CT BigPharma Scandals and MD Harassment (Courant)
Mort Zuckerman
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com,
bob.d...@latimes.com
Subject: CT BigPharma Scandals and MD Harassment (Courant)
Date: May 25, 2009 5:22 AM
Well, that's just bullcrap. *All* physicians are under pressure from
BigPharma to sell their drugs. Pharma has access to what Rxs all
physicians write and harass their victims.
COURANT ARTICLE BELOW
=================================
It is also true that the Bigs - including BigInsurance - have ways of
harassing non-compliant MDs.
Total transparency is the only way.
You cannot believe a single thing BigPharma says any more. Look how
many scandals and cover-ups there have been. And while street drugs
are illegal because they cause dementia, the refusal to take legal
mind-altering drugs - while all have the exact same mechanisms of
brain damage, the exact same physiological mechanism of being either
transporter or receptor blockers, and as such, as neurotoxic, at the
cellular level - could also land you in jail or in some other form of
incarceration:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAINDAMAGE.htm
It's not just the funky anti-inflammatories, folks.
The bigger scandal is psychotropics, and worse, it's so obvious. But
impolite to talk about in the MSM.
'Impolite.
'Not in good taste to discuss the obvious in the MSM.
Cops (literally) on Rx drugs and the outcome:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Psychiatric_MumboJumbo.wmv
Regrettably, their outcomes are identical to the
Joe Average Citizen/Perp.
Because physiologically, mechanistically, this is
the scientific truth:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAINDAMAGE.htm
Feel free to obtain those ^^ journal articles
yourselves. I got them at the Yale Medical Library.
(I showed the cops at the door my Pfizer ID
card and said I was a Pfizer researcher. But
I bet if I show up now, I would be carted off
to Guantanamo.)
Here is an interesting sampling:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15494993?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citationsensor
"We find that *** treating the brain damage of
psychotropics (agitation) *** with even more
brain damaging psychotropics is not helping."
"CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the effects of baclofen, progabide, sodium
valproate, or THIP for people with antipsychotic-induced TD is
inconclusive and unconvincing. Any possible benefits are likely to be
outweighed by the adverse effects associated with their use."
Clear?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure
out the purely logical conflicts in "Street vs Rx
Psychotropics" Hysteria. All you need to know is
that psychiatrists are basically brainless. There
is NO LOGIC IN THEIR HEADS, at all. (A plain old
regular human is like a Vulcan to psychiatrists, who
are such hysterical little fairies, they'd give the
writers of soap operas a run for their money.)
The Rx vs Street Drugs "controversy" is a lot like
Yale's Lyme hysteria:
"Lyme is a terrible! disease for which we all
need vaccines every year! It is the same disease
caused by self-poisoning
http://www.actionlyme.org/MUNCHAUSENS.htm
and "paranoia, as I call it," or by simply being
female:
http://www.actionlyme.org/UN_PETITION.htm
and there is no correlation with any scientifically
valid markers, so please don't look at our own markers:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BIOMARKERS2.htm
and pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain."
It doesn't make any cotton pickin sense even
in the first objective perusal: "Street drugs are
not good because they're brain damaging but
Rx drugs are good, even though the mechanisms of
action are IDENTICAL."
THINK:
While at the same time we are wondering when
we can have stem cells to treat the likes of
Parkinsons, other brain and nerve 'diseases' are to
have the same chemical treatments that cause
Parkinsons. "And the treatment for Rx-induced
Parkinsons makes people even worse. Thanks
and have a nice day,
The American Psychiatric Association
http://www.psych.org "
So, no one better say BigPharma does not need
the double regulation of total transparency and
a properly staffed FDA (which we are still
waiting for).
And medical schools should teach a class in
"BigPharma and the Negative Data Rule" to instruct
in the techniques of not-acquiring the data BigPharma
does not like. (Hint: It requires the deployment
of the brain-dead psychiatrists).
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
=================================
http://www.courant.com/health/hc-no-free-lunch.artmay25,0,2253688.story
courant.com/health/hc-no-free-lunch.artmay25,0,2253688.story
Courant.com
HEALTH CARE
A Fierce Fight Over Free Lunches For Physicians
By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER
May 25, 2009
Click here to find out more!
Your doctor just put you on a new medication — the latest, cutting
edge drug, he says.
Does it make a difference that the company that makes it just bought
him lunch?
The answer to that question lies at the heart of a contentious
national debate that is now playing out at the state Capitol.
Lawmakers are considering a proposal that would outlaw most gifts —
including meals — to health care providers from drug or medical-device
makers and require the disclosure of any drug or device company
payments to physicians exceeding $1,000.
The proposal comes as the ties between doctors and drug and medical
device companies, once an accepted hallmark of medicine, face
increased scrutiny. Several states, including Vermont, New Hampshire,
Maine and Massachusetts, have already clamped down on the financial
relationships, banning most gifts outright or requiring drug companies
to disclose payments to doctors.
