The problem is they don't give a **** about the children. Kids are just a good scapegoat to advance their agendas.

Most people would call this fraud.

Drug companies appear to call this how we do business.

xxx

I totally agree, but I am not sure that even divulging ALL data helps a lot. The body is an extraordinarily complex machine, there's literally 10s of thousands of "moving parts" A simple example are antibiotics. For decades the pass/fail metric was "did it kill the bug"? plus a handful of others. Until recently the industry didn't understand the critical role of "good flora" and of course antibiotics kill a lot of those. Is it adequate that the manufacturer divulge all of its study when when in fact no part of it ever studied good floral impact?

SSRIs are even worse. Unless I missed something, to this day there is no concrete scientific explanation for why they work (or in some cases don't work to put it nicely). Sure, there are some widely held theories, but that is far from truly knowing. Can you imagine any other major industry where a product is designed and manufactured without knowing how it works? How do you go about determining what data should go into the data series when you and the rest of the pharma industry are clueless as to where you should look?

Karl,

The lies don't stop at the clinical trials. Back in the 80's there was a terrible problem with manufacturers testing drugs into compliance. That is if the test failed to have the proper level of impurities or the active ingredient amount was out of spec it was tested until it gave them the value they desired.
The FDA soon issued 483s on this practice but it takes an inspection to catch it.

The other issues that occurred were generic manufacturers substituting the innovator product for their generic copy in testing to make it appear their formulations were equivalent.

Just check out the Barr and Par decisions for more information. These lies start at the top.

http://butiworethejuice.blogspot.com/201....


http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-12....

This might be a good read regarding industry-sponsored research for Abilify, the second most sold pharmaceutical.


In April 2008, findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology which claimed that the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) was an effective add-on treatment for depression. I heartily disagreed with the study's conclusions, noting that the patient-rated depression measure did not demonstrate an advantage over placebo, an inconvenient result that the authors tried to explain away as if was unimportant. I also pointed out that the study design was biased in favor of Abilify:

http://clinpsyc.blogspot.se/2009_01_01_a....

Considering most of those trials are really marketing documents I wouldn't be surprised by the results. Most clinical studies are designed to succeed.

Most basic science experiments conclude a difference way then you originally expected when you designed them. That's the nature of science and learning.

Two different set of objectives.

As long as we have a bought government there should be no expectation that approved drugs are in the public's best interest. We probably have doctors prescribing crap because the FDA is likely bought as well.

They have no incentive to clean up this industry because it appears they probably more incidents to advance their public disarmament campaign.

In a free market system (i.e. no FDA) drug companies would be highly motivated to extensively test competitor's products.

So the way I understand it is like this...


Take 10 people with depression. If you do nothing 5 of them will recover and 5 won't. If you medicate all 10 of them then 6 will get better. Is ethical to medicate all 10 when only one of the 10 will be helped?

Quote:

Take 10 people with depression. If you do nothing 5 of them will recover and 5 won't. If you medicate all 10 of them then 6 will get better.Is ethical to medicate all 10 when only one of the 10 will be helped?

I suppose that depends on if you're the 6th person who gets better.

Now if we could know ahead of time who that 6th person would be and only medicate them... we would be going somewhere.

KD, since we are talking about messing with brain chemistry, I am concerned with the push to get more kids on antipsychotics these days--and what this will cause is unknown. These drugs primarily block the Dopamine-2 receptor, and dopamine is an end result of pathways that make you feel good. I can write more on this later d/t lack of time right now, but just to add that along with this SSRI or SNRI issue (SSRI drugs block reuptake of serotonin, but lately there has been a larger percentage increase in the use of the SNRIs, Serotonin and Norepinephrine (NE) Reuptake Inhibitors)--so these drugs have the effects of the SSRIs, with the NE addition--this is sometimes called nor-adrenaline, so you get SEs related to fight or flight as well.

Edit: Forgot to add, I meant to say that it IS known that the antipsychotics (nearly all of them) increase metabolic risk, and thus primarily diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Isn't that nice.

What if the entire medical industry was a fraud? There is one thing the medical industry does good. Patch up injured people. There seems to be a lot of inventing diseases for which they can develop and patent a chemical to treat. This time of thinking was behind the Third Reich.

Since my mother has come down with leukemia, I have looked at the cancer industry. Watching what they are doing to my mother in the name of medicine makes about as much sense as fixing a flat tire and then making sure it gets another hole punched in it. They are using the same **** they were using 30 years ago that didn't work, supplemented with some more drugs that keep the cure from killing you as fast. In the meantime, there is nothing being done to heal the immune system of the body, but instead more destruction of it.

