BALTIMORE HAS A NARCO STATE ECONOMY BECAUSE OUR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE APPOINTS A BALTIMORE PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSIONER WORKING FOR A GREATER BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT/BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT, GLOBAL JOHNS HOPKINS GLOBAL WALL STREET 1% NEO-LIBERAL/NEO-CON ECONOMIC POLICY.
When 99% of citizens allow one population group be taken to these black market survival economics then all population groups are taken by these policies and THAT IS A GOAL FOR GLOBAL 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA/now TRUMP.
As we saw from the post of ETHIOPIAN article----rigged elections installed a global banking pol no doubt heading to becoming that billionaire supported by global 1% WHO officials working for global 1% ----NOT PUBLIC HEALTH. The US has had these same RIGGED ELECTIONS installing CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global Wall Street pols and 5% players.
WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% MUST GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS BEFORE WE CAN RETURN TO DEVELOPED NATION QUALITY HEALTH CARE WE HAVE KNOWN THROUGH MODERN HISTORY.
99% of citizens want to stop this gun and drug violence----we cannot with these global Wall Street pols and players. THE GOAL IS TO MAKE ALL THIS FAR WORSE.
New Baltimore gun laws will 'put the right people in jail,' police chief says
Jul 14, 2017, 12:12pm EDT
Baltimore officials vow that stricter gun laws set to be introduced to the City Council will decrease violent crime and take illegal firearms off the streets.
Mayor Catherine Pugh, lawmakers, clergy members and business leaders held a press conference Friday to introduce two new bills, which will be introduced to the City Council on Monday.
If passed, one of the bills would impose a mandatory minimum sentence of one year for illegally possessing a firearm near a public facility, along with a $1,000 fine. For the purposes of the bill, a "public facility" is anything that is accessible to the public, such as a church, government building, park or even a shopping center.
A second bill, sponsored by City Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young, will urge the Maryland General Assembly to pass a law next year that would make it a felony to possess an illegal firearm in Baltimore and impose a mandatory five-year sentence. The city does not have the power to change illegal possession of a firearm from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Police Commissioner Kevin Davis, speaking at the press conference, said passage of the City Council's bill would be "putting the right people in jail." Of the 185 homicides so far this year, 86 percent have been committed using an illegal gun, Davis said.
Pugh said the bill has the support of Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, but she was unable to attend the press conference.
Young plans to push to get the bill passed as quickly as possible, and assured that it would be signed by the mayor before Labor Day.
"If you're caught with an illegal gun, you will do time," Young said. "There are people out there who are shattering the hopes of another family in Baltimore."
At the General Assembly, two state legislators — Sen. Joan Carter Conway and Del. Curt Anderson — said they believe it will pass during the next legislative session. Past bills have been proposed that would make illegal possession of a gun a felony — but failed. This time, the bill would apply only to Baltimore, rather than the entire state.
World Health Organization controlled by Bill Gates and the Monsanto US FOOD AID------indeed call global telemedicine UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. This is far-right wing global Wall Street policy taking 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to preventative care clinics with only a global telemedicine connection to doctors and health systems which is designed to say ALL THIS IS GREAT AND HELPING CITIZENS.
As with all economic development these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---the goal is simply SPENDING THE MONEY TO BUILD THIS INFRASTRUCTURE-----trillions of dollars globally and what we will hear-------patients unable to access real medical health care. IT WILL BECOME TOTALLY CORRUPTED.
Global health tourism is designer medicine targeting the global 1% and their 2%. Global telemedicine WILL provide them good health consultation as followup to their quality health care-----but for 99% of global citizens and indeed US citizens ----we will see the same networks filled with fraud and corruption moving any funding meant for health care for poor and working class to the top.
BILL GATES BEHIND BOTH ENDS OF THESE WHO POLICIES IS THAT VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY BAD GLOBAL 1%.
As money is spent on development of these infrastructures continue these few decades 99% may seems connected----AS WITH ALL MOVING FORWARD this will disappear.
All of these global health technology tied to telemedicine will be called PUBLIC HEALTH as long as they need DEVELOPMENT FUNDING to build these structures. ALL ties to these UNIVERSAL CARE policies are global health and technology corporations intending to maximize profits with soaring rates that only the global 1% and their 2% will be able to afford.
WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% OF AMERICANS want to return to real quality health care by rebuilding our FEDERAL MEDICARE structure and expanding and improving that structure to all citizens---that is REAL MEDICARE FOR ALL. To get there we must end the consolidated global health system monopolies created by THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT----OBAMACARE/ROMNEY CARE and Trump DOES NOT CARE.
AMD Global Telemedicine is on path to provide health-care to all
By Dan O'Brien, email@example.com
Updated: 05/24/2015 08:11:01 AM EDT
CHELMSFORD -- When it became evident nearly 20 years ago that the Internet would dramatically change the way the economy works, analysts offered several examples of sectors that would be affected. Among them were retail, banking and real estate.
Few cited medical care. But it's a nearly billion-dollar business, and a private company nestled inside a brick, multi-tenant building on Route 129 has been progressing along that path for more than 20 years.
"Access to health care, especially specialist diagnosis and treatment, remains a critical problem throughout much of the world," said Steve Normandin, founder and president of AMD Global Telemedicine Inc.
He said his company, which employs about 35 people, provides a solution "that has the potential to dramatically expand access to quality medical care for people all around the globe." Normandin also said the concept saves both time and money. He gave the example of a group of workers drilling for oil at sea. Should one suffer an injury on the job, it may be initially unclear whether the necessary medical attention can achieved on-site or whether a helicopter must be dispatched to pick up the injured worker.
"Our equipment can answer that question before sending the $40,000 helicopter out," Normandin said during a recent interview in his office at 321 Billerica Road.