Now Connecticut has joined the fray, with a proposal that has touched
off a fierce fight.
On one side: consumer advocates, health care watchdogs and some
doctors who say industry gifts, no matter how small, can influence
doctors to prescribe expensive, new drugs instead of less-costly
generics. This drives up health care costs and potentially harms
patients, they say.
"Patients need to know that their doctors are writing prescriptions
based on the best scientific evidence and in the patient's best
interests, and not because of pressure from drug companies," Dr.
Stephen R. Smith, a New London physician, said in written testimony on
the bill.
On the other side: the Connecticut Pharmacists Association, and
pharmaceutical and biotech industry groups, who say existing federal
rules and industry ethics make a state law unnecessary. A new
pharmaceutical industry code of ethics, for example, has prohibited
gifts like sporting event tickets or trips to Las Vegas, leaving the
industry to give small gifts, like meals, that representatives say are
simply a way to fit drug company representatives into a doctor's busy
schedule.
"It's preposterous that a physician would advise against his best
professional judgment because of a free sandwich," said Paul
Pescatello, president and CEO of Connecticut United for Research
Excellence, a trade group for the state's bio-pharmaceutical and life
science companies.
Extensive Ties
There's little question that the interactions between doctors and the
pharmaceutical industry are extensive.
The industry spends billions of dollars a year on marketing to
doctors, and studies have indicated it reaches nearly all of them. A
survey of physicians, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine
in 2007, found that 94 percent said they had some type of relationship
with the industry. Most of the relationships involved receiving meals
or free drug samples, but doctors also reported receiving tickets to
sporting events, payments for serving as a speaker and reimbursement
for travel and meeting admission costs.
The dispute is whether the gifts affect the decisions doctors make
when it comes to patient care.
Critics of the gifts say the implications are enormous: doctors may
feel pressure to prescribe the drugs pitched during a free lunch, even
if they are no more effective than cheaper generic drugs or not the
best for a particular patient.
The proposed marketing limitations have drawn the support of state
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Center for
Patient Safety and the Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer
Reports.
State Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr. sees the
proposal as a way to lower health care costs, which he said is
critical to making the system more accessible and affordable.
"When we look at the gift ban, what we're really talking about is
finding ways that can discourage the prescribing of more expensive
prescription drugs where less expensive generics could be just as
effective," he said.
Supporters of the bill cite studies that show relationships with drug
companies may influence doctors to prescribe the company's drugs —
even if other drugs may be more beneficial.
Citing that research, the prestigious Institute of Medicine last month
offered a set of wide-ranging recommendations aimed at eliminating the
influence of industry marketing on medicine. The institute
recommended, among other things, eliminating all gifts from the
industry to doctors and having Congress create a national reporting
program to require all pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech
companies to make public all payments to doctors and medical groups.
Reforms Unneeded
But opponents of the proposed bill say state action is unnecessary, in
part because federal anti-kickback rules and voluntary professional
and industry codes of ethics already address payments to doctors. A
new code of ethics by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America took effect in January and limits the types of gifts allowed,
they say.
In testimony on the bill, the trade group, known as PhRMA,
characterized meals provided to health care providers as "professional
courtesy" and a way to make sure that pharmaceutical representatives
and their educational materials can be fit into doctors' busy
schedules.
Pescatello said additional regulations could be cumbersome for smaller
biotech companies that might have to hire a law firm or assign an
employee to make sure they are complying. It would hit particularly
hard at a time when the industry is facing a tough economy, less money
from venture capitalists and the uncertainty of potential federal
health reform.
"They don't see having another regulatory scheme to comply with as
useful," he said.
PhRMA has argued that the bill could potentially discourage drug
development and access to clinical trials in Connecticut.
The Connecticut State Medical Society has also raised concerns with
the bill. Dr. William A. Handelman, the society's president, said it
was somewhat insulting to imply that small gifts like pens or meals
would corrupt doctors, but that banning such trivial items was not
something to fight over.
But Handelman said he had concerns about the disclosure requirements,
which he said could add significant workload to medical practices and
may not give the public a complete picture of how the money is used.
It's not clear whether or when the legislature, saddled with a massive
budget mess and nearing the end of the session, will take action on
the proposal, which passed the public health committee by a vote of
21-9 in March.
Smith, a family physician at the Community Health Center of New London
and a board member of the National Physicians Alliance, which is
campaigning to reduce marketing influence on the profession, said he's
concerned about the proposal's chances against the powerful PhRMA
lobby in the waning days of the legislative session.
Smith sees the regulation as an important step in restoring trust in
the profession, which he said has been eroded by cases involving
doctors with conflicts of interest who may have financial stakes in
products or tests they recommend for their patients.
"I think there's been a recognition on the part of medicine as a
profession that we have lost our credibility with the public," he
said.
Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci