Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Doctors. Are they too close to drug companies? Is this why they don't tell us about the dangers of drugs and vaccines?

Many people now believe that doctors have become very close to the Big Pharma drug companies. It is certainly well known that Big Pharma companies employ many ways to seek to influence the prescribing behaviour of doctors.

Certainly, the almost inevitable outcome of most patient visits to GPs is a prescription for drugs, even though in most cases there are many other kinds and areas of health advice and treatment that could be given. Too often health factors like diet, exercise, life-style changes, and of course traditional therapies, are ignored.
Even some doctors have become concerned about this situation. WDDTY reported in October 2006 that a group of doctors were taking a stand against the 'overt and covert inducements' offered to encourage doctors to prescribe drugs. They have a website at www.nofreelunch-uk.org to try to change the current relationship between doctors and Big Pharma. They described this relationship as "based on hospitality and patronage which is unknown and undeclared to the general public" and that "without action we will continue with the relentless medicalisation of society".
The objectives of the ‘No free meals’ group of doctors is given as follows:
     “We are health care providers who believe that pharmaceutical promotion should not guide clinical practice. Our mission is to encourage health care providers to practice medicine on the basis of scientific evidence rather than on the basis of pharmaceutical promotion. We discourage the acceptance of all gifts from industry by health care providers, trainees, and students. Our goal is improved patient care.

     We aim to achieve our goal by informing health care providers as well as the general public about pharmaceutical industry efforts to promote their products and influence prescribing; provide evidence that promotion does in fact influence health care provider behaviour, often in ways that run counter to good patient care; and provide products that can replace pharmaceutical company paraphernalia and spread our message.

     We believe that there is ample evidence in the literature-contrary to the beliefs of most heath care providers - that drug companies, by means of samples, gifts, and food, exert significant influence on provider behaviour.
     There is also ample evidence in the literature that promotional materials and presentations are often biased and non-informative. We believe that health care professionals, precisely because they are professionals, should not allow themselves to be bought by the pharmaceutical industry: It is time to Just say no to drug reps and their pens, pads, calendars, coffee mugs, and of course, lunch.
So these doctors are telling us about what is going on behind the doors of the conventional medical establishment. These are laudable objectives, although there appears little evidence that their motives have been generally accepted by the conventional medical establishment.
Most patients place their trust in their NHS GP. They do so in the belief that their advice is impartial, and in the best interests of their health. 
Most patients do not consider that GPs practice just one medical therapy, and that prescriptions might follow bribes or junkets. 
Yet drug companies are wealthy, and doctors are human. So within the NHS lays a situation that can leave patients vulnerable.


The NHS brings down Governments: the record so far

Spending money on health care has become a major political objective for every British government since the inauguration of the National Health Service in 1947. In every election, political parties have positioned themselves carefully so that the electorate would see them as 'major investors' in health care.