But it isn't just isolated situations in which AMD Global Telemedicine's gear can be helpful.
A trio of employees demonstrated for The Sun on-site how the technology works in the case of a patient visiting with his doctor, who is in a remote location. A nurse or medical assistant is on-site with the patient -- it could be at work, school or even home -- and takes instructions from the doctor, who appears on video on a telemedicine cart. Paperwork can be emailed back and forth, and the company's AGNES Interactive software enables the doctor to "examine" the patient via video conference.
Vice President of Global Sales Dan McCafferty, one of the three AMD employees in on the presentation, said the technology can be helpful to the elderly, who may be home-bound, or for busy families.
"It's beneficial for routine appointments for the elderly, who may have trouble getting out or who rely on family members and others for rides," McCaffery explained. "It also works when students have medical issues at school. Do parents need to come pick them up and bring them to the hospital? We can find out ahead of time whether that's necessary."
John Linkous, president of the American Telemedicine Association, said several current trends favor telemedicine, including an aging population, increased availability of broadband and "health transformation," the term he uses for the passing of the federal Affordable Care Act.
"AMD is well-suited to take advantage of these things," Linkous said.
Normandin and McCafferty pointed out that despite its small size, AMD Global Telemedicine has wide reach. It has won contracts to provide service in Greenland, an autonomous island country within the kingdom of Denmark that's three times the size of Texas but has just 56,000 people. Nearly a quarter of them are at least 60 miles from a health center.
While each of Greenland's 16 health centers can handle minor surgeries and common treatment in internal medicine, they are unable to provide services for more complicated cases. In the past, people who appeared to be afflicted with more complicated illnesses had to be referred to a hospital in the capital city of Nuuk or to a specialist in Denmark, which is in mainland Europe.
But now, with telemedicine carts available in remote areas "many of those trips can be eliminated, saving time and money," McCafferty said. "All you need is a browser."
Normandin, a former Digital Equipment Corp. employee who always had his eye on entrepreneurship, said AMD also recently sold 300 units to Bolivia, a developing South American country whose mountainous terrain makes it difficult for travel.
AMD makes several telemedicine products at its Chelmsford headquarters, including its our telemedicine carts -- the IMEDS II, Telemed ED, Clinical Assist and Portable Teleclinic. The Clinical Assist, which was used in the company's presentation, runs for about $30,000, according to McCafferty.
The company partners with JACO Inc., a contract manufacturer in Franklin, thus ensuring that all work is done within the state.
AMD also offers AGNES Interactive, a Web-based software that enables remote health-care providers to capture and share medical data, exchange documents and medical images in real time, and participate in a live video conference.
Normandin declined to disclose the company's revenues, but did say they grew more than 50 percent last year.
That kind of growth is not unusual for the industry, according to Linkous, who has led the ATA since its inception in 1993, although he did say the size of the market can be tough to track.
"It depends on how it is measured," he said. "Telemedicine is increasingly integrated into general health care, so you've got equipment, the effect on the physicians themselves and the telecommunications. There's different ways of measuring it.
"It's certainly in the hundreds of millions, and probably approaching a billion worldwide. And in terms of total patients, I'd say it's doubling every three years or so. And there's tremendous investment flowing into the market right now, on the part of venture capitalists."
Linkous said the big players in telemedicine are the big players in health care.
"Every large hospital is integrating telemedicine as part of their care offerings," he said.
Baystate Health in Springfield is a customer highlighted on AMD's website. The hospital links physicians at its flagship facility, Baystate Medical Center, with patients and physicians at more rural affiliated sites. Some of the types of care being utilized include critical care for ICU consults, inpatient and outpatient neurology and infectious disease.
"Before we implemented telemedicine, I would drive two hours roundtrip see three patients a month at Mary Lane Hospital (in Ware)," one doctor, Stuart Anfang, said in a statement on AMD's website. "There were frequently no-shows, so it was not the best use of my time.
But now, "I can see those patients via telemedicine while remaining productive in my Springfield office and my patients are very satisfied with the telemedicine appointments."
'UnitedHealthcare today is announcing a partnership with three telemedicine companies to cover video-based doctor visits just as it covers in-person visits'.
United Healthcare is a global health insurance corporation because they are those health corporations fleecing our Federal funds for health care these few decades----they are the PROFITEERING AND FRAUDULENT health corporations killing US health care making the US the worst in developed nations. So now we all want to go to them to hear what is good health care for the 99% of US citizens. All US medical schools these few decades have recruited and graduated doctors trained in predatory profit-driven health care over US historic DO NO HARM HIPPOCRATIC OATH PUBLIC INTEREST HEALTH CARE. So, yes they love these policies because they will become extremely rich with very little effort at all. Make no mistake----the global 1% and their 2% WILL get good telemedicine service----yes, DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS in war-torn/third world nations needing remote medicine for refugees will find this helpful----but 99% of US citizens and global citizens will find these global online structures to be the same as all customer service for corporations----we WILL BE routed to Foreign Economic Zone doctors and medical systems somewhere in the world that we have no control no oversight or accountability and we will be fleeced---we will have to fight for service that we will not get----that service will be bad---and these global groups will operate with a goal of fleecing money----not giving health care.
If we Google telemedicine we have pages of PRO-TELEMEDICINE articles before we get to those global health justice organizations shouting what we are. The AMERICAN PEOPLE are not adverse to having foreign doctors---foreign medical staff----we simply know the training for global doctors is NOT our developed nation level of medical training. Global labor pool are not incapable----it is the standards of training for doctors being DISMANTLED by global 1% ---like BILL GATES.
