Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2020

Big Pharma firms will NOT be held accountable for side effects of Covid vaccine

RT31 Jul, 2020
A senior executive for pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has confirmed that his company cannot face legal action for any potential side effects caused by its Covid vaccine. Those affected will have no legal recourse.

AstraZeneca is one of 25 pharmaceutical companies worldwide already testing their Covid vaccines on humans, in preparation for injecting hundreds of millions of people. These are flush times for Britain’s largest pharmaceutical company, worth something in the order of £70 million. They have just reported bumper profits of $12.6 billion in the last six months alone.

But despite its healthy balance sheet, AstraZeneca is unwilling to be held responsible for any potential side effects of its ‘hopeful’ vaccine candidate. In other words, the company is completely protected, or indemnified, against lawsuits from people who are injected with their vaccine and experience negative effects, regardless of how severe or long-lasting they are.

The firm’s lawyers have demanded that clauses to that effect be put in their contracts with the countries AstraZeneca has agreed to supply with its Covid vaccine. The company says that, without such guarantees of indemnity, they would not be incentivised to produce the drug. And it seems most of the countries have ceded to this demand.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

SIDS Listed as a Side Effect on a DTaP Vaccine Insert


DtaP insert
RNK
SIDS is the term given to all of the babies who die of an unexplainable death before they turn one year old.

SIDS and the DTaP Vaccine

“70% of children who have died of SIDS received the pertussis vaccine within 3 weeks before death.”  Within this 3 week time period after receiving the vaccine, children’s breathing patterns became stress-induced, wreaking havoc on their respiratory systems (Pages 120 and 121 of Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners). This stressed induced breathing, combined with a baby sleeping face down would seem to make it even more troublesome for him/her to breathe freely. This is the very same vaccine that lists SIDS as a possible side effect. Something to think about (at the very least).
Please note, the CDC is changing their inserts over the last year, leaving out important side effects even though they are very much still side effects.
Any infant death that is ‘unexplainable’ gets lumped into the term SIDS. I believe much of it has to do with a toxic overload. Here’s some more information on that: Protecting Your Baby From SIDS

Statement from the World Health Organization on Vaccines

Just Two Days Ago (January 18, 2020), after meeting to discuss vaccines at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit, the World Health Organization came out with a statement acknowledging that they are questioning the safety of vaccines. The live feed is pretty eye-opening.

The Childhood Vaccination Program

As far as the childhood vaccination program, Robert F. Kennedy has been studying the ingredients and the program itself, for years. “These guys at the CDC originally were telling me ‘well, there’s a good mercury and a bad mercury,’” Kennedy said. “I knew at that point, their argument was not with me, it was with the periodic table, because there’s no way that could happen.”
Kennedy said according to well-known vaccine proponent and rotavirus vaccine developer Paul Offit, who he spoke with by phone, ethyl mercury leaves the body so fast that it doesn’t have time to do damage. However, Kennedy said that he had read Thomas Burbacher’s monkey studies which confirmed that although ethyl mercury does clear the blood quickly, it goes directly into the brain, where it rapidly metabolizes into highly toxic inorganic mercury, and then lodges there, creating inflammation and brain damage.

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Top medical journal takes on big pharma

SMH. December 4, 2019
A leading medical journal is launching a global campaign to separate medicine from big pharma, linking industry influence to the pelvic mesh scandal that injured hundreds of women.
The BMJ says doctors are being unduly influenced by industry-sponsored education events and industry-funded trials for major drugs.

Those trials cannot be trusted, the journal's editor and a team of global healthcare leaders write in a scathing editorial published on Wednesday.

The "endemic financial entanglement with industry is distorting the production and use of healthcare evidence, causing harm to individuals and waste for health systems", they write.

They are calling for governments to start funding independent trials of new drugs and medical devices, rather than relying on industry-funded studies. Sponsored research is more likely to find a favourable result compared to independent research, studies show.

Friday, January 25, 2019

America’s Health Care System Has Become One Of The World’s Largest Money Making Scams


 
The Economic Collapse
If the U.S. health care system was a country, it would have the fifth largest GDP on the entire planet.  At this point only the United States, China, Japan and Germany have a GDP that is larger than the 3.5 trillion dollar U.S. health care market.  If that sounds obscene to you, that is because it is obscene.  We should want people to be attracted to the health care industry because they truly want to help people that are suffering, but instead the primary reason why people are drawn to the health care industry these days is because of the giant mountains of money that are being made.  Like so many other things in our society, the health care industry is all about the pursuit of the almighty dollar, and that is just wrong.
In order to keep this giant money machine rolling, the health care industry has to do an enormous amount of marketing.  If you can believe it, a study that was just published found that at least 30 billion dollars a year is spent on such marketing.
Hoping to earn its share of the $3.5 trillion health care market, the medical industry is pouring more money than ever into advertising its products — from high-priced prescriptions to do-it-yourself genetic tests and unapproved stem cell treatments.
Spending on health care marketing nearly doubled from 1997 to 2016, soaring to at least $30 billion a year, according to a study published Tuesday in JAMA.
This marketing takes many different forms, but perhaps the most obnoxious are the television ads that are endlessly hawking various pharmaceutical drugs.  If you watch much television, you certainly can’t miss them.  They always show vibrant, smiling, healthy people participating in various outdoor activities on bright, sunny days, and the inference is that if you want to be like those people you should take their drugs.  And the phrase “ask your doctor” is usually near the end of every ad…

As a result of all those ads, millions of Americans rush out to their doctors to ask about drugs that they do not need for diseases that they do not have.
And on January 1st, dozens of pharmaceutical manufacturers hit Americans with another annual round of massive price increases.
But everyone will just keep taking those drugs, because that is what the doctors are telling them to do.  But what most people never find out is that the pharmaceutical industry goes to great lengths to get those doctors to do what they want.  According to NBC News, the big drug companies are constantly “showering them with free food, drinks and speaking fees, as well as paying for them to travel to conferences”.
It is a legal form of bribery, and it works.
When you go to most doctors, they will only have two solutions to whatever problem you have – drugs or surgery.
And since nobody really likes to get cut open, and since drugs are usually the far less expensive choice, they are usually the preferred option.
Of course if doctors get off the path and start trying to get cute by proposing alternative solutions, they can get in big trouble really fast…

Saturday, June 30, 2018

How drug companies sell treatments by inventing diseases



Yahoo June 8, 2018
The pharmaceutical industry’s image has been significantly damaged in recent years as the public discovered the role its aggressive marketing played in fueling the opioid epidemic. But the American people are still largely in the dark about what may be pharma’s most effective tactic for pushing drugs — marketing diseases.

There’s a substantial body of medical literature dating back to the early ’90s about the practice known as “disease mongering.” Pharmaceutical companies regularly pathologize everyday experiences, convince doctors that they are serious problems, tell a hypochondriacal public it needs help and offers the cure: a new drug. Against the onslaught of billions of dollars in marketing campaigns each year, however, researchers’ warnings about these tactics have gone largely unheeded.

To be clear: Pharmacology has helped countless people recover from illness or lead more productive lives. But the number of patients receiving any given drug is often greater than those who would benefit from it, and often includes people it could harm.

The United States was still the largest single pharmaceutical market in 2017, generating more than $450 billion of revenue. In contrast, all of Europe accounted for roughly $214 billion. U.S. pharmaceutical spending alone is double the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. According to the Mayo Clinic, nearly 70 percent of Americans take at least one prescription drug.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Four lethal connections between Big Pharma and some of our most popular consumer products

Cameron S. Bigger, August 15, 2017
Listed below are four lethal connections between Big Pharma and some of our most popular consumer products, of which all consumers deserve to be made aware.

 

Nestlé and Prometheus Therapeutics & Diagnostics

Nestlé is the world’s largest food & beverage corporation, owning more than 2,000 brands in 191 countries. The vast majority of Nestlé’s profits come from dairy-centric products. Some of their most popular brands include Gerber Baby, Nesquik Chocolate Milk, Toll House, Kit Kat, Crunch Bar, Hot Pockets, DiGiorno, Lean Cuisine, and Dreyer’s Ice Cream.
Nestlé also owns the pharmaceutical company Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, whose message to doctors is: “Prometheus is your partner in helping patients with chronic digestive disorders live active, healthy lives.”
Celiac disease is one of today’s most prevalent and lucrative digestive disorders, estimated to affect 1 in 100 people worldwide. Prometheus has its very own celiac disease website, which heavily warns against gluten intake, but doesn’t mention that a patient’s symptomatology could be caused by lactose intolerance, even though the symptoms of the two diseases are very similar, and it’s well recognized that celiac patients have a proven high chance of lactose intolerance. In fact, regarding the global rise in celiac disease prevalence, prominent celiac researcher Dr. Detlef Schuppan declared: “The amount of gluten ingested does not explain it.”
When a corporation so heavily profits from the commercial use of dairy, a well-known digestive irritant, while also profiting from prescribing treatments for the side effects of improper digestion, that is a major conflict of interest. If we continue to pay Nestlé $92.3B per year, watch celiac cases continue to skyrocket—even amidst all the new gluten-free options.