One thing I saw that made sense was a comparison of life expectancy. Go to an old grave yard and look at the stones. What you see is a lot of babies dead and a hell of a lot of people that lived to be 80 or 90 years old. Go get you a long list of our founding fathers. The only early President that didn't make 80 was Washington, who it is rumored was killed by his doctor, a medical doctor.

One thing about the cancer industry is they don't keep track of people that don't take treatment. Shortly after Mom came down with leukemia, I met a guy who said his father died of it and they gave him something like 6 weeks to live. He made it 6 months. He was too old to survive treatment, so he didn't get any. I wonder now how is 6 months stacked up with the people they did treat? To think he got away without taking that poison they dispense.

I watched a video and it went into how the medical industry twisted their statistics to make it look like their drugs made greater improvements than they did. There were two ways of using the statistics, absolute and relative. One might be 1%, while the other is 50% improvement. One thing they went into was the mammogram. At best, getting one added 9 days to a womans life. At worst, the woman ended up with some kind of cancer because of the repeated radiation from the xray.

The $64K question we must ask ourselves is, "have we been duped by medicine"? Has the exposure of a million TV shows extolling the miracle of medicine to children created a false belief in doctors? Remember, we are watching a state endorsed and elite owned industry. No where else can they take 50 cents worth of **** and formulate it into a $1000 bottle of drugs.

One guy I saw when I was going to meetings with a lot of tinfoil was a guy named David Dodge. I let a friend get away with the tape, but I recall Dodge going into a lot of detail about the British East India Company and its control over commmerce in the colonies. Dodge and 2 other guys found in some old libraries, the original 13th amendment. It had been published in state law books around the country, but there wasn't 100% proof it had been passed, due to the interruption of the War of 1812 and the loss of legislative records. But, it was first published in the Statutes of Virginia in either 1816 or 1818. This carried weight, because they only needed one more state to ratify and at last count, Virginia hadn't yet voted. It wouldn't be a mystery to Virginia they were the last state needed, as DC was across the Potomac. Dodge found letters to John Q Adams, Secretary of State at the time, questioning whether the amendment had been passed, but he also found the responses missing. I believe he also found something like 34 incidences of the amendment being published in the copy of the US Constitution in 34 state law books.

The Amendment was known as the Titles of Nobility Amendment. It prohibited the acceptance of a charter from a foreign government or prince. The penalty was you couldn't work in the government, serve in the government or be elected. The problem was commerce was being controlled by those chartered with privilege to do business or engage in various commercial enterprise. Thus, various British interests were using contacts within the US government to control various forms of commerce.

Dodge went into the history of the British East India Company. They had a monopoly in the trade of saltpeter and opium. In short, gunpowder and drugs. Dodge theorized that what was thrown overboard at Boston wasn't tea at all, but opium. Read Wiki about the East India Co. Take a look at its flag, which the flag of the USA is a modification of. Dodge also talked of the drug and medical industry.

The medical industry has been deemed the official healthcare business in the US. A doctor can kill a person through neglect and get away with it. Any other caregiver goes to jail. When I say get away with it, I don't mean he is not beyond suit, but that is 2 other controlled, title of nobility industries themselves, the Bar and Insurance. Much of the world's insurance still revolves around Lloyds of London and other European interests. Many people contend the Bar is linked directly or indirectly to London. The courts control the bar and the Bar controls the courts. They also now control the Executive and Legislative branches as well.

Are there any more extractive industries in the US than Medicine, Law, Insurance and Banking? I would venture a guess that the typical business, either directly or indirectly can trace 40% to 60% of its cost of doing business to these 4 items. This includes the extra taxes paid and the extra paid to employees so that they too can conform to the costs associated with these State endowed enterprises.

This gets us back to the topic. How much of this crap is fed to us under the guise of government approval, when in fact the interests behind the substances control the very institutions that give them approval? Would there be an FDA at all without the drug business? Doesn't one owe its existance to the other? Are we paying the patents on a bunch of bull****? Aren't a lot of these drugs nothing more than the snake oil the medical industry accused other health practitioners of selling?

Then we have the coverup. The coverup is the refusal of various corporate interests in government and the media to push forward the danger associated with these drugs. I first heard of the dangers of these drugs back in 1998. You might recall they had something known as agressive driving back then. Bet that was linked to SSRI's as well. It isn't a secret that even normal people having been prescribed these drugs, have gone haywire and murdered people. There are also millions of people that don't do such acts, so they use that as proof they work.

If the same reasoning was used with guns, there would be no debate on gun control. There are probably 100 million people in the USA that own firearms. Almost none of them, on a relative basis murder people. I will bet the percentage of those on SSSI's that do so is much higher.

Chris, these drugs have a large placebo effect anyway; in over half of the trials of the largest antidepressants the drugs did not significantly outperform the placebo arm, or in the trials that had a positive response, the advantage was slight. There was a nice piece debating the value of prescribing placebos in Scientific American a few years back--the primary view is that this violates the trust between patient and prescriber, and I agree with this, but you can see why some think this is preferable. At least you would have a lower risk of the person shooting up a room full of kids.

