professional Liability Risk Associated with Prescribing Medications,” are being heavily promoted to thousands of U.S. psychiatrists via mailings, and are offered both online and in the context of lavish free dinner programs. Although funded by Lilly, they are taught by PRMS, Inc. (Professional Risk Management Services), a risk management company that manages The Psychiatrists’ Program, a malpractice insurance policy tailored for psychiatrists.

The central message of these “educational” programs is that psychiatrists are unlikely to be sued for prescribing medications that may have toxic side effects. According to the course, “there are effective ways to decrease risk related to prescribing, and if a lawsuit is filed, the risk of a plaintiff prevailing is low.” While Zyprexa is never actually mentioned in the programs, it is clear that the intent of the courses is to convince psychiatrists that they are unlikely to be successfully sued by patients claiming that Zyprexa has caused obesity or diabetes.

There are numerous veiled allusions to Zyprexa in the course. In the introductory section, for example, they state that “Advancements in medicine usually add to the complexity of treatment and at the same time increase patients’ unrealistic expectations about treatment outcomes. Patients may be less likely to accept that unexpected and adverse outcomes are a part of treatment. Even in the absence of negligence, there are always risks of medical treatment that must be weighed against the benefits.” This mirrors the common theme of Eli Lilly promotional material for Zyprexa, namely, that it is more important to focus on the clinical benefits of the medication rather than the risks associated with it.

Lilly’s extraordinarily deceptive marketing tactic takes on new relevance with the unsealing two days ago of internal company documents in the State of Alaska’s suit against the drug-maker. According to Bloomberg News, an instruction sheet given to Lilly sales reps in 2002 stated that: “We believe it is essential to weaken this link to neutralize the diabetes/hyperglycemia issue. Neutralizing any concern from our customers will be essential to the future growth of Zyprexa in the marketplace.” Meanwhile, the company’s own data showed that patients taking Zyprexa had 3.5 times the rate of high blood sugar as patients taking a placebo.

PRMS’s psychiatry insurance program is the only malpractice program receiving an official endorsement from the American Psychiatric Association. While the APA neither endorses nor participates in this educational exercise, the fact that it endorses PRMS means it may have leverage in curtailing the company’s unethical activities. Psychiatrist and APA member Dr. David Port originally alerted me to these shenanigans, and we have jointly sent a letter to the APA requesting that the organization ask PRMS to cease this program immediately. I will keep you informed of any developments.

Friday, July 25, 2008

http://theplazoid.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/is-psychiatry-a-crime-against-humanity/

Is Psychiatry a Crime Against Humanity?

That slimy little psychiatrist from Columbia University, who “ethnic cleans[ed]” over 100,000 Muslims and Croats, Radovan “the Butcher of Bosnia” Karadžić, finally got caught. If you want more info on the history of this matter here’s the crimes, but I don’t really want to say anymore then to point out the fact that Karadžić was, is and, probably will again be a psychiatrist.

Hitler had them, Pinochet had them, and Bush has them. Hitler’s genocide campaign started out with psychiatrists secretly killing mental patients, and falsifying death certificates. They would take family members deemed “mentally ill” to “special treatment” centers and ship them off to be killed, then tell the family they died of some other cause. Germans in the town of Hadamar complained of the stench of burning bodies.

Psychiatry played the lead roll in every genocide campaign - every. In fact if they had had the term psychiatry way back in the day then we would most likely say today, “psychiatry invented genocide.” This engineered, Malthusian, Darwinist, Eugenics, genetic bullshit, is packaged all together by a so-called “science profession,” which can’t empirically prove anything, called psychiatry. Every dictator uses psychiatry to silence dissent.

To today’s psychiatrists “special treatment” is the psychiatrists giving a pill that will sterilize, make people easy to control, kill people sooner rather then later, and leave no stench. And just as the nazi psychiatrists diagnosed people as unworthy of life because of their race, today’s psychiatrist’s diagnoses is just as questionable, and statistically just as racist.

The psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, co-founder the German Eugenics Society, president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation, and head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity, created “empirical genetic prognosis” of mental disorders, which led directly to today’s “diagnostic and statistical manual” of mental disorders.

It’s nothing more than a T4 project, based on bullshit theories, enforced with guns.

love eternal
tad

Saturday, July 19, 2008

UPDATE : THE MINISTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH IGNORES THE ONGOING PSYCHIATRIC ATROCITIES AGAINST REBECCA MERHAV, AND IGNORES THE COMPLAINTS ON HER BEHALF BY HER FATHER
by Justice Lover

The following letter was emailed today by Rebecca's father on her behalf under the Subject :

The very urgent case of Miss Rebecca Merhav, my daughter .

Hon Lisa Neville, MP
Minister for Mental Health
Melbourne, Victoria.