The result has been that each successive government has sought outbid itself, and its predecessor (with little appreciable improvement in national health outcomes) but leading to a situation that has brought down governments, and leading to spending on health now coming close to bankrupting the nation.
This is an outline of the record, so far. But just listen to the news about health, and the NHS today, and recognise that it is still happening today. The NHS is under pressure, the government wants to reduce public expenditure, but 'ring fences' health; and Labour is ready to attack breakdown of emergency services, or anything else that suggests the government is not pouring money into a failing medical system.
1951 General Election
The Labour manifesto in 1951, 4 years after the creation of the NHS, appealed to the electorate by contrasting Britain in the inter-war years with the new situation, brought about by the NHS. It spoke about the people’s dread of doctor's bills, and good healthcare costing more than most people could afford. They criticised the Tory opposition, who had consistently opposed the scheme.
     "Now we have a national health scheme which is the admiration of the post-war world".
For their part, the Tories stated that "In Education and Health some of the most crying needs are not being met. For the money now being spent we will provide better services and so fulfil the high hopes we all held when we planned the improvements during the war".
Clearly, Labour were not spending enough - so they lost, and went into opposition for 13 years!
1964 General Election
Under the Conservative government, expenditure on the NHS increased, although never sufficient to satisfy the Labour opposition. The Conservatives said this in their 1964 manifesto, entitled 'A Healthy Nation'.
     "The past thirteen years have seen improvements in the nation's health greater than in any comparable period. These advances we owe to medical science and the skill of the healing professions. They could only have been achieved against a background of rising living standards and continuously expanding health services such as Conservative Government is providing".
They went on to promise that every man, woman and child in the country would have access to the best treatment, and that their aim was to build or rebuild some 300 hospitals. There was also a promise to "improve and bring up to date the law controlling the safety and quality of drugs".
These promises were not sufficient. The Conservatives lost the election, and Labour returned to power.
1970 General Election
Labour lost again, despite their promises on health. They claimed to have doubled expenditure on hospital building, whilst local health and welfare expenditure "is now running at three times the level of just ten years ago". They promised a continued expansion of training on doctors, nurses and other staff, the continuation of "our great building programme", and inevitably, more changes in the administrative structure of the NHS.
Again, it was not enough, and Labour lost again.
1974 General Election
There is little or no mention of the NHS in the Conservative manifesto of this outgoing Tory administration – so perhaps it is little wonder that they lost!
In comparison, the Labour opposition made many health promises - to revise and expand the NHS, to abolish prescription charges, to introduce free family planning, to phase out private practice from the hospital service, and to transform the area health authorities into democratic bodies.
1979 General Election
After 5 years in power, the Labour Manifesto for this election was called 'A Healthier Nation'. It stated that it would gave 'priority to health', and attacked the Tory alternatives.
     "We reject Tory plans to create two health services: one for the rich, financed by private insurance with a second-class service for the rest of us. Labour reaffirms its belief in a comprehensive national health service for all our people. We oppose Tory proposals for higher prescription charges and charges for seeing a doctor or being in hospital. Our aim is to abolish all charges in the NHS".
And Labour tried to defend its record from Conservative claims that it was cutting NHS budgets.
      "For all the talk of cuts, the truth is that the Labour Government are spending over £600m a year more on health in real terms than the Tories. Labour will devote a higher proportion of the nation's wealth to the health service and the personal social services".
As usual, the problems of the NHS was also said to concern management rather than the medical treatment that was offered.
     "We will streamline the bureaucratic and costly structure the Tories created and give a bigger say in running the NHS to the public and staff".
Needless to say, despite these promises Labour lost the election, and the Tories were destined to be in power for the next 18 years.  
1997 General Election
Despite the low priority that the 11-year Thatcher government gave to public spending, the Tory manifesto of 1997 was prepared to defend its record.
     "Government spending has concentrated on priorities, not wasteful bureaucracy and over-manning. Despite tough overall public spending plans, real spending on the NHS has risen nearly 75% since 1979". The Health Service is treating over 1 million more patients each year than before our reforms. The number of people waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment has fallen from over 200,000 in 1990 to 22,000 last year. The average wait has fallen from nearly 9 months to 4 months".
The Conservative government lost the election, and Labour was in power for 13 years, embarking on the biggest increase in NHS spending ever seen.
2010 General Election
The New Labour government cannot be accused of scrimping on the NHS for the 13 years of its existence! Indeed, it virtually bankrupted itself, and the country, in an effort to make the NHS, now completely dominated by the Conventional Medical Establishment, work properly! When they were defeated in this election NHS spending had reached close to £120 billion per annum. But it did not save them! 
Nor could any political party admit at this time that NHS spending was a major factor in the nation’s financial difficulties! All the main parties campaigned to ‘ring-fence’ health spending even though it was known that massive government spending cuts would have to be enforced over the next few years.
The new Coalition Government decided to ‘ring-fence’ health spending, one of the few departments to be so privileged. And in order to do so the government is prepared to cut other departmental spending by as much as 40-50% over the life-time of the Parliament. 
Clearly, government spending on ConMed has become not just a priority. It is now a sacred cow!

Health Mis-information and the Media; the Swansea Measles Outbreak

What has happened to the measles epidemic in Swansea? Well, basically, it never happened, except in the minds, and in the misinformation given to us by the BBC, and other mainstream media outlets!