Video Is About to Become the Way We All Visit the Doctor
The country's largest health insurer is putting telemedicine on par with a regular trip to the doctor's office, effectively saying a video visit is as good as brick-and-mortar medicine.
UnitedHealthcare today is announcing a partnership with three telemedicine companies to cover video-based doctor visits just as it covers in-person visits. The tech set has for decades predicted that we would one day get our medical care via video chat, but it wasn't until recently that forward-thinking physicians started taking the promise of telemedicine seriously. The decision by so influential a player in the healthcare industry to telemedicine is the strongest sign yet that the technology is entering the mainstream.
United says it will cover virtual doctor visits offered through NowClinic, Doctor on Demand, and American Well. These platforms connect patients with thousands of doctors—albeit not the patient's usual doctor—via video chat. These consultations typically cost $40 to $50 a pop, but now that United is covering these visits, members will only have to pay their usual co-pay, making virtual medicine much more affordable for more people. For now, these virtual visits will be available only to UnitedHealth's self-funded customers, but the feature will expand to most members by next year.
According to Peter Mueller, a healthcare industry analyst at Forrester, United's embrace of doctor visits by video is a major step for the healthcare industry. "There are a lot of pros to telemedicine," he says.
"Convenience is one. Access is another. Then there’s the immediacy of it, too."
In a statement, the insurer said the goal is to give people, especially those in rural areas, access to affordable quality care. Telemedicine providers said the deal validates their approach to medicine. "The consumer may not have known if we were going to help or if they’d have go to urgent care anyway," says Adam Jackon, CEO of Doctor on Demand, who says the app has been downloaded 1 million times in 18 months. "Now that we’re part of United, it’s like, 'Ok, United stuck their neck out and vetted these guys."
The Science of Telemedicine: In the Right Places, a Lifesaver
Of course, helping others isn't the only motivation. By offering telemedicine services, health insurers stand to substantially lower their costs, because virtual visits are significantly cheaper than urgent care or even primary care visits. Much as online retailers did to brick-and-mortar shopping, telehealth companies have used technology to eliminate most of the overhead that contributes to the high cost of healthcare.
And United is not the only company that's noticed. Newer insurers like Oscar, as well as established ones like WellPoint and some BlueCross BlueShield plans have also adopted telemedicine programs in recent years.
Another contributing factor to the move toward telemedicine is the Affordable Care Act. As people look to exchanges for insurance, they're better able to shop around for insurers who promise to deliver more perks, says Mueller. "Now, these carriers are up on the shelf with other carriers," he says. "And in the business-to-consumer world they need to offer people a lot more."
Then there's the fact that the Affordable Care Act brought many more people into a healthcare system already facing a shortage of primary care physicians. According to Jackson, virtual visits can help hospitals and urgent care centers offload some of their more easily treated cases in order to focus on patients who really need in-person care. "These visits keep the colds and flus and allergies and bumps and bruises out of the offline settings," Jackson says. "That frees up the waiting rooms, so doctors can treat more pressing issues."
Redesigning the Doctor's Appointment
Still, telemedicine will only take off with insurers' support if patients actually trust their insurance companies, which far too many Americans do not. There will be those who view what United is doing as an attempt to cut costs at the expense of more personalized care. But Mueller says that type of criticism misses one important point: "It's not mandated, so if it’s not for you or you don't trust it you have other options."
IT WILL BECOME MANDATED AS THE ONLY 'AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE' PLAN OPTION.
Jackson, for one, says Doctor on Demand's biggest users are working mothers, who have lots of questions about their kids' health but can't take a day off of work to bring them to the doctor whenever they have the sniffles. Instead, they can fire up their phones, wait a couple minutes, and have access to one of 1,400 licensed physicians, who can provide them with a diagnosis and a prescription all by video. According to Jackson, around 92 percent of cases on Doctor on Demand require no in-person follow up.
And this type of telemedicine treatment is only the beginning, says Dr. Roy Schoenberg, CEO of American Well. Already, his company has been working with large hospital systems like Cleveland Clinic and Massachusetts General, which have been using their technology to treat even serious conditions like cancer and heart disease.
"These organizations are beginning to understand that the care they can extend to you can be dramatically different if they can continuously see you at home, when you're undergoing long-term treatment," Dr. Schoenberg says. He expects this type of use case to grow. Meanwhile, he says we may soon see a day when services like American Well can connect you not just to any old doctor, but to your own doctor.
That type of around-the-clock care may take a while to catch on, but Dr. Schoenberg says that the United partnership will help nudge these ideas forward. "It really cements the place of technology-based healthcare in commercial markets," he says. "And we strongly believe this is the first step."
We shared an article showing SILICON VALLEY SAN FRANCISCO has these few decades brought foreign doctors filling all California health care in the area. US doctors are being pushed out because most are still tied to DEVELOPED NATION DO NO HARM HIPPOCRATIC OATH health care. Baltimore as with all US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE cities are seeing this global labor pool installment of health care staff, doctors, pharmacists et al as well.
Lots of articles are now written saying US black and white citizens are being racist because they do not embrace this flood of global labor pool professional medical staffing----what REALLY is happening is AMERICAN citizens understand the levels and quality of training for medical staff and doctors has been DISMANTLED AND WEAKENED----and yes, we do not want LOWER STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM. Since most doctors and medical staff brought as global labor pool are trained overseas in facilities tied to global health systems like GLOBAL JOHNS HOPKINS----the quality of training is not the fault of those students and grads---it is policy written by global banking and global health corporations LIKE JOHNS HOPKINS AND BILL GATES.
This is the problem for this round of INDUSTRIALIZATION BRINGING A GLOBAL LABOR POOL-----when we are asked why are Americans being racist in these new global labor pool professionals---it is not the person it is the attack on quality now being FORCED ON WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% ----WE WANT OUR STRONG, PUBLIC INTEREST, HIGH-SKILLED AND TRAINED PROFESSIONAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.
When WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% allowed CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to loot Federal funding for low-income health care to expand health corporations globally----they created that same LOWER-TIERED health access we saw in France with its immigrant population. Once we allow tiered systems to take one population of course global Wall Street will continue to exclude by soaring rates and profiteering---now coming to 99% OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Doctors Face Racism in Medicine
NOVEMBER 20, 2016
Heidi Moawad, MD
Racism is, unfortunately, alive and well in medicine. Recent reports of African American physicians who were rebuffed trying to provide Good Samaritan medical care outside the medical setting have shined a light on the public perception of minority doctors outside the hospital environment. But, it turns out that doctors and other health care professionals face discrimination within the medical setting too.
There are few studies documenting racism in medicine, and they are almost always focused on racism directed towards patients rather that racism towards doctors. It is difficult to objectively measure a phenomenon such as racism towards physicians. But physicians and other health care professionals who are minorities often face problems that can seriously affect professional advancement and equality. One journal article recounted an incident involving a hospital technician who was rejected by a patient because of her race. The details are similar to the stories shared by numerous physicians and nurses who regularly encounter discrimination because they are African American or because they recently emigrated from another country.
Doctors who are ‘different’ face racism, discrimination, and/or prejudice from a variety of groups within the medical setting. While the terms racism, discrimination, and prejudice are not identical, they all carry similar meanings.
Racism From Other Physicians
Often, minority or immigrant doctors are subject to discrimination from other doctors. This may happen when doctors are rude or condescending to those who speak with an accent, don't want to deal with names that are hard to pronounce, are uncomfortable with a way of dressing that is less polished or 'different,' or are truly biased against minorities and immigrants.
On social media, many doctors detail their own personal stories of being 'bullied' and singled out by other doctors, and these incidents can ruin careers. In fact, sometimes minority physicians exclude or discriminate against other minority physicians as a way to attain status or to fit in.
Racism From Administrators
Several harrowing stories of administrators who target minority physicians point to systematic shortcomings. Physicians recount incidents in which administrators scold them or say things like, “that may be what you are used to, but that is not how we do things here”. Often, minority physicians feel that they enter into the work environment as if they are already on ‘probation’ and are subject to performance reviews more frequently or more harshly than their non-minority peers.
Racism From Ancillary Staff
Ancillary staff may be more comfortable working with doctors who come from the local community. Often, hospital and clinic staff members need to take care of things based on very brief discussions with doctors to get things done. Sometimes, minority physicians encounter problems with staff members who 'double check’ their orders with other physicians or who avoid working with minority physicians.
Racism From Patients
Patients hold a great deal of control over a physician's career success, especially now that doctors' hospital privileges and compensation are often linked with patient satisfaction reports. It is well known that unhappy patients are far more likely to submit patient satisfaction surveys than are happy patients.
Patients often avoid doctors who seem like they might be from another country or who do not look like everybody else. Some patients enter the doctor patient relationship with preconceived stereotypes about the educational standards of minority physicians or foreign trained physicians.
Medicine is Not Easy for Minorities
Overall, working in the medical field is not easy for minorities. Given the extensive training and testing that all physicians have to pass in order to demonstrate proficiency, it makes sense for the medial community to address issues that minority physicians endure in order to optimize efficiency and prevent unfair treatment of minority physicians.
Here is a great parody of this decline in US standards of patient protection as clinical trials allowed more and more volunteer exposure to what was before-hand knowledge of extreme health damage for those volunteers----US standards of medical research did not do this unless rogue research under the table escaped oversight and accountability----now this research volunteer abuse is MAIN STREAM.
Alan is of course that CHIROPRACTOR trained in Guadeloupe medical school ----the jokes are not racist----they recognize the decline in standards of medical professionalism slowly being introduced in main stream US health care.
THIS IS ONE OF THE FUNNIEST EPISODES----
Two and a Half Men - Alan testing a new medication
A melhor cena do Two and a Half Men The best scene of Two and a half Men
We see in this video where BIG PHARMA was allowed to deregulate and dismantle all US standards of CLINICAL TRIALS AND PATIENT'S PROTECTIONS and openly paid big money to sell this VOLUNTEERISM FOR DANGEROUS.MEDICAL RESEARCH. Any medical device or PHARMA that dangerous would of course never be allowed to be processed through clinical trials per FDA and medical university IRB.
These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA allowed these health corporations and BIG PHARMA go overseas to third world nations recruit those global 99% of citizens to these research who of course jump at earning A THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK---of course third world citizens were not paid that much----
GLOBAL BIG PHARMA---AKA BILL GATES AND WARREN BUFFET -----were able to pay a thousand dollars because deregulated clinical trials with no oversight and accountability allowed for death---permanent disability of a small cohort of patient volunteers---what did not kill or seriously MAIM was then allowed by FDA to go to market----ergo Bill and Warren becoming extremely rich----WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION TURNS ITS HEAD AS DOES US CITY DEPARTMENTS OF HEALTH.
It is because 99% of US citizens allowed for these deregulated clinical trial research to harm poor US citizens and global 99% citizens these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---that global BIG PHARMA has main streamed these 'clinical trial' research by having FDA simply approve PATENTS with the SKETCHIEST OF CLINICAL TRIALS---we all are now being harmed by deregulated medical research.
Welcome to WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION universal care health care for all. That's OK say those 5% to the 1% ---we are getting those measely stock dividends for global Big PHARMA so this is all COOL.