Dear Minister,

I have had no reply to my previous letter, emailed to you on the 10th of July, 2008. The Subject of the letter : IS THE CHIEF PSYCHIATRIST OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, NOT ACCOUNTABLE ?‏ In it I quote the Mental Health Act, 1986, provisions which protect the human rights of people under psychiatric treatment, as well as the provisions which demand : that such treatment would not harm the patient; consider the patient's own will and opinion (including the opinion of the patient's relative appointed by the patient as representing the patient);demand that the treatment would take place within the community rather than in any institution; promote and encourage the patient's self confidence, self esteem and self reliance; fully inform the patient not only of the proposed treatment (including its dangers and risks) but also of any alternative treatments available.

All these protections and guarantees by the law have been denied to my daughter for over 30 years now by the various treating psychiatrists, including the current one at Junction Clinic. My numerous complaints to the treating psychiatrist, to the Director of Psychiatry at the Alfred Hospital, and to the Chief Psychiatrist have been completely ignored , and no reason was ever given even in the very rare occasions that I had a reply to reject my complaints.

As you know, I then complained to you as the Minister to whom the Chief Psychiatrist is answerable and accountable, but you too chose to ignore my complaints, referring me back to the Chief Psychiatrist, rather than demanding of him a detailed investigation and a point by point reply to my scientifically supported complaints.

In my letter to you I have quoted the provisions in the Mental Health Act which authorize the Chief Psychiatrist to investigate thoroughly, and to take decisive action to remedy the wrong treatment, but again you, like him, chose to ignore that, although you are aware that my daughter continues to suffer under the compulsory daily administration of the most dangerous drug in the arsenal of psychiatry, and risking irreversible damage to her brain, and even risking her life.

Shortly after emailing you my above letter on the 10 of July I phoned your office. Mr. Mem Suleyman, the manager of your office confirmed to me receiving my letter, and promised a reply as soon as my complained would be investigated by yourself. My repeated phone calls to him got his same reply, except that he added that there is a panel of advisers who are investigating my complaint for the Minister, and I would sure get your written reply as soon as they complete their investigation.

However, Mem went for holiday, and the employees in your office (Rebecca and Ann) denied his promise, and referred me instead back to the Chief Psychiatrist, adding that Mem had misinformed me.In my above letter I have emphasised that all my complaints have been within psychiatric standards and within the law. Rebecca's case rests within the law, and the psychiatric atrocities perpetrated against her are in flagrant violation of the Mental Health Act, 1986, and even of acceptable psychiatric standards. Therefore I did not seek to challenge psychiatry, nor did I request it of you.

Obviously, psychiatry should be challenged - with or without the atrocities against my daughter under the pretext of "medical treatment" - and the article below does it accurately, albeit briefly . At the end of the article there is a link to a YouTobe video, which provides the opinions of a renowned American neurologist,Dr. Fred Baughman, of Prof. Thomas Szasz,a Professor of Psychiatry, and of a number of other USA practicing psychiatrists. They all challenge the validity of the psychiatric dogma of mental illness.

I therefore ask you to immediately order the Chief Psychiatrist to immeciately stop the psychiatric torture of my daughter before it is too late !

Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread372872/pg1

Psychiatry Exposed? - Doctors claim psychiatry is a HOAX

Topic started on 18-7-2008 @ 07:29 AM by True Light

It has, at least for a while, occurred to me that there may be a little more to these drugs prescribed for mental illness than meets the eye. The short video clip below,I think, nails the entire situation.

There is no blood test to prove a chemical imbalance, therefore where is the proof of a chemical imbalance? Exactly, there isn't. So where to we get the term chemical imbalance? It appears psychiatrists meet up and actually MAKE UP new illnesses! This is truly the REAL insanity.

How can someone fabricate an illness, fabricate a non scientific method for discovering an illness, and then prescribe drugs for that illness. Which in the Doctors own words, not only have no curative effort on a patient, and actually have a detrimental effect on the person they are administered to.

That in itself causes one to ask the question (as per the clip) who benefits?Well first lets see the results of mass medicating people with poison they don't need. The main two that spring to mind are:

Scandalous profits made by the pharmaceuticals

Innocent peoples emotions and mental faculties suppressed

A rational person can understand (although not agree with) how large pharmaceutical companies would wish to rake in obscene amounts of cash.But who benefits from suppressing and causing harm to innocent everyday persons mental faculties? How exactly are these people a threat to society? Or is it simply the case, as I speculate, that this is an abominable attempt by the world elite to stop persons waking up and realising their divine power within.

That would certainly fit the modus operandi of what we see in the everyday push for the new world order.

I am not suggesting that the symptoms ill persons are experiencing are not real or trivial, what I am suggesting is that there may be a better way to treat someone than chemically castrating their freewill. There are many alternative therapies that work very nicely for victims of suppression (depression) meditation is just one of them. Diet also plays a prominent part in ones health.

Think about the term mental disease. DIS-EASE, a mind that is ill at ease, or not at ease. Given the negative filth that is pumped into peoples subconscious on a daily basis, how can any rational and loving human being not feel sad at the state of the world. As for persons suffering from psychosis, is it not possible that they are sometimes experiencing supra-normal abilities, seeing extra dimensions, spontaneously remote viewing things.

Is it not possible that schizophrenic persons are experiencing some sort of inter dimensional obsession, and that the voices they are hearing are very real. I think in these days of expanded awareness we should stop trying to force the innocent to chemically conform into thinking the way of the collective sheep, there has to be a far more humane and loving way to treat humans who are suffering.Here is the short clip I found. I welcome your considerate views.Psychiatry Exposed on Youtube

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread372872/pg1
Psychiatry Exposed? - Doctors claim psychiatry is a HOAX

Topic started on 18-7-2008 @ 07:29 AM by TrueLight

It has, at least for a while, occurred to me that there may be a little more to these drugs prescribed for mental illness than meets the eye. The short video clip below, I think, nails the entire situation.

There is no blood test to prove a chemical imbalance, therefore where is the proof of a chemical imbalance? Exactely, there isn't. So where to we get the term chemical imbalance? It appears psychiatrists meet up and actually MAKE UP new illnesses! This is truly the REAL insanity.

How can someone fabricate an illness, fabricate a non scientific method for discovering an illness, and then prescribe drugs for that illness. Which in the Doctors own words, not only have no curative effort on a patient, and actually have a detrimental effect on the person they are administered to.

That in itself causes one to ask the question (as per the clip) who benefits?

Well first lets see the results of mass medicating people with poison they don't need. The main two that spring to mind are:

Scandalous profits made by the pharmaceuticals

Innocent peoples emotions and mental faculties supressed

A rational person can understand (although not agree with) how large pharmaceutical companies would wish to rake in obscene amounts of cash.

But who benefits from suppressing and causing harm to innocent everyday persons mental faculties? How exactely are these people a threat to society? Or is it simply the case, as I speculate, that this is an abominable attempt by the world elite to stop persons waking up and realising their divine power within.

That would certainly fit the modus operandi of what we see in the everyday push for the new world order. I am not suggesting that the symptoms ill persons are experiencing are not real or trivial, what I am suggesting is that there may be a better way to treat someone than chemically castrating their freewill.

There are many alternative therapies that work very nicely for victims of suppression (depression) meditation is just one of them. Diet also plays a prominent part in ones health. Think about the term mental disease. DIS-EASE, a mind that is ill at ease, or not at ease. Given the negative filth that is pumped into peoples subconscious on a daily basis, how can any rational and loving human being not feel sad at the state of the world.

As for persons suffering from psychosis, is it not possible that they are sometimes experiencing supra-normal abilities, seeing extra dimensions, spontaneously remote viewing things. Is it not possible that schitzophrenic persons are experiencing some sort of inter dimensional obsession, and that the voices they are hearing are very real. I think in these days of expanded awareness we should stop trying to force the innocent to chemically conform into thinking the way of the collective sheep, there has to be a far more humane and loving way to treat humans who are suffering.

Here is the short clip I found. I welcome your considerate views. Psychiatry Exposed on Youtube

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry's claim. (Credit: iStockphoto/Marcelo Wain)

ScienceDaily (Jan. 7, 2008) — A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry's claim.

The researchers' estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion.

The research is co-authored by PhD candidate Marc-André Gagnon, who led the study with Joel Lexchin, a long-time researcher of pharmaceutical promotion, Toronto physician, and Associate Chair of York's School of Health Policy & Management in the Faculty of Health.

"In our paper, we make the case for the need for a new estimate of promotional expenditures by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry," says Gagnon. "We then explain how we used proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry."

The study is important because it provides the most accurate image yet of the promotional workings of the pharmaceutical industry, says Lexchin.

The authors examined the 2004 reports of IMS Health (IMS) and CAM Group (CAM), two international market research companies that provide the pharmaceutical industry with sales/marketing data and consulting services. IMS obtains its data by surveying pharmaceutical firms, while CAM surveys doctors, which explains important discrepancies in the data they provide.

The researchers used 2004 as the comparison year because it was the latest year in which information was available from both organizations.

CAM reported total promotion spending by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry as US$33.5 billion in their 2004 report, while IMS reported US$27.7 billion for the same year. The authors observed, however, important differences in figures according to each promotion category. By selectively using both sets of figures provided by IMS and CAM, in order to determine the most relevant data for each category, and adjusting for methodological differences between the ways IMS and CAM collect data, the authors arrived at US$57.5 billion for the total amount spent on pharmaceutical promotion in 2004. The industry spent approximately US$61,000 in promotion per physician during 2004, according to Gagnon.

"Even our revised promotion figure for 2004 is apt to be understated, as there are other promotion avenues that are not likely to be taken into consideration by IMS or CAM, such as ghost-writing and off-label promotion," says Gagnon. "Also, seeding trials, which are designed to promote the prescription of new drugs, may be allocated to other budget categories."

IMS and CAM data were used for comparison purposes because data from both are publicly available, both operate globally and are well regarded by the pharmaceutical industry, and both break down their information by different promotion categories. Most importantly, the two organizations use different methods for gathering their data, allowing the researchers to triangulate on a more accurate figure for each promotion category.

The authors focused their study on the United States because it is the only country in which information is available for all of the major promotion categories, and it is also the largest market for pharmaceuticals in the world, representing approximately 43% of global sales and global promotion expenditures.

Gagnon's and Lexchin's new estimate of total promotional costs is also consistent with estimates of promotional spending by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry from other sources they scrutinized, including reports by Consumers International, a non-governmental organization which represents consumer groups and agencies worldwide; Office of Technology Assessment, which extrapolated results from the cost structure of Eli Lilly, a global pharmaceutical company; Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, who extrapolated data from Novartis Inc., a company which distinguishes marketing from administration expenditures in its annual reports; and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

As well, note the authors, the number of meetings for promotional purposes has dramatically increased in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, jumping from 120,000 in 1998 to 371,000 in 2004, further supporting their findings that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven.

Thus, the study's findings supports the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry, while arguing in favour of a change in the industry's priorities in the direction of less promotion, according to Gagnon and Lexchin.
Their study, "The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States," appears in the January 3, 2008 issue of PLoS Medicine, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science.

(Emphasis by Justice lover)

DOES THE USA RULING CLASS TURN ITS BACK NOW ON ITS BIG PHARMA MEMBERS ?
by Justice Lover

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4339849.ece
From The Times

July 16, 2008

Barack Obama and John McCain go to war with Big Pharma

Carl Mortished: World business briefing

America has declared war on drugs, an industry that is bleeding the nation dry. The drug kingpins are running scared and, for the first time, the political mood on both Right and Left is in favour of taking action. The presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain have drugs at the top of the agenda and the stock prices of the drug merchants are crumbling.

These are the legitimate drug barons - Pfizer, Merck and Britain's GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Selling lifestyle drugs and medicines to alleviate the diseases of America's affluent society made pharmaceutical companies rich.

But now the pool of available private cash is diminished - drained by the credit crunch and real estate collapse. Government is feeling the pinch and, for the first time since President Johnson signed the original Medicare Bill in 1965, a serious discussion about socialised medicine is beginning in the United States.

It is hardly surprising, because, despite what you may have heard, the US Government is already the biggest buyer in the US pharmaceutical market. Americans spend about £140 billion annually on medicine, compared with £11 billion in the UK. According to World Health Organisation statistics, American expenditure per head on healthcare is double the amount in Britain and a large part of that higher investment is related to the cost of drugs.

On average, for the same drug, an American pays twice that paid in the UK. American insurers pick up a great deal of the bill and their lack of efficiency is a big bone of contention, but the heaviest burden falls on the taxpayer because 45 per cent of total expenditure on healthcare in America is borne by government.

It's a colossal bill, but the American taxpayer doesn't get any pricing power for his dollar. In Britain, most other European countries and Canada, national agencies, such as the NHS, negotiate with the pharma giants, bully suppliers and set tariffs for a list of approved drugs.

In the US, such intervention is anathema - the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) approves drugs for their safety, but price and availability are market-driven and the drug barons argue that freedom leads to choice, a multiplicity of products and more rapid introduction of new medicines.

Into this jungle of corporate lobbyists, union activists and consumer firebrands, the presidential candidates are taking their first, tentative steps. Healthcare reform is dangerous territory. Hillary Clinton failed at her first attempt, but the costs have risen since - drug prices are rising at a rate of 7 per cent a year at a time when Americans are feeling poorer.

According to polls, healthcare costs are a bigger issue than Iraq for most Americans, hardly surprising given that it affects a greater number. Still, it is alarming for the pharma bosses to hear the Republican candidate bashing their industry, even supporting the direct importation of cheap drugs from abroad.

Many pensioners fly to Canada in search of cheaper prescription medicine and there is a continuing legal battle between state and federal government as state employee health benefit organisations seek to tap sources of cheap medicine north of the border.

Senator Obama also supports imports, but he wants to go further and grasp the nettle of pricing. He wants Medicare to negotiate directly with the drug giants, much as the NHS fixes drug prices in Britain.

This would be a disaster for Big Pharma - a federal agency setting discounted drug prices for senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. According to the Obama camp, it might save $30 billion (£14.9 billion) for the nation's taxpayers, a huge bite out of the industry's earnings - and it would not end there.

If Medicare patients were able to secure supplies of Lipitor, the bestselling Pfizer anti-cholesterol drug, at half-price, legions of middle-class and middle-aged taxpaying Americans would ask themselves why they were paying double.

The argument in favour of free market pricing in medicines would be shredded on the rack of fairness and a host of employee benefit organisations would combine forces and demand similar discounts. The Obama cheap drugs plan would open a crack in the foundations of Big Pharma's tower of cash and quickly bring it tumbling down.

It will happen, it is just a question of when. Monopsony power has already taken root in the healthcare markets of most OECD countries.

You can see faith undermined in the share prices of the drug giants: in the UK, AstraZeneca has lost a third of its value since October 2006, while GSK has shrunk by a quarter. Over the same period, Pfizer has tumbled by 38percent and since December Merck has shrunk by 40percent.

In vain, the drug giants argue that without their US profits, the research that brings new medicines to market would not be possible. It is true that scientific research follows the money.

A big new drug is reckoned to cost $800 million in research and development and Europe has been losing its pharmaceutical edge to US labs, which generated two thirds of the new drugs launched in the world over the past five years.

The problem is that the pipeline is thin and the blockbusters are not emerging. This industry needs a new business model and, in the absence of self-generated ideas, someone in the White House might soon impose one.

carl.mortished@thetimes.co.uk

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mothers Tell Harry Reid To Read Up On FDA Antidepressant Warnings

Amy Philo

show details 2:33 PM

from Amy Philo to Amy Philo date Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM subject : FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mothers Tell Harry Reid To Read Up On FDA Antidepressant Warnings

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mothers Tell Harry Reid to Read Up On FDA Antidepressant Warnings

by Amy Philo, amy@uniteforlife.org, 214-705-0169, 817-793-8028

The Food and Drug Administration has issued 25 warnings concerning the use of antidepressants ranging from the increased risk of suicide to the danger of premature births, birth defects, and giving birth to babies with respiratory problems. Existing studies show a doubled rate of suicide, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth, a five times higher rate of preterm birth, six times higher rate of persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN), and similar increases in heart defects and other life-threatening complications. Based on MedWatch data, over the past four years an estimated 2,900 babies died via spontaneous abortion caused by SSRI exposure during pregnancy, 4,360 were born with birth defects, 3,000 were born prematurely, and 4,160 developed heart disease. MedWatch reports also include sudden infant death as a consequence of antidepressant exposure via breast milk alone.

On July 28, the U.S. Senate convened for a showdown on the so-called “Coburn Omnibus,” considering Majority Leader Harry Reid’s motion to invoke cloture on the 398-page bill. The vote would set a precedent demonstrating the relative importance of the Constitution over special interest groups’ priorities. Senator Reid (D-NV) urged Republicans to vote against deliberating on the package, which contains 35 bills and at least $10 billion in potential taxpayer expenditures.

Reid had sought to hotline the majority of the bills in the package and therefore pass them with no debate or formal vote, which Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) objected to. As reported by the New York Times, Reid stated, “Not a single one of the 35 bills in this package are partisan or controversial,” He went on to remark that anyone voting “no” would have to explain to his or her constituents. “These bills have been passed by the House of Representatives and their respective Senate committees with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans.”

Section D of the omnibus bill is The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act, which has never even been discussed in a Senate committee, much less approved by the majority of Senator Kennedy’s HELP committee, where it has stalled since February.

There has been ongoing public outcry regarding new efforts by drug makers to expand their market for antidepressants and other top-selling psychotropic medications by pushing to enact laws requiring screening for mental illness on all sectors of the population from newborns to school children, on up to the military and elderly. But this outrage has been especially vigorous with regard to the hotly contested Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act, which would increase the number of pregnant and new mothers taking these drugs.

Critics of the bill fear what repercussions there would be for everyday Americans if the bill were ever to pass, and many expressed vehement objections to Reid’s statement that not one of the bills was controversial. Perhaps Senator Reid can explain to the American people why he supported a bill that would increase cases of spontaneous abortions and fatal birth defects while causing more mothers to kill themselves or their children.

Neglecting to mention The MOTHERS Act during his speeches Monday, Reid emphasized the need to pass some of the most sympathetic-sounding bills in the package, such as paralysis and pornography legislation. Yet in a comment given to the Washington Post, Reid accused the Senators who had shot down the cloture motion of voting against mothers suffering from postpartum depression. Reid’s seemingly intentional failure to bring up The MOTHERS Act during the debate and his false statements that the bills in the package are all non-controversial and that they have all passed the appropriate Senate committees should arouse much suspicion.

On the floor, MOTHERS Act cosponsor Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) alluded to the bill but incorrectly described its background, stating that Melanie Stokes had killed herself just a few days after giving birth. Durbin also said, “This bill really tries to help women with postpartum depression.” In fact, Melanie Stokes took her life 3 ½ months after her daughter Sommer was born, but only after she was given four successive cocktails of antidepressant, anti-anxiety, and antipsychotic drugs as well as electroshock.

Melanie Stokes is not alone. The FDA issued the first-ever black box warning for suicide on antidepressant drugs in September, 2004. The warning stated that antidepressants double the risk of suicide according to clinical trial data. Since 2002 there has been a 6,300% increase on antidepressant warnings from drug agencies around the globe. Mathy Milling Downing, whose 12-year-old daughter Candace hanged herself from the valance of her bed in 2004 after being placed on Zoloft for test anxiety, told the FDA at their hearing immediately preceding the issuance of the suicide warning, “The blood of our children is on your hands.”

Downing objected to Reid’s recent tactics, stating, “It’s deplorable that Congress continues to support the drug companies over constituents. In no way should Congress be involved in medical decisions. That should be between the doctor and the patient.”