I wrote about the nonsense, and the  'moral panic' of this measles epidemic in April. I said that the numbers did not justify the panic, the disease did not justify the panic, and that only impact the media coverage was having was to panic people to get the MMR vaccine, which was too dangerous.

NSNBC International has researched this 'epidemic' and has found that the suppositions I was making in these blogs were correct. NSNBC International was founded in January 2013, committed to journalistic principles that the BBC, and others, have long forgotten when it comes to issues of health. It commits itself to being independent of political parties, governments, organisations or corporations (like the Big Pharma companies). On its website it says:

          "NSNBC's journalistic ethics oppose many, if not most mainstream media's bias, the uncriticial repetition and dissemination of mis- or disinformation to justify war or aggression and other violations of good ethics in journalism".
It has certainly done a good job in looking at the Swansea Measles outbreak. In this article, BBC News removes false news claims about measles epidemic 'after being busted' it takes the BBC to task for its coverage, and argues:
  • that Welsh health officials were caught out initially when it emerged that the measles cases were only reported cases, which were massively over-reported by doctors. It is now estimated that as many as 73 in 74 cases were NOT measles.
  • that the BBC removed their online article claiming that prior to 1988 (and the MMR vaccine) there were 'millions' of measles cases in the UK, with 100  child deaths every year. It also said that there were 'death risks' in the outbreak, and this reported comment "we are not in any way judgemental about why their children missed the MMR in the past, the important thing is to get the jab now". No pro-ConMed bias there, then! Certainly no information about the known and accepted dangers of the MMR vaccination.
  • that the media, particularly BBC News were acting like a 'self-styled Pravda for the British Government (I personally disagree with this - they act for the Pharmaceutical interests, and the Conventional Medical Establishment rather than the government).
  • that it is deeply troubling that the BBC publishes such 'fake' news, and then tries to 'airbrush' this from history. Indeed, there has been no retraction, no apology from the BBC. As far as anyone knows, there WAS as epidemic, measles IS a dangerous disease, and that one person was killed by measles.
  • that 'scam' claims, for instance, that 1 in 1000 would die from measles were completely false; that since 1992, there have been more than 80,000 cases of measles and no deaths in healthy individuals during that time. Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine.
  •  that the 1 in 1000 figure was taken from Bulgarian statistics, and then over-hyped (perhaps we should all ask "why?")
  • The claims of a 25 year old man having died from measles has also turned out to be a scam. He had been in hospital with severe asthma, was discharged, and then not re-admitted when he reported that he had a rash. The rash was never diagnosed as measles.
  • Additionally, the man's family reported that he had been 'fully immunised' against measles as a child. This makes it difficult to understand how the BBC (and other mainstream media) were prepared to collate this case with their calls for un0immunised people to get the vaccine.
  • It has also emerged that the man was treated with Steroid drugs; but, of course, there was never any suggestion that his health may have been jeopardised by these drugs.
NSNBC International go on to ask pertinent questions about why this misinformation was being provided by the Welsh Health authorities, why the BBC so meekly went along with it, and why neither has sought to correct it, in an open and honest manner. They go on to suggest that we should all complain to the BBC Trust, and repost the article to Facebook, to blogs (which I am doing here), to Twitter, and circulate to friends and family.

It is vitally important that anyone who does not want to be scammed by ConMed Heath officials, and the media, that we all do this!

Friday, 24 May 2013

Conventional Medicine - is it too expensive (as well as being ineffective and unsafe)?

Healthcare spending in the UK, as with most other developed nations, has grown unchecked for over 60 years. They have been bonanza years for the Big Pharma drug companies. Yet, as described in the first chapter of my e-book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine", the more we spend on our drug-dominated National Health Service, the sicker we become. Here are some of the statistics on health spending, taken from an article by Delny Britton, PhD, RSHom, in 'Homeopathy in Practice' the journal of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, Autumn 2012.