 

Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals

The main ingredient of Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ) baby powder is talcum powder, or talc. Several studies have linked frequent usage of talc in the genital region to pelvic inflammation and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.
JNJ also owns Janssen Pharmaceuticals, who manufactures one of the top ovarian cancer chemotherapy drugs: Doxil. Doxil costs $2,758 per every 25ml. Ovarian cancer patients are recommended to have 50ml injected once a month for at least 4 monthly cycles. So, 50ml of Doxil, the monthly dosage, costs $5,516, and if repeated for 4 monthly cycles, as recommended, the total cost of Doxil treatment is $22,064.
In 2017, about 22,000 women in the U.S. will receive a new diagnosis of ovarian cancer, and about 14,000 U.S. women will die from ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is ranked 5th among all cancer deaths in women, making it the most lethal form of cancer of the female reproductive system. Today, an American woman’s risk of developing ovarian cancer during her lifetime is around 1 in 75, and her chances of dying from ovarian cancer is around 1 in 100.
When we multiply the 22,000 thousand new U.S. cases of ovarian cancer per year by the $22,000 cost of a round of Doxil chemo, this comes out to a $484 million per year opportunity for JNJ. It should now be evident why Johnson & Johnson shouldn’t be allowed to sell talcum-laced baby powder while also selling ovarian cancer chemo treatments.

 

Merisant Sweeteners and vTv Therapeutics

Merisant is a top global manufacturer of artificial sweetener brands whose products are currently being sold in over 90 countries. Equal Zero Calorie Sweetener is Merisant’s flagship product, which produced sales of $36.2 million in 2014.
Merisant is owned by MacAndrews and Forbes, who also own vTv Therapeutics. vTv Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the clinical-stage discovery and invention of treatments, primarily for Alzheimer’s disease and Type 2 Diabetes, as well as central nervous system diseases, metabolic disorders, inflammation, and cancer.
Now, one of Equal Sweetener’s main ingredients is aspartame. Human research has already proven aspartame’s connection to memory loss and learning impairment, and there is promising animal research indicating both aspartame’s role in promoting obesity by blocking gut enzyme activity and that aspartame induces significant increases in lymphomas and leukaemias at doses very near to those at which humans can be exposed.
Should we really continue to allow the people who so massively profit from selling aspartame-laced Equal Sweetener the opportunity to also own and sell the pharmaceuticals that deal with the side-effects of aspartame consumption?

 

Hearthside Food Solutions and 21st Century Oncology

Hearthside Food Solutions is the United States’ largest independent bakery, and the global food industry’s leader in the full-service contract manufacturing of processed grain-based foods and snacks, including baked goods, granola bars, snack bars, energy bars, cookies, crackers, pretzels, croutons, and breadcrumbs.
Hearthside is owned by Vestar Capital Partners, who also own 21st Century Oncology.
21st Century Oncology is a leading cancer-care service provider across multiple modalities, including colorectal, breast, uterine, and testicular cancers, and was also named the world’s largest radiation oncology provider, operating 179 global radiation centers, including 143 locations in 17 U.S. states.
While most people already know that eating processed grains is unhealthy, some might not be aware of the high correlation between the consumption of processed, simple carbs with certain types of cancer development, such as prostate, colorectal and uterine cancers, while on the contrary, choosing healthy, complex carbs like legumes and leafy greens is correlated with a significant reduction in the risk for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers.
Even the ultra-conservative American Cancer Society states on its website that “Food processing may alter foods in ways that might affect cancer risk. An example is the refining of grains, which greatly lowers the amount of fiber and other compounds that may reduce cancer risk.”
Should we really continue to allow the global leaders of processed grain-based foods and snacks the ability to also own the world’s largest tumor radiation company?       Walking Times

Monday, May 1, 2017

How Mainstream Media Insults the Public’s Intelligence on Vaccines

Child with big eyes
April 24, 2017  by Martha Rosenberg
There is a bitter war going on, and it’s not over Trumpcare or immigration: It is about vaccines.
Mainstream media and medical groups, typically funded or backed by Big Pharma, cast parents who are skeptical about vaccines as conspiracy theorists whose backward beliefs put the public at risk.
Vaccine skeptics cast vaccine promoters as paid shills, hired by Big Pharma to cover up documented vaccine-related injuries.