Numerous media stories have surfaced about objections to The MOTHERS Act and controversy surrounding it. The bill’s lead sponsor Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who accepted more than $300,000 from pharmaceutical donors during the last election cycle, even went so far as to tell a reporter from the New Jersey Record that he considers the opposition “wrong-minded.”

At least for now, the “Coburn Omnibus” seems less of a threat, since Dr. Coburn’s hold could not be overcome by Senate Democrats. They fell eight votes short of the required 60 to break the filibuster. But victims and survivors are left wondering if Senators Reid, Durbin, and Menendez intentionally disregard matters of life and death for everyday Americans who are vulnerable and uninformed about the FDA-documented risks of antidepressants, or whether these Congressmen are simply ignorant and out of touch.

Julie Edgington’s son Manie turned blue at birth and had to be transported by helicopter to a hospital with facilities equipped to give him life-sustaining treatments. One procedure involved ripping a hole in his heart with a catheter and balloon inserted through an artery in his leg. Manie almost had to have his leg amputated, but on day eight doctors detected a pulse in his foot just before starting a twelve-hour open heart surgery to correct a condition called Transposition of the Great Arteries, in which the aorta and pulmonary arteries in the heart are switched. Manie scraped through with his life, his leg, and lasting physical and emotional scars.

According to FDA MedWatch data from the past four years, Paxil use during pregnancy was reported as the primary suspect cause of approximately two thirds of all drug-precipitated cases of Transposition of the Great Arteries. It wasn’t until Manie was about two years old that Julie finally discovered the Paxil-TGA link. She now has a lawsuit against drug maker GlaxoSmithKline.

Edgington said, “I want Senator Reid to think about how he would feel if he were in my place or Manie’s place. Manie will have to suffer for the rest of his life. I think if you were to ask Manie how he felt about this legislation, if he were old enough, he would consider this far worse than simply controversial.” Julie doesn’t understand why Congress would want to do anything to the people that could result in more birth defects and death. “The guilt and the heartache I feel is unbelievable. Sitting there looking at your baby and wondering if he is going to live or die, I don’t think a person can feel any worse. The way I felt when I was popping Paxil while I was pregnant was nothing compared to this. Nobody should ever take these pills, not even as a last resort.”

Kim Witczak, founder of WoodyMatters.com found Reid’s attempt to slip the MOTHERS Act through without hearings, discussion, or debate “insulting.” Kim has made more than 30 trips to Washington, D.C. in an effort to educate Congress and reform policy on drug safety. Her late husband Woody hanged himself after taking Zoloft for insomnia for a total of five weeks.

Witczak said she wonders why the same Congress that appeared concerned about drug safety during last year’s hearings on the PDUFA legislation would attempt to pass a bill like The MOTHERS act without any consideration for the effects it could have on the public. “This bill would really set new mothers up for depression by convincing them it’s likely to happen. As a woman, if someone offered me this sort of screening, I would say ‘No way,’ and ‘No thank you.’ I feel very strongly that with the potential effect of death, this sort of legislation deserves serious investigation.”

Kim Crespi, whose husband David killed their twin daughters in 2006 after taking Prozac for seven days, called the actions of the cosponsors who tried to bypass normal procedure irresponsible. Kim said she feels Prozac caused David’s psychotic break, and she doesn’t think that our current mental health system takes the adverse effects of the available medications into account at all. “Without acknowledging these effects, we are treating people beyond their level of control and then holding them completely responsible when all hell breaks loose. Congress needs to carefully pursue and consider the truth before even thinking of passing The MOTHERS Act."

Caroline Gammell, who had suicidal thoughts after three days on Celexa, contacted various government agencies and officials including members and committees in Congress after her drug reaction in 1999, but has never received any response. She said she is worried about anything that could enable someone to pump her full of drugs that could be deadly, adding that since she hasn’t yet had children, she considers the proposed legislation especially scary.

Drug-sponsored groups have worked hard for the past several sessions of Congress trying to pass The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act via deceptive P.R. and pharmaceutical contributions to members of Congress, and are likely to continue their efforts indefinitely. With the demonstrated lack of concern from so many doctors over the recent revelation that antidepressant effectiveness is no greater than that of a placebo, patients are left all too often ignorant and accepting of medical advice to use these drugs. When politics and profits take precedence over human life, and drugs that can kill are pushed on patients like candy, it becomes the responsibility of the public to protect themselves.

harryreid.pdf 71K View as HTML Download

Eli Lilly Corrupt Practices: Alaska Documents Unsealed _ Phony CME_Metabolic- Hormonal Effects in Children


ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/

FYI

Bloomberg News reports some of the incriminating content documented in the
Eli Lilly's Zyprexa documents that have just been unsealed in Alaska.
Contradicting Lilly's and FDA's denial about the high risk of diabetes and
obesity-triggered serious health hazards posed by Zyprexa, the documents
reveal that:

Lilly's research showed some patients on Zyprexa gained as much as 80 pounds
and that the incidence of high blood sugar at diabetes levels was 3.5 times
higher than for placebos. Lilly sales reps were told that doctors had
recognized the relationship between acute weight gain and diabetes, so the
strategy was to downplay the risk in order to protect sales: ``We believe it
is essential to weaken this link to neutralize the diabetes/hyperglycemia
issue. Neutralizing any concern from our customers will be essential to the
future growth of Zyprexa in the marketplace.''

Furthermore, even in the knowledge of likely harm, Lilly aggressively
marketed Zyprexa to primary care physicians and promoted the drug for use in
nursing home patients:
According to a recording provided for the Alaska lawsuit, Alan Breier,
then-Eli Lilly team manager for Zyprexa enthusiastically promoted Zyprexa
for Alzheimer's patients, stating that Zyprexa's ``attributes line up so
beautifully in the elderly. The need for better treatment in Alzheimer's and
other elderly conditions is so paramount and so key,'' Breier said.

In his sworn deposition, Sidney Taurel, the current chairman of Lilly's
board and then-chief executive officer, played the fool when he defended
Breier's illegal promotion for an unapproved use in Alzheimer's patients by
claiming ``[Breier] is talking about the characteristics of the molecule....
He was not giving them instructions as to what to do the next day in the
field.''

An illuminating post by Daniel Carlat, MD, a psychiatrist who shuns industry
funds, should be of interest to Congress as well to Judge Jack Weinstein:

Lilly's corrupt practices continue as the company protects its sales of a
drug that undermines the health of those who ingest Zyprexa.
Lilly is paying a major insurance company to provide sham education to
psychiatrists about the liability risks of prescribing potentially toxic
medications like Zyprexa.

The courses, entitled "GET THE FACTS: Understanding Professional Liability
Risk Associated with Prescribing Medications,” are being heavily promoted to
thousands of U.S. psychiatrists via mailings, and are offered both online
and in the context of lavish free dinner programs.
http://www.pvupdate.com/prgs/plr11/FPM.pdf

Although funded by Lilly, they are taught by PRMS, Inc. (Professional Risk
Management Services), a risk management company that manages The
Psychiatrists’ Program, a malpractice insurance policy tailored for
psychiatrists. http://www.psychprogram.com/

These courses are aimed at reassuring psychiatrists NOT to worry about being
sued--plaintiffs rarely win. Psychiatrists are encouraged to continue
prescribing a drug that is linked to diabetes.

Evidence continues to confirm that children are at even higher risk than
adults if exposed to Zyprexa.
A new study examining the metabolic and hormonal effects of three different
antipsychotics (second generation) in children found that 38% taking Zyprexa
were risk for adverse health outcome:

After the 6 months, BMI z ( body mass index) scores increased significantly
in patients receiving olanzapine and risperidone. At the 6-month follow-up,
33 patients (50.0%) showed significant weight gain. The number of patients
at risk for adverse health outcome increased from 11 (16.7%) to 25 (37.9%)
(p=.018). The latter increase was significant only in the olanzapine group
(p=.012). Total cholesterol levels increased significantly in patients
receiving olanzapine (p=.047) and quetiapine (p=.016). (Below is the
abstract)

Prior to enrollment in the study, patients were either antipsychotic-naive
(37.9%, N=25) or had been taking an antipsychotic drug for fewer than 30
days.

Dr. Carlat notes that PRMS’s psychiatry insurance program is the only
malpractice program receiving an official endorsement from the American
Psychiatric Association. While the APA neither endorses nor participates in
this educational exercise, the fact that it endorses PRMS means it may have
leverage in curtailing the company’s unethical activities.
http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974

Grassley, Dingell Lead Calls For Overhauling FDA_WSJ


ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/


http://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/

FYI

The Wall Street Journal reports (below) that Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep.
John Dingell are taking the lead in calling for revamping the FDA which is
recognized as being "too cozy with the companies they regulate."

"The lawmakers say an FDA restructuring should build a much taller wall
between the agency and the industry it regulates. The FDA would gain
authority to recall drugs, which it can't do today, and to impose
significant fines on drug companies for safety violations. The lawmakers
also want the FDA to inspect generic-drug makers before approving a new
product. Perhaps most importantly, they want the next president to appoint a
tough FDA commissioner completely independent from the industry."

An indication that there is a groundswell of support for major reform of the
agency:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), usually sympathetic to the agency, called the
FDA "a joke."
Senate Appropriations Chair Herb Kohl (D., Wis.) upbraided Dr. von
Eschenbach after he had to be dragged to join DHHS secretary in a night time
news conference to announce a request to Congress for additional funds for
overseas inspections after the disastrous Chinese heparin blood scandal.

And, even Billy Tauzin, president of the drug industry's lobby, PhRMA
(Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) acknowledged that he
has warned members about what may lie ahead in the way of tighter
regulations.

"It's an accumulation of things some companies did over the years. Now it's
death by a thousand cuts," he said in an interview. "We gotta stop the
bleeding."

Indeed, as the St. Petersburg Times reported in May, 2007:

Between 1989--1991: 1.56 Percent of newly approved drugs pulled from market;

Between 1997-2000: 5.34 Percent of newly approved drugs pulled from market;

In 1998, the number of complaints to the FDA about clinical drug trial
irregularities = 10;

In 2006, the number of complaints to the FDA about clinical drug trial
irregularities = 350.

See:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/Worldandnation/Drug_s_chilling__path.shtml

AHRP believes that no meaningful reforms are possible until FDA officials
who have been "cozy with companies"-- are replaced with independent
professionals the public can trust. The current FDA top brass has lost
public trust--they cannot, therefore, remain in their positions of
authority.



Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974

Vote on "Cloture" Re: S. 3297--Mother's Act--Fails

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org and
http://ahrp.blogspot.com

FYI
The attempt to bypass Senate debate on S. 3297 failed.

S. 3297: Advancing America's Priorities Act, an Omnibus composite
legislative group that includes the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mother's Act
pathologizing women's normal mood swings following giving birth.

The Mother's Act is named for a woman who was TREATED with one after another
mind altering psychotropic drug--including antidepressants, anti-anxiety
drugs, and antipsychotics as well as electro-shock (ECT) --BEFORE she took
her life.
She was 3 1/2 months postpartum when she jumped from a 12-story hotel window
in Chicago after her fourth psychiatric hospitalization.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/chi-030216postpartum,0,6318205.
story

We believe, it is reasonable to conclude that the treatments provided to
Melanie Stokes--which are current best practice in psychiatry--failed.

How wise is it, then, to introduce mass screening of women followed by
treatments such as Melanie Blocker Stokes received, treatments whose
outcomes are demonstrably unsuccessful?

The bill's sponsors claim Melanie Stoke's treatments for postpartum
depression were "too little, too late."

The bill's sponsors attempted to invoke "Cloture," a formal method of
cutting off debate on a bill in the Senate and forcing a vote without
debate.

What in feature in this bill do its proponents wish to hide that they fear a
debate might bring to public knowledge?
Why else has the Mother's Act never been discussed or brought to a vote by
the appropriate Senate committee?

The bill's supporters failed to get 60 Senators to agree to invoke cloture.

The vote today, reflected strict party partisanship:
52 Democrats for and 40 Republicans against, with 8 not voting.
Of note: neither presidential contenders, Sen. Barak Obama nor Sen. John
McCain, voted.

See roll call:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm
?congress=110&session=2&vote=00189



Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974

American Children's Health in Acute

CRISIS

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com

FYI
American children's health is in a state of acute crisis--and children are
the fastest growing market for the pharmaceutical industry.

Indeed, "an unparalleled rise in adolescent girls (aged 10--19) using
prescription drugs to teat diabetes, sleep problems, and psychological
disorders."
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/07/medco-report-girls-at-risk.html

The New York Times reports (below) that 30% of American children are
overweight--in some regions 45% are obese. According to data tracked by
Medco Health Solutions, Express Scripts and Verispan, reveals that a growing
number of American children--more than 600,000--are taking drugs for a wide
range of chronic conditions related to childhood obesity.

An alarming increase in pediatric prescriptions--between 2001--2007:
Type 2 diabetes drugs prescribed off-label for children, jumped 151%;
heartburn (acid reflux) prescriptions jumped 136.5%; high blood pressure
drugs increased 18.4%; and, high cholesterol increased 11.6%. All these
drugs are prescribed for "problems linked to obesity that were practically
unheard-of in children two decades ago."

The Times quotes several concerned physicians: "We were amazed at how
quickly the rates of drugs used have climbed," said Dr. Donna Halloran of
St. Louis University. And a recognition that the problem is systemic: "Some
experts have expressed concern that the increases in many of these
obesity-related drugs reflect a systemic failure, with doctors and parents
turning to them because they find life-style changes too difficult to
implement or enforce."

Dr. David Collier, director of a pediatric weight management center in
Greenville, N.C. is among doctors who support the controversial
recommendation by the American Academy of Pediatrics to use statins to lower
children's cholesterol. One of his patients prescribed statins is a 6 year
old girl.

Dr. Francine Kaufman, a pediatric endocrinologist, recalls a 13-year old
teen age girl whose weight increased to 267 pounds. Dr. Kaufman prescribed 5
drugs.

An astronomical increase in U.S. pediatric prescriptions for powerful
psychotropic drugs never before prescribed for children was also documented
by Medco.
The company's chief medical officer, Dr. Robert Epstein, expressed concern:
"While drug therapy is essential for certain patients, the risks and
benefits must always be weighed and, when clinically appropriate, non-drug
treatments should be the initial approach."

Unfortunately, American medical practice is no longer governed by evidence
and the precautionary principle. Instead, American medicine is governed by
industry influence and profits, for corporations and (so-called)
non-profits. Thus lack of efficacy and evidence of harm are disregarded:
"Even in clinical trials where adult pills were crushed and such, you often
can't even demonstrate that the medication works," said Dr. Stephen
Spielberg, former dean of Dartmouth Medical School.

Surely, history will not deal kindly with a society that sacrifices its
children's health for corporate wealth.


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974