October 21, 2014

Prescription Drugs Injure, Kill 2-4 Million Annually

pin it button Prescription Drugs Injure, Kill 2 4 Million Annually

Pills  Money Prescription Drugs Injure, Kill 2 4 Million Annually

by Jeanne Lenzer
The Office of Medical & Scientific Justice

A report by a watchdog group has concluded that prescribed medicines are “one of the most significant perils to human health resulting from human activity.”  The group based their conclusion on their analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration’s database of serious adverse events.

The report was published on 31 May in QuarterWatch, a publication of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), a non-profit organisation dedicated to “medication error prevention and safe medication use” based in Horsham, Pennsylvania.  It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing “serious, disabling, or fatal injuries,” including 128 000 deaths.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 48% of the US population were taking a prescription medicine in any given month and 11% were taking five or more prescribed medicines.

The FDA estimates that the number of reports it receives represent only the “tip of the iceberg,” and the report authors based their estimates on 179 855 reports of serious injuries, including 30 385 deaths submitted to FDA in 2011. Of those reports, 88% were written and submitted by manufacturers and 12% were submitted directly to the FDA by health professionals and patients. The authors considered 30% of the death reports to be “nearly useless” since the only event information supplied was the single term, “Death.” Ninety nine per cent of the low quality death reports were submitted by manufacturers, who omitted critical patient information in their reports such as the cause of death or age of the patient.

The top five drugs most often reported by healthcare providers and patients were (in order of frequency): the anticoagulant drugs warfarin and dabigatran; the antibiotic levofloxacin; the cancer drug carboplatin; and the antihypertensive lisinopril.

David Cundiff, lead author of a Cochrane review of anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism, told the BMJ that deaths from anticoagulation associated internal bleeding have been ignored for too long—a point underscored by the report authors who write that “In the sobering arithmetic of anticoagulation, warfarin prevents ischemic strokes in approximately 1% of high risk patients a year, but causes major bleeding in an estimated 3%.”

George Lundberg, former editor in chief of JAMA, told the BMJ that he was not surprised to see anticoagulants topping the list. He said that overprescribing is partly to blame and that “a balance needs to be reached between the benefits and harms of anticoagulants.” Lundberg cautioned against the routine use of anticoagulants for patients in hospital and those with stroke in an editorial in MedPage Today, where he is editor at large.

The authors monitored FDA reports submitted by lawyers separately and found that the top five drugs resulting in litigation were the anti-nausea drug metoclopramide, birth control pills containing drospirenone, the diabetes drug rosiglitazone, the smoking cessation aid varenicline, and the acne drug isotretinoin.

Thomas Moore, one of the report authors and senior scientist at the institute, told the BMJ that important signals are obtained from both healthcare provider and attorney reports, and that for a drug to result in a lawsuit it must meet a different standard than for a clinical report. For example, he said, even though angioedema can be life threatening, it often won’t result in a lawsuit because the patient may be treated and not suffer permanent harm. And haemorrhagic strokes from warfarin may not be reported because bleeding is a well known side effect. Moore said, “But, if you take metoclopramide and develop tardive dyskinesia, or you take [drospirenone] and have a stroke, there may be a compensable injury.”

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.omsj.org/corruption/prescription-drugs-injure-kill-2-4-million-annually

 

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Use of Aborted Human Cell Lines in Vaccines Linked to Rise in Autism

Use of Aborted Human Cell Lines in Vaccines Linked to Rise in Autism

Pin It

Researchers from the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute recently published a study showing a correlation with the introduction human fetal cell lines used as contaminants in childhood vaccines, and the rapid rise of autism. The study was published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, an open access Academic Journal.

I reviewed the full length research paper and found the methodology of the research very thorough. The researchers tracked not only the introduction of aborted fetal cell lines introduced into vaccines used in the childhood vaccination scheduled in the United States, but they also tracked standards for autism diagnoses as published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This manual is used in the field of psychology and has undergone several revisions. One of the claims made for the rising rate of autism in America today is that it is primarily related to changes of diagnosis. This study used sophisticated software to account for these changes in autism diagnosis, and found:

“Autistic disorder change points years are coincident with introduction of vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, containing fetal and retroviral contaminants, into childhood vaccine regimens. This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells. Increased paternal age and DSM revisions were not related to rising autistic disorder prevalence.”