In mainstream and progressive media coverage (Mother Jones, Alternet, Huffington Post, Truthout, Progressive, The Nation) there is zero tolerance for critical debate about vaccine safety. Question why the hepatitis B vaccine is routinely given to babies at birth—for a disease mainly transmitted through sex and I.V. drug use—and you’re  labeled “anti-science.”

Suggest that some vaccines, including those such as the highly promoted HPV Gardasil and Cervarix (both of which have been linked to adverse reactions and death) are not exactly “life-saving,” and you might as well yell “bring back polio.”

The media routinely discredits parents of vaccine-injured children, accusing them of not knowing anything about medicine (except raising their own challenged child of course) and of "imagining" or even causing their child's deficits.

Progressive news sites that would never defend corporate media coverage of Monsanto or GMOs drink the vaccines-are-safe Kool-Aid. Last month, Jezebel ran this headline: "Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Call Vaccines Dangerous, Which They Are Not." In a 2015 article, the Atlantic sneered that "Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?" And the Daily Beast has gone so far as to praise Paul Offit, perhaps the nation’s most extreme vaccine promoter.

One wants to ask these progressive sites: Do you really think Pharma has never steered us wrong, just for the sake of profit? What about all the drugs that had to be pulled from the market, after Pharma insisted they were safe? Drugs like Vioxx, Baycol, Trovan, Meridia, Seldane, Hismanal, Darvon, Raxar, Redux, Mylotarg, Lotronex, Propulsid, phenylpropanolamine (PPA), Prexige, phenacetin, Oraflex, Omniflox, Posicor, Serzone and Duract?

The fact is vaccines are not all safe. That’s why the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) program, established to provide monetary compensation to victims of vaccine injuries, exists. 

The VICP website states:
Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction. In these instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) may provide financial compensation to individuals who file a petition and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine.

Even the very pro-Pharma Forbes reports: "It's true that there have been 24,000 reports of adverse events with Gardasil" and "106 deaths." But the author of the Forbes article rationalizes: "There have also been 60,000 reports of adverse events with the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine, and 26,000 following vaccination with . . . Prevnar, for pneumococcus bacteria."

We ask: Do two wrongs make a right, Forbes?

The CDC maintains a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) where people can see for themselves the adverse effects and deaths related to a particular vaccine. A search for people who have died from the measles vaccines MEA, MER, MM, MMR or MMRV revealed 416 deaths. Last summer, the mainstream science outlet

EurekaAlert submitted that reading VAERS info “may not build public trust or adherence.”
That is an understatement.       More

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Incurable Me: How Big Pharma Is Controlling Our Health



