September 1, 2014

FDA About to Greenlight a Drug Banned in Other Countries

pin it button FDA About to Greenlight a Drug Banned in Other Countries

warning fda approved 300x222 FDA About to Greenlight a Drug Banned in Other Countries

by Alliance for Natural Health

Is FDA About to Greenlight a Drug Banned in Other Countries?

If enough people raise their voices in protest, we can prevent it. Action Alert!

Remember the controversial diabetes drug Avandia? In 2010 we told you about two FDA drug safety reviewers who warned the agency that Avandia posed serious risks of heart attack and heart failure when compared with other diabetes drugs. Since then, the drug has been removed from the market in most countries and has been under severe restrictions in the US.

Last Thursday, in a combined meeting of separate FDA advisory committees, 20 of 26 panelists voted to recommend removing or modifying Avandia’s highly restrictive label and distribution system. Five voted to keep the restrictions in place, while one panelist voted to remove the product from the market altogether.

There has been only one large, randomized trial for the safety of rosiglitazone, the drug that is marketed as Avandia. That trial—sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the drug’s manufacturer—was called RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes). Serious flaws were found in RECORD’s methodology, its results were questioned, and the trial was widely discredited.

In 2010, FDA required GSK’s RECORD results to be reexamined and re-adjudicated. What was the FDA’s motivation for reviewing Avandia? GSK didn’t request that the drug be reviewed. Could it be, as Steve Nissen suggests in Forbes, because FDA “is seeking to avoid accountability for its role in the Avandia tragedy”? FDA’s official position is that they asked for the re-adjudication because of “the public interest in Avandia, the extensive history of the product, and the continued uncertainty of the risk surrounding this drug.”

Duke University’s Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) was selected for the re-adjudication, and they found that the risk for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke to be virtually the same as the original study concluded. Because these new results reaffirmed GSK’s findings that the drug was no more unsafe than other diabetes products in its class, Thursday’s panelists were sufficiently reassured that the drug was safe enough to lift restrictions.

Unfortunately, other data paint a very different picture:

  • In 2005 and 2006 GSK secretly conducted an analysis of cardiovascular safety of Avandia, and concluded that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and related events by 30%. Since two-thirds of diabetics eventually die of cardiovascular complications anyway, this 30% hike is terrifying.
  • In 2006 GSK informed the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) of the secret analysis, but FDA and CDER agreed to conceal this hazard from patients and practitioners.
  • During a public hearing, independent FDA statisticians reported an 80% increased risk of heart attack. Avandia is estimated to have caused 83,000 heart attacks in the United States alone.
  • Adverse effects caused by the drug are currently the subject of over 13,000 lawsuits against GSK. As of July 2010, GSK has agreed to settlements on more than 11,500 of these suits.
  • Last year, GSK pled guilty of criminal conduct, partially for concealing the hazards of Avandia. The company paid a $3 billion fine—the largest in US history.

In addition, the re-adjudication process itself was biased. GSK prepared the study materials before submitting them to Duke for analysis, rather than allowing the university to review the raw data. (On the widespread problem of publication bias, see our article in this issue.)

On top of that, key members of the 2010 advisory committee that decided to place restrictions on Avandia in the first place were not part of the 2013 meeting. Of the twenty-seven member panel, fourteen of the experts were on the panel last time, and they were the people with a more favorable attitude toward Avandia. This is in contrast to the other experts who did not serve on the panel a second time—like Steven Nissen, who was one of the most outspoken critics on the panel. FDA claims all panelists were invited, it does not appear they made a huge effort to ensure their participation; Nissen says he was not re-invited. With all of the big nay-sayers out of the picture, it’s no surprise the panel voted to lift the restrictions on this dangerous drug.

FDA should focus more on advisory panelists who have true conflicts of interest. A 2007 law placed caps on the number of waivers that could be granted allowing experts with conflicts of interest; a 2012 law removed those safeguards. When there are no restrictions on experts with conflicts of interest serving on FDA advisory panels, more drugs with dangerous side effects could certainly enter the market.

Action Alert! The FDA is not obligated to follow its advisory committee’s recommendation, though they usually do so. Moreover, there is no regulatory deadline by which they have to make a decision. If there is enough public pressure, perhaps this will force the FDA to reject the advisory committee’s decision on Avandia—or at least postpone any action indefinitely.Please send your message to the FDA about the dangers of Avandia!

Take Action11 FDA About to Greenlight a Drug Banned in Other Countries

Read the full article here: http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-greenlight-drug-banned

Confessions 20of 20an 20Rx 20Drug 20Pusher FDA About to Greenlight a Drug Banned in Other Countries

Free Shipping Available for this book!


0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Former Staff Lead on Original Congressional Investigation Looking at Vaccine Injuries Speaks Out on CDC Fraud

Former Staff Lead on Original Congressional Investigation Looking at Vaccine Injuries Speaks Out on CDC Fraud

Pin It

Beth Clay is a unique contributor to the CDC whistleblower story. Clay was the staff lead on the original House Oversight Committee’s investigation looking into concerns about vaccine injuries in 1999. Working in Congress, she had a genuine desire to find the truth and find solutions regarding the rapidly increasing autism rates. What she found during her time in Congress, however, shocked her. So the recent revelations of Dr. Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, are not really “news” to her. Sadly, a government agency withholding information about a link between vaccines and autism is representative of the kind of fraud she too observed during her years in Congress.

CDC Director of Immunization Safety Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccines to Autism

CDC Director of Immunization Safety Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccines to Autism

Pin It

In what is quickly becoming one of the largest news stories in our lifetime, things are just getting worse for the CDC and their cover-up of data linking vaccines to autism.

Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson has posted a recorded phone call she just had with Dr. Frank DeStefano, the CDC Director of Immunization Safety. Dr. DeStefano was a co-author with CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson on a 2004 study that originally was put forward as research showing there was no link between vaccines and autism. Dr. Thompson has come forward and revealed that data was withheld from the public that showed an increased risk of autism in certain populations, specifically African American boys. The CDC has already made a public announcement admitting that they did withhold some data.

Dr. DeStefano has publicly stated that while he will reveal the data again, but that he is standing by the original study. A new audio recording of a conversation he just had with independent investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has just been posted on the Internet.

In this interview, Dr. DeStefano, who is not a whistle-blower, has come out with his own confession of bias and way of interpreting data so that it does not have to be shared with the public if it is not favorable with what they want to communicate regarding vaccines.

Dr. DeSefano and the CDC is being forced to answer questions like this (which unfortunately the mainstream media as of yet are NOT asking) because his co-author on the study, Dr. William Thompson, has hired one of the top whistleblower attorney’s in the nation so that he can come forward and reveal all the data the CDC has been hiding in regards to vaccines and autism.

60+ Natural ALS Cures the “Ice Washing” Campaign Isn’t Funding!

60+ Natural ALS Cures the “Ice Washing” Campaign Isn’t Funding!

Pin It

In a previous article we published on where funds donated to the ALS Association are being spent, we showed that a small percentage was actually spent on research, and even then only on pharmaceutical products. This has been our most popular story of the year so far.

Sayer Ji brings us a great review of over 60 natural cures that have published research on helping ALS. He also shows how some of the corporate sponsors of the ALS Association are pharmaceutical companies producing drugs that are linked to the cause of ALS!

MSM Marginalizes CDC Whistleblower Story on Vaccine-Autism Coverup

MSM Marginalizes CDC Whistleblower Story on Vaccine-Autism Coverup

Pin It

CNN was the first mainstream media (MSM) outlet to publish a story on the CDC whistleblower story linking vaccines to autism. Predictably, CNN marginalized this story on their website, and then posted a video from their TV network which said nothing about the CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, but simply reiterated the MSM’s belief that all vaccines are safe and do not cause autism. They have posted a video that incorrectly represents facts regarding infant mortality and current whooping cough outbreaks that are occurring among fully vaccinated populations.

How can we trust anything CNN says on the vaccine issue if they misrepresent such basic facts regarding vaccines that are easily verified by 3rd party sources?

This story regarding the CDC cover-up has become too big for the MSM to ignore. They have to address it, but predictably they will continue to cover the story from their own belief system that the vaccine-autism debate is over, and that only one side of the debate should be heard. For those reporters that would dare to cover both sides of the debate, they will soon be without a career in MSM. So perhaps the American public needs to wake up and acknowledge this fact, and research the issue for themselves. A current senior scientist working for the CDC who has regrets over his participation in covering up data linking vaccines to autism is something worth taking some time to research.

CDC Whistleblower: Mercury in Vaccines Given to Pregnant Women Linked to Autism

CDC Whistleblower: Mercury in Vaccines Given to Pregnant Women Linked to Autism

Pin It

Today, the Autism Media Channel released a short video where CDC whistle-blower Dr. William Thompson states, in a phone call to Dr. Brian Hooker, that injecting mercury into pregnant women creates a “clear and present danger” to the unborn child. Thimerosal, a form of mercury used as a preservative in vaccines, was removed from most childhood vaccines a few years ago, but is still in the annual flu shot, which is recommended for pregnant women.

Dr. Thompson, in the video below, insists that this mercury in vaccines causes “tics” in children, and these tics are 4 times more prevalent in kids with autism. “Tics” are defined on the CDC website as: “Tics are sudden twitches, movements, or sounds that people do repeatedly. People who have tics cannot stop their body from doing these things. For example, a person with a motor tic might keep blinking over and over again. Or, a person with a vocal tic might make a grunting sound unwillingly.”

Watch the short 1 minute video.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!