Yea a sight advantage... 10% or less of those that take the drug get a non placebo benefit. Even by THEIR research.

For those who did not watch this excellent tech video I linked to earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNuVo5NDh....

here's how drug industry psychotropic drug studies are rigged. It's absolutely amazing that they can get away with this crap, but since every expert in the field actually works for big pharma as revealed in the other video I've linked to, "The Drugging of Our Children," it is to be expected.

1. Those study participants who have a positive result from the placebo are eliminated from the study.
2. Those participants who have zero or negative results from the psychotropic drug being tested are eliminated from the study.

THAT is the "scientific method"?!

And something that really needs to end, something that was suggested by a family who lost a child at Sandy Hook, is the privacy of perp medical records. Now, especially when the perp is already dead, why is that not logical? It is important to understand the cause for the event and knowing what psychotropic drugs the perp was on would seem to be a very important part of that. But the perps records are NOT released and are known only if they are somehow leaked in which case full details are usually not known. THIS needs to change... yesterday. If you commit a deadly violent act, INCLUDING suicide, your psychotropic medications, if any, should become public information. There should be a national movement to demand this.

Genetic testing which would indicate the likelihood of negative effects are also possible and, at least initially, should be performed on suicide victims to collect data:

Genes Linked to Suicidal Thinking During Antidepressant Treatment

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/sep2007/nimh-....

Excerpt:

Specific variations in two genes are linked to suicidal thinking that sometimes occurs in people taking the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants, according to a large study led by scientists at the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Depending on the particular mix inherited, these versions increased the likelihood of such thoughts from 2- to 15-fold, the study found.

When the standard of treatment is to put people on drugs for the rest of their lives is it surprising that not only are a huge number of study results either not reported or outright fraud? I'd be amazed if it were any other way.

Think about how many billions are made by keeping people just sick enough to continue to work but not sick enough to kill them? Food manufacturers fill products with addictive and unhealthy substances like wheat and sugar and remove healthy things like fat. Pharmaceuticals make billions selling drugs that alleviate some symptoms while causing more (that require even more medications to alleviate). Hospitals and doctors make billions treating symptoms and not providing a cure. The weight loss industry makes billions by telling people to eat their healthy whole grains and cutting fat, a course of action guaranteed to eventually make them fatter rather than slimmer. NGO's like the AHA and the ADA bring in billions from donations as their advice is actually counterproductive to curing the diseases they represent.

Fact is that nobody has a financial interest in really finding a cure or god forbid prevent a disease from occurring in the first place. When the monetary incentive overwhelmingly is for people to remain sick, why does anyone trust these people?

Winston,

Would that not be the equivalent of global warming, in that the people doing the reviews are all part of the same club and reliant in some way? I mean if you are involved in the Big Pharma arena, you must at all time consider where your next paycheck is coming from and that is likely from either Govt or Big Pharma. Well I guess there is University, but if Big Pharma is making research donations, scholarships etc., that can be a roadblock to employment as well.

"When the monetary incentive overwhelmingly is for people to remain sick, why does anyone trust these people?"

All excellent points. And I do not. Unfortunately, the vast majority do. Give them a pill for something that was not even previously considered a disease or medical condition and they're happy. Until they commit suicide or shoot up a school anyway. Or die from the side effects. I once saw a TV ad for a prescription drug that allowed women to INCREASE THEIR EYELASH LENGTH!!! When I heard the possible side effects, I wondered how in the hell anyone would ever take that stuff! A pill for everything, no matter how trivial.

Lunatic fringe, in the summer when it's not as busy for my work I want to help organize an online campaign to get Americans healthy in order to get off these drugs with a focus on eating foods that don't make you sick; such as, the list Karl posted the other day that eliminated the foods you are talking about.

What you said is exactly right: eating the way you are supposed to eat keeps people sicker and sicker and that makes money. It is unethical at the very core and should be exposed as such.

There was actually a good TED talk about this. The presenter talked of a drug that was used for heart attacks. I forget a lot of the details, but the negative studies went unpublished, while on the positive ones were published.

The process for treating someone for a heart attack was to use this drug in the early 80s. 15 years later, they took a closer look at the drug. Turns out that ultimately, it was either ineffective or actualy totally the opposite reaction that is needed for the treatment. In all probability, 1000s of people died from the very treatment that was supposed to help. This was all because if the research results are not what you want or what someone is paying you for, then it will not be published.

Mann, your post is good. Best wishes for you Mom. It's bad to be poisoned to death when you are sick anyway--that's what the chemo does, right, it's a juggle to kill off the cancer prior to the patient. Hopefully she is not in too much pain.