No one likes to be sick, or see others around them be sick. Depending on the severity of the illness, it can be an uncomfortable, sobering, and sometimes devastating occurrence. And in our modern day world, it seems we can’t put anything on our skin or in our bodies, or even breathe the air around us, without reading about the dangers we face as a result.
With an ever-growing desire for profit and a greedy hold on scientific advancements, nature’s cures seem a thing of the past — or at least that’s what large pharmaceutical companies controlling our well-being would like us to believe.
Dr. Kenneth Stoller’s book, Incurable Me, exposes some of medicine’s biggest, and most protected, secrets, while bringing to light how profit and shareholders control medical practice.
The Western world has largely abandoned ancient medicine, but some people are questioning the wisdom of this shift. Doctors, healers, and health enthusiasts, along with anyone skeptical of ‘the system,’ have begun returning to our healing roots and rediscovering nature’s secrets. But why, if there are so many adverse side effects, and so much money thrown into big pharma’s medicines, are people not overwhelmingly aware of their options?
In Stoller’s book, he discusses how the best evidence in medical research rarely makes its way into clinical practice because of the lack of profit it will bring. And when breakthrough studies present the facts that we need to step away from the grasp of big pharma, they are typically buried or altered because they conflict with powerful financial interests.
And then there is the Centers for Disease Control, which one would like to believe has our best interest in mind. We all have one life, and one planet to live it on, so why not work together to learn the best ways to be and stay healthy, as well as combat sickness in times of need?
Money is its own powerful and addictive drug that has swayed so many decisions, created so much controversy, and, undoubtedly, led to many deaths. Stoller notes the close ties between the Centers for Disease Control and big pharma, arguing that they hinder our health by limiting, altering, and hiding important research. Profit has become the bottom line and our health, necessarily, a casualty.
Incurable Me is an important read for anyone intrigued by the workings of modern medicine. A detailed look at how valuable medical research is typically passed over for more profitable avenues, as well as company interests, Stoller’s book is truly an eye-opener.
Where would we be if the medical community actually had access to the very best evidence without the pressures and power of big pharma, insurance, and government influences? Would we be healthier, more aware of what our bodies need? More in tune with nature’s medicines?
Stoller’s book clearly connects the dots between commerce and medical research, meanwhile exposing treatments for some of the top concerning modern diseases like Lyme disease, brain trauma, dementia, and autism.
Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, called the book “timely, colorful, and informative,” describing it as “a wealth of knowledge to set you straight on what’s up with vaccines, toxic metals, pesticides, and autoimmune disease, and why you can no longer trust your doctor to keep you well.”
Simply put, Dr. Stoller presents the bigger picture of how money and greed form an overwhelming power that harms, rather than heals, the human race. Incurable Me reveals the need for the medical profession to open their minds to the root of the cause in order for our world to be healthier.             Collective Evolution