Big Pharma Research Racket Is Killing People
June 23, 2006, 12:00:00AM. By Evelyn Pringle
Over the past six years, ten FDA approved drugs have been withdrawn from the market due to deaths and injuries, leading lawmakers to accuse the FDA of not doing its job in protecting the public from unsafe drugs and to call for measures of improvement.
On June 20, 2006, the New York Times reported that "two influential senators are expected within weeks to introduce a legislative proposal that could drastically change how drugs are tested and approved in the United States."
The Senators behind the proposal are Michael Enzi (R-Wy), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the ranking Democrat on the committee.
"In broad terms," the Times article by Gardner Harris explains, "the bill would require that drug makers disclose the results of all large human tests of their drugs, known as Phase 3 and Phase 4 trials; create a detailed risk management plan to uncover and control any safety problems that arise after a drug is approved; and pay penalties if they fail to follow through with this plan, according to four experts who were briefed on the proposals."
However, while lawmakers search for ways to ensure that Big Pharma does not continue to conceal adverse reactions that surface during drug trials and to sever the ties between the nation's public health officials and Big Pharma, the Bush administration continues to promote their cozy relationships and help drug companies escape accountability for misconduct.
The best example of the administration's efforts to protect Big Pharma was revealed recently when the FDA announced a preemption rule that would disallow lawsuits in state court against drug makers if a drug has been approved by the FDA.
"We think that if your company complies with the FDA processes, if you bring forward the benefits and risks of your drug, and let your information be judged through a process with highly trained scientists, you should not be second-guessed by state courts that don't have the same scientific knowledge," said FDA deputy commissioner on medical and scientific affairs, Scott Gottlieb.
But in all fairness, the FDA is certainly not the only public health agency in bed with Big Pharma. Nobody can deny the fact that Big Pharma is an equal opportunity corrupter. Its obvious that drug companies have infiltrated every Federal regulatory agency in the US.
For instance, on June 14, 2006, a National Institute of Health Alzheimer's researcher, Dr Trey Sunderland, asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, and refused to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee about accusations that he has profited from giving Pfizer access to spinal fluid and plasma samples collected by the NIH.
Documents presented at the hearing revealed that between 1996 an 2004, Dr Sunderland accepted consulting, speaking and advisory fees totaling about $612,000 and committee staff members estimate that about $285,000, was related to 3,245 samples taken from 538 patients who participated as volunteers at the NIH.
At a price of about $12,000 per patient, the committee estimates the cost of collecting the samples that Dr Sunderland handed to Pfizer is close to $6.5 million.
The committee also noted that he did not seek prior approval to work for Pfizer, and did not report any of the income to the agency as required by NIH rules.
In fact, at one point, when asked, Dr Sunderland said he had no outside deals. According to the December 22, 2004 LA Times, while reviewing financial disclosure reports from scientists at the NIH, in March 2000, ethics officer Olga Boikess noticed that Dr Sunderland had not declared any jobs with the industry so she sent him an e-mail that said: "You did not list any outside positions."
To which, Dr Sunderland replied: "I do not have any outside positions to note."
This case had been dragging on for years but the doctor has probably not been too worried because history shows that any time a Republican lawmaker get too pesky about the money trails leading to the NIH, Big Pharma simply offers enough money to induce him to jump ship.
A couple years ago, two Republicans on powerful committees switched sides shortly after they launched investigations into conflicts of interest between drug companies and employees at the NIH.
Representative, WJ "Billy" Tauzin (R-La), was chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and had cited "secret consulting fees and stock options from drug companies" as reasons to request documentation of all payments from Big Pharma to NIH scientists.
But next thing you know, Tauzin announces that he is not running for reelection, and leaves Congress to become President of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the giant trade group that represents Big Pharma, with a reported $2 million a year in salary, benefits and perks.
Next up to bat, was Representative James Greenwood (R-Pa), who led 3 hearings on NIH conflicts of interest and criticized the agency for allowing scientists to use "a swivel chair" to make decisions while taking drug company money.
But low and behold, shortly thereafter, in July 2004, Rep Greenwood announced that he was giving up his post as chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee to retire, only to become President of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a group that in the same year, urged lawmakers not to bar NIH scientists from entering into paid consulting deals.
A report by the Office of Government Ethics, released the same month that Rep Greenwood announced his "retirement," said the NIH was beset by a "permissive culture," and revealed that 40% of the 155 randomly selected sample payments to agency employees reviewed had not been approved or accounted for within the NIH.
The FDA remains at the top of the list for corruption simply because the FDA evaluates the safety and effectiveness of drugs and decides which drugs can be marketed in the US.
Typically, as a first step toward the approval process, a drug company will initiate laboratory testing to assess the effectiveness and safety of a drug and if the laboratory testing is successful, the company will begin testing the drug on animals. The FDA does not become involved until the drug maker seeks permission to test the drug on humans.
When the drug reaches that point, the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, evaluates the results of laboratory and animal testing prior to allowing any study on humans.
Once a drug is approved for testing on humans an Institutional Review Board (IRB) is appointed to review and monitor the research. An IRB is generally made up of outside scientists, doctors and other medical professionals and has the authority to approve or disapprove a study or to require modifications to secure approval of the research.
The purpose of an IRB is to assure that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects. To that end, an IRB uses a group process to review research protocols and materials such as informed consent documents and investigator brochures related to the research.
In recent years, serious questions have been raised regarding the impartiality of the review process due to the fact that many of the FDA advisors recommending approval of a product are at the same time employed by the drug company that developed the drug or hold some other financial interest link to the company.
Due to these conflicts of interests, critics say dangerous drugs are winning approval. For instance, nearly a third of the members of the advisory panel that reviewed the data on Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra, and voted to allow the drugs to remain on the market, even after Vioxx had been pulled off the market, had financial ties to the makers of the drugs and had their votes not been counted, they would never have received a vote of approval.