As a proportion of GDP spending on 'health' has risen from 3.5% in 1948 to 8.3% today (ukpublicspending.co.uk) and is predicted to rise above 13% by 2020 (Walayat 2010), We currently spend over £100 billion on the NHS, and so it has contributed massively to the national debt. The IMF has warned several G7 nations, including the UK, to curb spending on health-care, or risk dire economic consequences (Cotareli and Schaeter, 2010).

          "The trend is the same for pharmaceuticals, with both the volume of drugs prescribed (or bought over the counter) and their total cost increasing exponentially worldwide. The NHS now spends around £30 million a day on drugs (Boseley, 2008). In 2008 more than 50 million prescriptions were written for cholesterol-reducing statins and 36 million for antidepressants. UK sales in 2007 of the painkiller Anadin totalled nearly 27 million packs, a number which - according to its maker, Wyeth Healthcare - would reach over 56 times the height of Mount Everest if stacked on top of each other (Naish, 2008)".

So what is the result of this massive spending spree on Big Pharma drugs? If we consider the massive disease-inducing-effects (DIE's) of these drugs, the outcome is not, perhaps, surprising. Increasing ill-health, increasing demand for more health resources, and an NHS that cannot cope with the demands placed upon it.

Consider Statin drugs, mentioned in the quotation above from Britton's HIP article. The DIEs of Statin drugs are enormous, see here for a fuller explanation. Although our GP's have told us for years they are are safe, or "well tolerated" it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are not. They cause more disease, and thus, more demand of health services. As do most conventional drugs and vaccines. And so the cycle continues, with more spending leading to more illness.

The tragedy is that no politician, to date, has had the wit to understand this process!

This is why more than 250,000 people are admitted to UK hospitals each year suffering from 'adverse drug reactions, and around 10,000 actually die from this cause, according to a study published in the BMJ (Pirmohamed, 2004). This is the conclusion reached by the study.

          "The burden of ADRs on the NHS is high, accounting for considerable morbidity, mortality, and extra costs. Although many of the implicated drugs have proved benefit, measures need to be put into place to reduce the burden of ADRs and thereby further improve the benefit:harm ratio of the drugs".

As Britton says, adverse drug reactions are thought to cost the NHS £2 billion per year (Boseley, 2008), and if deaths from hospital acquired infections and surgical and medical errors are added to the equation, the toll, and the cost, is much higher.

Demands for increased spending on the NHS have been with us since 1948, and with each election, politicians have promised us more and more - on the basis that this is what we want, and therefore, this is what we should have. It has brought down government after government.

But spending more of our resources on the same failed medical system is like pouring money down a bottomless pit. The more we spend, the more we have to spend to overcome the adverse drug reactions, and the ill-health they cause.

The conventional medical establishment, which dominates the NHS, is committed to drug-based medicine. But pharmaceutical drugs, time after time, have proven themselves to be both ineffective and unsafe. But they are not only failing to create health. They are bankrupting us at the same time.



Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDs), Co-Sleeping, and the DPT vaccine

Listen to BBC News today (21st May 2013) and you might be fooled into believing that SIDs, or 'Sudden Infant Death Syndrome', commonly know as Cot Death, was caused by parents who shared a bed with their babies! (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22594587). How does this cause death? Do they lie on the baby, and stop it breathing? If so, why is SIDs medicalised with the label 'syndrome'? What is a 'syndrome' anyway?

The article does question the validity of the findings, but it does not discuss any other cause of SIDs. So a more pertinent question for the BBC might be - why?

The answer is, of course, that the only known cause of SIDs, or cot death, is a vaccine - the DPT vaccine - given to babies when they are just 2-3 months old, and repeated twice in monthly intervals.

The link between SIDs and the DPT vaccine is not world shattering news. Our doctors know it, the NHS know it, the Big Pharma drug companies know it, and the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media know it too. The link is admitted on the package insert for each DPT vaccine.

But whilst the Media, and the BBC in particular, will provide you with a diet of medical nonsense about 'co-sleeping' they will never share with you the known, and accepted dangers of the DPT vaccination.

'Co-sleeping' is a diversion. It is a distraction. It is nonsense.

The conventional medical establishment knows the primary, and probably the only cause of SIDs. Sudden Death Syndrome is not a syndrome, it is not a disease; it is death caused by medicine, it is a drug-induced-death. 