Boston Nurses Speak Out Against Mandatory Flu Shots

Boston Nurses Speak Out Against Mandatory Flu Shots

Pin It

Last month (September 2014) the Massachusetts Nurses Association sued Brigham and Women’s Hospital over a new policy that required nurses to receive the annual flu vaccine as a condition for employment.

The nurses were, of course, criticized by the medical establishment. They were accused of putting their own interests above the needs of patients. Lynn Nicholas, president of the Massachusetts Hospital Association, stated that the nurses were: “putting a pet peeve of theirs above the safety and well-being of the patients they serve, their families, visitors to the hospital, and their colleagues.”

Pet peeve? Really?

When nurses all across the United States and Canada are willing to sacrifice their jobs and careers to avoid the annual flu shot, it is time to sit up and take notice. This is obviously something much more than a “pet peeve.”

Trish Powers, representing Brigham nurses in Boston fired back a comment that The Boston Globe published. It is titled “Brigham nurses know flu vaccine can do harm.”

Gardasil: The Day Our Daughter’s Life Changed

Gardasil: The Day Our Daughter’s Life Changed

Pin It

The Gardasil vaccine has changed Skylee’s life in so many ways and we do not know how many more symptoms will show up and change her life even more than it has already done. Our whole family has been affected by this vaccine and all of our lives have been turned upside down that terrible day in 2013.

If only the doctors would recognize Skylee has gone from being a healthy young girl to an invalid when the only major change in her life occurred on the day she had that single shot of Gardasil.

Will There Be An Ebola Outbreak in America?

Will There Be An Ebola Outbreak in America?

Pin It

So here is what inquiring minds want to know:

Why did U.S. health officials in Atlanta and on the ground in Africa ignore the exploding Ebola epidemic last spring?

Why did U.S. government officials fly American aid workers infected with Ebola to the U.S. rather than treating them with experimental drugs at hospitals in Africa?

Why did the U.S. government press the United Nations to adopt a resolution calling for no restrictions on international travel from Liberia and other Ebola-stricken countries?

Why did the Centers for Disease Control, supposedly the world’s leading infection control agency, fail to immediately assist Texas health officials when the first case of Ebola was diagnosed on US soil to guarantee that, at a minimum, the kind of infection control measures used in most nursing homes in America would be carried out?

Why has the Director of the CDC repeatedly stated that the only way a person can transmit Ebola is if they have a fever and said that people cannot get Ebola unless they have direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person – but that under no circumstances is Ebola airborne – when he knows, or should know, those statements could be false?

And why are experimental Ebola vaccines being fast tracked into human trials and promoted as the final solution rather than ramping up testing and production of the experimental ZMapp drug that has already saved the lives of several Ebola infected Americans?

A logical conclusion is that some people in industry, government and the World Health Organization did not want the Ebola outbreak to be confined to several nations in Africa because that would fail to create a lucrative global market for mandated use of fast tracked Ebola vaccines by every one of the seven billion human beings living on this planet.

Similarities Between 1976 Swine Flu Hoax and Ebola?

Similarities Between 1976 Swine Flu Hoax and Ebola?

Pin It

Read this before you consider purchasing a hazmat suit to protect yourself from Ebola!

Are we facing an Ebola pandemic that will kill millions, or is this just a marketing plan of the pharmaceutical industry to sell more drugs and vaccines? Is the current strain of the Ebola virus a secret creation of pharmaceutical company scientists, biological warfare researchers, or the fruit of Monsanto’s product development team?

Was Ebola created, or did it just accidentally spill over into humans from an animal host such as African fruit bats?

Is the US government intentionally not taking strong action to prevent Ebola from spreading or is there really minimal risk to Americans? Are there groups that want to decrease the world population through spreading contagious diseases such as Ebola, or is this just another imaginary plan that is being reported by certain conspiracy theory groups?

Is the Ebola virus a local epidemic, a global pandemic, or a hoax? Is life in America as we have known it about to collapse into chaos and martial law, or will we be safe and secure once we take the Ebola vaccine?

Will more people die from the Ebola vaccine than would have died from the disease itself?

All these questions have been circulating through the media over the last few months. The situation with Ebola is certainly a complex muddle of contradictory facts, opposing interpretations, and political intrigue. It reminds me very much of the 1976 Swine flu hoax — commonly called the swine flu fiasco or the swine flu debacle. More:

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!