In addition, problems continue to surface in the private research industry. Contract Research Organizations (CRO), are now hired by the industry to perform research.
Critics says the competing CROs are skewing research in favor of approval in order to win more contracts. The funding up for grabs is enormous. According to a March 24, 2006, MSNBC commentary by Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, "Private companies running studies for pharmaceutical and device companies are now a $14 billion industry in the United States alone."
According to John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School, and author of, "Overdosed America", "When the institutional review boards were created, most medical research was conducted by universities and nonprofit institutions."
"Similarly," Mr Abramson says, "oversight of the safety of human volunteers in most U.S. studies is no longer done by nonprofit IRBs, but by for-profit review companies, hired directly by the for-profit research companies."
In his opinion, he says the system lacks the appropriate checks and balances to protect human volunteers.
In the April 6, 2006 LA Times, Mr Abramson made a shocking revelation when he said, "the FDA recently approved "phase 0 studies" in which human beings can be given minuscule doses of experimental drugs even before animal studies are completed."
A recent case in the UK demonstrates the dangers that could occur in such a study. In March 2006, six otherwise healthy men ended up in a London hospital in critical condition after participating in the trial of a new an anti-inflammatory drug, called TGN1412, to treat conditions involving the immune system, such as leukemia, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, conducted by the US based company, Parexel International Corp, on behalf of the German drug maker TeGenero.
The worst affected of the six men, Mohamed 'Nino' Abdelhady, called the Elephant Man because of the extreme swelling of his head, on April 5th, told the Daily Mail that he is plagued by nightmares.
Still recovering in the hospital at the time, he explained what he remembered. "I started to feel ill," he said, "almost as soon as they had finished injecting me."
"I felt as if I had rocks on my head," he recalled, "and I must have started hallucinating."
"Help me," he told the newspaper that he screamed, "I'm dying."
Ryan Wilson, the most critically ill man, begged doctors to put him to sleep because he was in such agony. His family was warned that his heart, lungs and kidneys failed.
His sister-in-law Jo Brown, recalled the horrific moment when they saw Mr Wilson in intensive care. She told reporters that his head had swollen to nearly three times its normal size, and that his neck was the same or wider than his head and that his skin had turned a dark purple.
Mr Wilson remained in a coma for three weeks, and upon awakening, learned that he may lose parts of his fingers and toes, which had turned black because of his reaction to the drug.
"I'm told it's like frostbite and my fingers will just fall off," he told the UK's News of the World recently.
In addition, Mr Wilson also suffered from heart, liver and kidney failure, septicemia, pneumonia and dry gangrene and is considered very luck to be alive, according to News Target on May 20, 2006.
The Parexel research was at the Phase I stage, where a drug is tested for safety with a small number of people who are given a tiny dose under careful supervision, not to determine whether the drug works, but to check for side effects, according to Q&A Drug trials by BBC News on March 16, 2006.
Experts say the recruitment of subjects for the Parexel trial left much to be desired. The web site that announced the recruitment hardly mentioned the potential risks, but elaborated at great length about the good pay, free food and "plenty of time to read or study or just relax, with digital TV, pool table, video games, DVD player and free Internet access.''
Parexel also recruits by placing ads online or in local papers, where critics say, they draw the attention of the young and poor. Once on the books, recruits often get automatic offers. "The offers keep rolling in via text message," Tom de Castella, a former Parexel volunteer said in the March 19, 2006 Times Online. "£650 for three days here, £1,000 for a week there," he said.
Ethicists shown the Parexel consent form, which is supposed to describe the experiment and its risks, told Bloomberg News, "the document didn't sufficiently inform participants of the therapy's possible dangers or properly depict the treatment as a novel drug that can disrupt the body's immune system."
The 13-page form also exploited the subjects' need for money, they said, by threatening to withhold the 2,000 pound ($3,500) payment if the men left the test early.
Highly questionable research recruitment techniques are also occurring in the US. On November 29, 2005, in Texas, CBS News channel 42 reporter, Nanci Wilson, revealed records showing that staff at state mental hospitals in Texas help recruit patients into studies of experimental drugs not approved by the FDA.
At a state hospital in San Antonio, CBS News found 16 beds set aside to allow drug companies to conduct studies on mental patients under the state's care. CBS 42 asked Austin psychiatrist, Deborah Peel, to review some of the records they obtained.
Dr Peel said the situation raised serious questions as to whether this is moral and ethical treatment. "They are essentially turning the state hospital population into research subjects," she noted.
Texas hospital officials claim the mentally ill patients give informed consent by signing a detailed form describing the risks and benefits of participating in the study. But Dr Peel says, "I think there are real questions how informed their consent would be under those situations, because these are not people who have the means to choose to go elsewhere for treatment, and so, there's a powerful element of pressure, of coercion that they have to feel."
"Once again," Dr Peel points out, "we have people who have no means, who are dependent on the state system, and the state system is working hand-in-glove with private corporations."
In many studies, CBS news investigators determined that patients had been taken off drugs that were working and in the new study, some patients were given the experimental drug while others received a placebo.
Critics point out that for patients taking a new drug, there is no guarantee it will work, and the risks and long-term effects are not known. "To take people off medication when they have just been admitted for an inability to function and might have even been a harm to themselves or others, that raises real questions for me," Dr Peel told CBC News.
What's worse, she says, is that patients are not told whether they are taking a placebo or a drug even when they are discharged from the hospital during the study. They could get suicidal, she said, or could harm others.
The FDA has ignored atrocities in research involving mentally ill subjects for years. Back in 1998, a review of the data on atypical antipsychotic drugs submitted to the FDA, obtained with FOIA requests by Robert Whitaker, revealed numerous safety problems for subjects who participated in the trials.
Mr Whitaker found that among 12,176 patients from the US and abroad at the time the data was submitted, there were 88 deaths, including 38 suicides, meaning there was an overall death rate of 1 out of every 138 patients, according to his article in the November 17, 1998 Boston Globe.
The suicide rate in trials was found to be 2 to five times higher than the norm. In the medical literature, Mr Whitaker reported, suicide rates for schizophrenics ranged from two to five deaths per 1,000 per year, while the rate in trials was close to 10 per 1,000.
In addition, he found that for the three approved drugs in the study - Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel - 60% of the 7,269 patients who received the drugs dropped out before the end of the study, which typically lasted six to 8 weeks.
In the 1990s the prospect of antipsychotic drugs gaining FDA approval, promised a major market for Big Pharma and therefore, drug companies needed to recruit trial subjects quickly. And drug companies were willing to pay top dollars to researchers for each patient recruited.
In the Boston Globe article, Mr Whitaker discusses a criminal case in Georgia that reveals just how far researcher are willing to go to meet recruitment goals.
Dr Richard Borison, chairman of the psychiatry department at the Medical College of Georgia, and Bruce Diamond, a pharmacologist on the school's faculty, were favorites for schizophrenia drugs and demonstrated a knack for rounding up psychotic patients quickly for trials funded Eli Lilly, Janssen, Zeneca, and Novartis.
As faculty members, Borison and Diamond were supposed to get approval for research and payments for trials were supposed to go the school. But according to Georgia authorities, who indicted the duo in early 1997, in 1989 they started having the drug makers send payments directly to them.
They simply opened an office across from the school, hired a commercial service to do ethical reviews of their studies, and placed their staff on the school's payroll but kept all the money for themselves.
As unbelievable as it may seem, the scheme worked for about 7 years. From 1989 to 1996, Borison and Diamond made over $10 million including more than $4 million from schizophrenia drugs, according to the indictment and testimony during an investigation by the Augusta Veterans Affairs Hospital, where Borison was chief of psychiatry.
And these guys were slick. To recruit the mostly male patients, they hired good-looking young women, who testified that they were paid bonuses that ran into the thousands, and one staffer was even given a Honda Accord.
To find their recruits, workers looked for mentally ill patients who were stable and living in the community and offered them $150 to check into the VA so they could be in a study. Patients already in locked wards were offered cigarettes to participate.
Study coordinators, many with no medical training, determined whether a patient belonged in a study. According to an FDA investigation, untrained staff drew blood samples and adjusted doses of the drugs, and Borison and Diamond hardly ever saw the patients at all.
But the two researchers lived high off the hog, according to Georgia authorities. They socked away more than $5 million in cash and securities, spent nearly a half a million on antiques and drove Mercedes-Benz vehicles.
But as the old saying goes, all good things must end. In December, 1997, Diamond pleaded guilty to theft and bribery charges and was fined, $125,000, sentenced to 5 years in prison, and ordered to pay $1.1 million to the college.
Borison pleaded guilty to theft and racketeering charges, was sentenced to 15 years in prison, fined $125,000, and ordered to pay $4.26 million to the college.
To cover all bases, over the years, Big Pharma has also become adept at corrupting the judicial process.
For instance, Dr Bruce Levine, PhD, Clinical Psychologist and author of, World Gone Crazy, tells a story about Eli Lilly corrupting the judicial process in a case that began in 1989 when Joseph Wesbecker opened fire at his former place of employment, killing 8 people and wounding 12 more, before committing suicide, a month after he began taking Prozac. The victims of the shooting sued Eli Lilly, claiming that Prozac had pushed the guy over the edge.
It has long been known that Prozac induces violence in some patients but the FDA never required Lilly to list violence on the drug's label. But as it turns out, five of the 9 members on the 1991 FDA advisory panel investigating the association between Prozac and violence that voted against requiring a warning label for violence, had ties to Big Pharma and two of the members had served as lead investigators for Lilly-funded Prozac studies.
The Wesbecker trial did not take place until 1994, but in the meantime, according to Dr Lavine, "Eli Lilly had been settling many Prozac violence cases behind closed doors."
In fact, he says, more than 150 Prozac lawsuits had been filed by the end of 1994, so "it was looking for a showcase trial that it could win."
A crucial component of the victims' legal strategy in the Wesbecker case was for the jury to hear about Lilly's history of reckless disregard toward consumers, especially about the drug Oraflex, introduced in 1982 but taken off the market 3 months later.
"A US Justice Department investigation linked Oraflex to the deaths of more than 100 patients," Dr Lavine notes, "and concluded that Lilly had misled the FDA."
In the end, Lilly was charged with 25 counts related to mislabeling side effects and pled guilty.
At the Wesbecker trial, Lilly attorneys argued that the Oraflex information would be too prejudicial for the jury to hear and the Judge initially agreed. However, when Lilly attorneys used witnesses to testify about it's superb system of collecting and analyzing side effects, the Judge said that Lilly had opened the door to evidence to the contrary and so the Oraflex information would also be allowed in.
However, to Judge's amazement," Dr Lavine says, "victims' attorneys never presented the Oraflex evidence and Eli Lilly won the case. "
It was later learned that Lilly was successful in corrupting the judicial process in the case by cutting a secret deal with victims' attorneys to pay them and their clients not to introduce the damaging Oraflex evidence.
However, Dr Lavine says, the Judge "smelled a rat" and fought for an investigation, and in 1997, Lilly quietly agreed to the verdict being changed from a victory to "dismissed as settled."
Legal experts are finding ways to expose and punish Big Pharma for conducting fraudulent research that requires no involvement by the nation's compromised regulatory agencies. Barry Turner, Lecturer in Law at Leeds Law School in the UK, is a great fan of the False Claims Act legislation in the US.
As an academic lawyer, he has for a number of years been involved in litigation regarding the activities of the pharmaceutical industry and for the past two years, he has been involved in Qui tam litigation preparation.
"Tying Qui tam into human rights and civil liberties issues is easy," Mr Turner says. "When President Lincoln initiated this law in 1863 it was because Union soldiers were going into battle in shoddy boots and uniforms equipped with guns and ammunition that were third rate," he explains. "All because 'businessmen' saw the war as a gravy train."
"Qui tam," Mr Turner explains, "protects taxpayers and since tax revenue is the lifeblood of any state, any evasion of liability or deliberate defrauding of a taxpayers is an attack on all taxpayers and consequently all citizens."
Qui tam in its long history, he says, has brought to book many crooks who stole from the US taxpayer and is based on the individual citizen being able to blow the whistle for the benefit of fellow citizens and the country.
The more recent Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), was enacted in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, and was designed to restore investor confidence in the nation's financial markets by improving corporate responsibility through changes in corporate governance and accounting practices and by providing whistleblower protection to employees of publicly traded companies who report fraud.
SOX contains a civil and a criminal whistleblower provision. Section 806, creates a civil cause of action for employees who have been subject to retaliation for whistleblowing, and Section 1107, makes it a felony for anyone to knowingly retaliate against or take any action harmful to any person, including interfering with employment, for providing truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense.
According to Mr Turner, SOX is not limited to shareholders of a company. "What needs to be understood," he says, "is that many millions of people who own no stock at all get defrauded in scams all the time."
"Those who pay into pension funds are vulnerable to the financial shenanigans not only of fund managers but of boards of companies," he explains, "and CEO's that fail to police the companies activities or in some cases actively encourage fraud and reckless business practices."
SOX came into being to prevent those financial shenanigans, he says. "The fat cats may lose a small amount of their stake in any scam," he points out, "but the little man as ever stands to lose all."
One of the features of SOX, he says, is the ability to bring an action against those who recklessly and fraudulently deal with stockholders money. Big Pharma, and its handmaiden psychiatry, he notes, is built on fraud.
For example, Mr Turner explains, Ritalin fraud consists of labeling millions of children as basket cases based on fraudulent research and a consensus of the vested interest.
"SSRI fraud," he advises, "extends depression into the world of normal human experience to ever-extend the peddling of the often useless and frequently dangerous treatments."
In other instances, he says, many poor and elderly people are starved of life saving drugs because the budgets of Medicare and Medicaid are bled dry by claims from drug companies for 'me too' drugs that in many cases are superfluous.
"Even where there is some justification for the use of these drugs," he explains, "there is a drive to constantly increase the dose above the minimum effective one because a 'minimum effective dose' to the drug company means minimum effective profit."
"Where money is diverted from real healthcare provisions, to a profit greedy industry that manufactures an illness to fit the drug," he notes, "rather than provide drugs for real illnesses, then the most fundamental of constitutional rights 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' is most at risk."
Every unnecessary dose of Ritalin, Prozac, Paxil, and other psychiatric drugs prescribed and paid for with US tax dollars, he says, deprives patients dependant on state healthcare programs of drugs they need for cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other serious conditions.
In addition, Mr Turner points out that, "the marketing of these drugs and the ever expanding definition of psychiatric disorder that is part of this marketing strategy labels, discriminates against, and stigmatizes hundreds of thousands of American Citizens."
"It is indeed a dramatic irony," he says, "that in very many of these cases the US taxpayer gets to fund an industry that acts in a manner so alien to the American Constitutional ideals."
For purposes of the litigation, "knowingly" is defined as: (1) Actual knowledge of the false information; (2) Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.
Therefore, according to Mr Turner, "inducing people to invest in companies that engage in illegal and reckless activity is a violation of SOX."
"Inducing people to take vast amounts of drugs that are known to be harmful and deliberately hiding the known dangers is a violation of SOX," he contends.
"One day this edifice will come tumbling down," he says, "and what will the investors in Big Pharma say then?"
In light of the Vioxx disaster, Mr Turner says, we should perhaps ask people who invested in Merck.
"Those at the top of this company," he notes, "gambled with the lives of patients and the money of stockholders in equal bad faith when they engaged in fraudulent and dishonest behavior that allowed a dangerous drug to be marketed."
"Those who today peddle drugs for fictitious illnesses and push dangerous and useless medications on the children," he warns, "in our societies are doing just this."
Merck acted with reckless disregard for the truth because it had prior knowledge of the adverse effects of Vioxx. The same goes for Eli Lilly and its prior knowledge of the lack of efficacy of Prozac and GlaxoSmithKline's knowledge of Paxil's suicide ideation
While suppressing negative studies, these companies placed drugs on the market that were known to be faulty in one way or another. All of these drugs have cost taxpayers dearly, not to mention the personal suffering they have inflicted in other ways
In considering other acts of fraud, Mr Turner looked at the Pharma backed charities that are based on fraudulent research to see what Federal laws they may be violating.
"Since a number of imaginative illnesses are based on this fabricated research and since a number of charities are based on the 'imaginative illnesses' that arose out of the imaginative research," he says, "its just a matter of connecting the dots."
Because charities receive tax breaks, he says, fraudulent charities defraud US taxpayers.
"The fraud in this industry is not divided into that which injures by over drugging and that which cheats taxpayers and stockholders out of their money," he explains. "They are two sides of the same counterfeit coin."
Mr Turner says we must tackle them together, and that lawyers in the US should be actively seeking clients who have lost money by these frauds and getting the matter before the Security and Exchange Commission now.