If you want to keep your baby safe, it is probably much better to refuse the DPT vaccine and to share a bed with your child; although as the BBC article suggests, it is probably best not to do this either.

Monday, 13 May 2013

The Allergy Epidemic. Caused by Pharmaceutical Drugs?

Our immune system defends and protects us from attack from foreign substances, such as viruses and bacteria. It produces antibodies that seek and destroy intruders, and thereafter protects us from future attacks. An allergy occurs when the immune system overreacts to a normally harmless substance, and triggers what, for the healthy human body, is an inappropriate and unnecessary response.

Substances that trigger allergic reactions are called allergens, and these include such things as house dust mites, pollen, cat and dog fur, bee and wasp stings, feathers and a variety of foods.
The antibodies produced by the immune system can cause the release of some irritating substances, such as histamine, which produce redness, heat and swelling, leading to symptoms such as sneezing, wheezing, shortness of breath, a runny or blocked up nose, watery and bloodshot eyes, rash, itchiness, diarrhoea, and vomiting.
Food intolerance is a related but less serious condition than an allergy. The symptoms after eating the food can include headaches, muscle and joint pains, and tiredness, so whilst less serious, it remains an inappropriate response for a healthy body. The body is not responding normally, or as it should do.
Anaphylaxis, or anaphylactic shock, is a severe, potentially fatal, allergic reaction to an allergen, where there can be a sudden drop in blood pressure and the narrowing of the airways. It can be triggered by foods such as peanuts, nuts, sesame seeds, fish, shellfish, dairy products, eggs and strawberries, or by an allergic reaction to wasp or bee stings.
Allergies include a wide range of medical conditions such as Rhinitis, Hay Fever, Ezcema and AsthmaAllergy in the UK has reached epidemic proportions - according to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Its report, published in July 2007, found that
          "the prevalence and incidence of allergic disease have markedly increased over the past 50 years", and that evidence presented to the Committee showed that "an increasing prevalence of asthma was first noted in studies of Birmingham school children, starting in the mid 1950s," and that since then "the prevalence of asthma and wheezing appears to have doubled "approximately every 14 years" until the mid 1990s. It added that the trends for other disorders such as hayfever and eczema are similar".
The report estimated that in 2004 the scale of the "allergy epidemic" showed that 39% of children and 30% of adults had been diagnosed with one or more of asthma, eczema and hayfever; and 38% of children and 45% of adults had experienced symptoms of these disorders during the preceding 12 months. The committee commented that the treatment of allergic disorders costs the NHS a considerable amount of money each year.
Clearly, this describes the development of another epidemic that began shortly after Big Pharma drugs became freely available through the NHS. It is known and even admitted that anaphylaxis can be triggered by certain drugs, such as penicillin. And the increase in conditions described as 'auto-immune' disease, suggests that the culpability of pharmaceutical drugs is far greater than is currently recognised.
The link between allergy and drugs is admitted and discussed in many websites, including these:
So the issue is not whether pharmaceutical drugs cause allergies, they do. The important issues are:
  1. To what extent has the Conventional Medical Establishment admitted it culpability?
  2. To what extent it is the major cause of the allergy epidemic in recent decades?
Certainly, drugs are known to be causative for two of the main, and most serious allergic disease, Asthma and Ezcema.

Friday, 10 May 2013

Dementia / Alzheimer's Disease. Caused by conventional medical drugs?

Alzheimer’s disease is the commonest of over 100 forms of dementia, a brain disorder that seriously and progressively restricts the ability to carry out normal daily functions and activities. It affects the parts of the brain that control thought, memory, and language. Alzheimer’s disease was first noted by Dr. Alois Alzheimer, a German doctor in about 1906, when it must have been an extremely rare condition.

The incidence of Alzheimer’s, and dementia generally, has increased rapidly over the last 50 to 60 years. A report published in 2006 by the Alzheimer's Disease International (ADI), mentioned in The Lancet (17th December 2005), calculated that there was a new case of dementia every seven seconds, and predicted that, worldwide, dementia cases are expected to double every 20 years. They estimated that over 24 million people are living with dementia, and 4.6 million new cases are diagnosed each year. There are 4.8 million in Western Europe and 3.4 million in North America. The ADI chairman is reported as calling the situation "a ticking time bomb".
The Alzheimer's Society published a major study on the social and economic impact of dementia in the UK in February 2007. The research, was undertaken by King's College London, and the London School of Economics, provided the most detailed information about the prevalence and impact of dementia in the UK. These are some of its findings http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=342
  • There are currently 700,000 people with dementia in the UK.
  • There are currently 15,000 younger people with dementia in the UK (considered to be an under-estimate by about 3-times as data relies on referrals to services).
  • There are over 11,500 people with dementia from black and minority ethnic groups in the UK.
  • There will be over a million people with dementia by 2025.
  • Two thirds of people with dementia are women.
  • The proportion of people with dementia doubles for every 5 year age group. One third of people over 95 have dementia.
  • 60,000 deaths a year are directly attributable to dementia.
  • The financial cost of dementia to the UK is over £17 billion a year.
  • Family carers of people with dementia save the UK over £6 billion a year.
  • 64% of people living in care homes have a form of dementia.
  • Two thirds of people with dementia live in the community while one third live in a care home.
The cause of this epidemic, like so many others, is said to be ‘unknown’. One of the main excuses for the rapid rise of dementia in recent decades has been that ‘people are living longer’, and that it is ‘a normal part of ageing’.. But this is no longer viable as younger people, some in their 30’s, are now developing the condition. More realistic causes may be an increased contact with metals like aluminium and mercury (including dental amalgam, a mercury based compound placed routinely in our teeth, in a wet environment that leeches this poison into our bodies, close to our brain). Both metals can be found in vaccines.
Yet this is certainly an epidemic that could have been caused by the increased consumption of ConMed drugs during the last 60-100 years. The rise in drug taking is reflected in the rise of dementia, and the global incidence of dementia reflects the amount of drugs consumed by different countries.
The connection is, of course, not recognised by the Conventional Medical Establishment, although any cursory examination of the British National Formulary demonstrates that there are a large number of Big Pharma drugs that list 'confusion' as a 'side-effect'. But there is evidence to connect dementia with drugs, as the two examples here indicate.
Dr Hugh Fudenberg, MD, one of the world's leading immuno-geneticists, has said that if an individual has had 5 consecutive ‘flu vaccinations between 1970 and 1980 (the years he studied) his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's Disease was 10 times higher than if he/she had one, 2 or no shots. Dr. Fudenberg said that this was due to the mercury and aluminum elements in ‘flu vaccinations, and that the gradual mercury and aluminum build-up in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. (Hugh Fudenberg, MD, is Founder and Director of Research, Neuro lmmuno Therapeutic Research Foundation, and this information came from transcribed notes of his speech at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference, Arlington, VA September, 1997).
There is also evidence that common drugs used to treat depression, Parkinson’s disease and allergies can produce symptoms that can be mistaken for early dementia. An article in the British Medical Journal (Feb 2006; 332: 455 – 459) refers to research says doctors should be aware anticholinergic drugs can cause confusion, memory loss and disorientation. Karen Ritchie, the author of the article, told Reuters (London) that
          "A large number of elderly people are taking medications that can mimic early dementia and are likely to be classed as having early dementia. A very large number of people with so-called early dementia have these effects due to drug consumption. The drugs they are taking are very common - they include things like antihistamines"
          "What we showed is that many of the people who are classified in this way have it due to the medication they are taking, and not because they have early Alzheimer's disease".
          "The drugs they are taking are very common they include things like antihistamines"
Anticholinergic drugs are prescribed to relieve tremors, muscle stiffness, weakness, anxiety, incontinence and sleep problems – so contracting Alzheimer’s disease as a result of taking them should perhaps be described as something more serious than a ‘side-effect’! I have developed the alternative concept of DIEs (or Disease Inducing Effects) for drugs that contribute to diseases far worse than the illness for which they were originally intended.
The self-published book by Grace E Jackson, called ‘Drug Induced Dementia - a perfect crime’ takes us through, and catalogues, the vast amount of scientific evidence that conventional medical drugs are the primary cause of all forms of dementia, which has certain become one of the more rampant epidemic conditions of our time. 
There are many other links to articles associating dementia and Alzeiimer’s Disease with conventional pharmaceutical drugs:
Certainly, anyone who has a relative or friend who has dementia, particularly in the early stages, it would be wise to look at this potential cause of dementia.

Thursday, 9 May 2013

Diabetes Drugs. The cost to our health

Diabetes drugs cost us dearly.

One drug, now banned, is Avandia. Not long ago, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), were fined $3 billion when they pleaded guilty to a felony in the USA. Apparently, when they marketed the drug GSK admitted that they decided to hide data about Avandia increasing the risk of heart attacks, and congestive heart failure. They continued to do so between 2001 to 2007, during which time they made enormous profits - at the expense of our health.

So was this just a one-off situation? A rogue Big Pharma company who broke the rules? No, GSK's biggest rival, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co, which makes a diabetes drug called Actos, have now been accused of withholding safety data in order to make it appear safer than its rival, Avandia. It is know that the adverse reactions to Actos include diseases such as bladder cancer and congestive heart failure.

So, was this just a two-off situation? No. Other Big Pharma companies since sought to fill the gap left by Avandia and Actos, and introduced more diabetes drugs. Four years ago, Victoza was introduced, the latest magic pill,the cure for diabetes. Unfortunately, it has since been discovered that this drug can cause disastrous harm to the pancreas, increasing the risk of an early, unnecessary death.


So was this just a three-off situation? No. According to Agora Health's 'Daily Health Alert', a new study in the journal Diabetes has now implicated more than a dozen drugs, in the same class as Victoza. Brand names include Byetta, Nesina, and Januvia, and that US researchers have found that these drugs, incretin mime tics, can drastically increase your risk of pancreatitis.

          "Here's where it gets insane. None of this is new to the medical authorities. In fact, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously warned that post-marketing reports about these drugs include "fatal and serious nonfatal cases" of acute pancreatitis". 

There is also evidence that Januvia can increase a patient's risk of cancer.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/20/dpp4-inhibitors.aspx?e_cid=20121220_DNL_art_1

and

In their newsletter, dated 3rd July 2012, and their magazine, dated November 2012, What Doctor's Don't Tell You stated that the 'new generation' of diabetes drugs were 'killers'. They said that research, at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, had found that anyone taking these drugs were 50% more likely to die than people taking the older diabetes drugs. The drugs Glucotrol, Daonil, and Diabeta were analysed in this research.

So this is yet another situation that demonstrates that the Drug Regulation system, designed as they are to protect patients, quite simply fail to do so. At the test stage evidence of drug dangers are either hidden, or not acted upon even when they are known. Once introduced, drugs are allowed to harm patients, and Big Pharma companies are allowed to profit from them, with only inadequate restrictions being placed on their prescription. In the meantime, our doctors are offered inducements, by the Big Pharma companies to sell the drugs; and in the main, they meekly go along with it.

Only when pharmaceutical drugs are found to be killers, and only when the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible, do drug regulators act to protect patients.

See 'Medical Science: the failure to protect' for more on this.

There has been an epidemic of diabetes in recent decades, at least partly caused by other BigPharma drugs, such as diuretics and Beta Blockers, and the result is that many diabetics are, or have been, taking these 'anti-diabetes' drugs. Clearly, these patients cannot be assured that they are safe taking them. There is a long history of too much obfuscation, too many lies, a record of fraud and dishonesty, a lack of concern about patient safety,within the entire conventional medical establishment (starting with Big Pharma companies, through regulation, right up to our doctors).

So what should patients do? The Daily Health Alert says that anyone taking any diabetes drugs should talk to their doctors "about an alternative treatment plan". They add that 

          "... you can usually restore normal pancreas function by making the right dietary changes. These might not be easy but they certainly won't increase your risk of cancer, heart attack or premature death".

If this is so, it has to asked - why have doctors not suggested this before?