Monday, June 6, 2016

Medicine That Kills



Posted on June 1, 2016 by Jason in Gary Null Show, Health Care, Media
American science and public health is the finest in the world, with the smartest people working with the latest technologies to prevent and cure disease. We are exceptional.
That is a common belief held by several million people working within the medical industrial complex. The problem is, it’s untrue. In fact, it’s just the opposite.  American medicine kills more people unnecessarily than any other national medical system in the industrialized world. As Harvard School of Medicine professor Lucian Leape noted, American medicine kills 3 jumbo jets-worth of patients every 48 hours.(1)
In this series we review the startling science which suggests that deaths from medical error in the US may be conservatively estimated at 400,000 annually, while severe injuries from medical error may top 10,000,000.(2,3)  This equates to 8 million deaths and 200,000,000 severe injuries due to modern medical medicine during the past twenty years. It is higher than the casualties from any single conflict or war in American history.
American citizens should be alarmed that no federal effort is being made to prevent or reverse this growing trend.  What does this reveal about the medical establishment today?  What does it tell us about the level of training and competency of numerous qualified physicians, nurses, dentists, nutritionists, hospitals and scientists?  And more so, what can be said about the integrity of pharmaceutical companies, the federal health agencies and their thousands of employees that keep the medical machine running? And then what about the roles of mainstream media, universities and professional institutions and foundations and the so-called medical experts who are supposed to represent the highest standards of scientific ethics? Finally, what can be said about the tens of millions of Americans who are complacent and buy into this all-pervading establishment?
In retrospect, the nation suffers from severe cognitive dissonance and lives in denial about health standards and disease. American medicine feeds upon corruption, greed, malfeasance and self-serving interests. However, many prominent, respected medical voices have identified these problems and spoken out against them. This group includes Harvard professor and former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine Dr. Marcia Angell, former FDA Associate Director for Science and Medicine Dr. David Graham and the CDC’s senior epidemiologist Dr. William Thompson.
For decades independent journalists have exposed the impropriety of the medical industrial complex. Here is a list of just some of the groundbreaking independent investigative reporting exposing the corruption of mainstream medicine:
Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare- by Peter C. Gøtzsche,
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It by Marcia Angell MD
Prozac Nation by Elizabeth Wurtzel
Pharmageddon by David Healy
Doctors Are Gods: Corruption and Unethical Practices in the Medical Profession by David Jacobsen
The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers by Katharine Greider
Overdosed America by John Abramson
Mad in America By Robert Whitaker
Betrayal of Trust : The Collapse of Global Public Health by Laurie Garret
I’m Dancing as Fast as I Can by Barbara Gordon
Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives  by James Carter
Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre
White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine by Carl Elliot
These authors may be opinion leaders but they are not policymakers. Policymakers are so firmly in embedded into medicine’s controlled establishment that they are able to withstand the exposés and whistleblowers who bring their negligence and failures to public attention. Negative media, scandals, crimes of science don’t injure their careers nor their professional standings.
There are many hundreds of original in-depth investigative reports, including my own Death by Medicine, which required over 5 years of intensive research by five physicians and doctorates. I have released many award-winning documentaries such as Death by Medicine, War on Health, Prescription for Disaster, Silent Epidemic, Autism: Made in the USA and others. Yet what is the cumulative impact of all this investigative reporting upon current federal health policies and regulation? ZERO.
The US spends more money on domestic healthcare than any other country in the world. Grants and funding have been funnelled to millions of people, including over 900,000 physicians and nurses, hundreds of hospitals, pharmaceutical and medical technology companies, but the end-product is never thoroughly reviewed and assessed for viable success. Therefore, what incentive is provided to institute change if only medical failures are rewarded?
Has anyone ever heard of a physician or hospital refunding a patient’s care after medical error resulted in his or her death? And yet the public and media have the temerity to praise this medical paradigm’s leaders as heroes who are fighting the good fight against cancer, or AIDS or Alzheimer’s and diabetes, without ever questioning whether or not the entire paradigm might be flawed?
Unfortunately today’s medical establishment and its leaders won’t change. It’s too large to change.  There are too many vested interests and capitalizing on projected revenues is too entrenched into the system’s modus operandi. However, this doesn’t mean that we as individuals cannot change. Harvard Medical School’s Marcia Angell observed,
“Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
“The United States is the only advanced country that permits the pharmaceutical industry to charge exactly what the market will bear, whatever it wants”
“The pharmaceutical industry likes to depict itself as a research-based industry, as the source of innovative drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is their incredible PR and their nerve.”
In January 2016 federal multidistrict litigation commenced against Pfizer over its hugely popular cholesterol-lowering drug, Lipitor. After a 2012 study found the statin drug increased type 2 diabetes risks by 50 percent among postmenopausal women, Pfizer stands accused of not providing adequate warning about Lipitor’s life-threatening adverse effects.(4)  Thousands of personal injury lawsuits have been filed across the country by patients alleging they were harmed by the drug.
Lipitor was launched in 1996 and is the most successful medication in pharmaceutical history with sales over $131 billion. Predictably, financial settlements from the lawsuits will amount to a pittance of the drug’s overall revenues.
Pfizer has knowingly put millions of patients’ health and lives at risk; nevertheless, following a settlement Pfizer’s business returned to normal.  Nothing fundamentally changed and the corporation’s revenues simply increased. Since the revelation of the diabetes link, the company has continued to earn billions on Lipitor sales and no one is being held accountable.  More egregious is that nobody in the mainstream media speaks about the numerous scandals that plague the medical-industrial complex and its consistent bottom line to prioritize profit over health.
There is a serious emergency when federal regulatory agencies continue to approve medications, drugs and vaccines with numerous harmful and sometimes lethal side effects. Increasingly the FDA and CDC act as their own critics. Neither is the government blind to its own deficiencies in healthcare delivery. The Institute of Medicine (IOM), a part of the United States National Academy of Sciences, states:
“Healthcare in the United States is not as safe as it should be. . . . Among the problems that commonly occur during the course of providing healthcare are adverse drug events and improper transfusions, surgical injuries and wrong-site surgery, suicides, restraint- related injuries or death, falls, burns, pressure ulcers, and mistaken patient identities [all of which exact] their cost in human lives.” (5)
The IOM refers to “the nation’s epidemic of medical errors.” A large percent of these errors are related to adverse drug events (ADEs). An ADE is a broad term used to describe harm caused by medical intervention related to drugs, whereas an adverse drug reaction (ADR) involves injury caused by a medication prescribed at a normal dose. The FDA states that “ADRs are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in healthcare.”(6) Dr. Curt Furburg published an article in the Archives of Internal Medicine proposing sweeping changes throughout the FDA.  Furburg and his colleagues write, “We see eight major problems with the current system of assessment and assurance of drug safety at the FDA.” A fundamental problem is the FDA’s initial review for drug approval that often fails to detect serious ADRs: “A study by the US General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that 51% of all approved drugs had at least one serious ADR that was not recognized during the approval process.”(7)
Seeing the Bigger Picture
Until recently, public health researchers could cite only isolated statistics to make their case about the high risks of conventional medicine. No one had ever analyzed and compiled all the published literature dealing with injuries and deaths directly associated with federally protected medical practice.
Over a decade ago, several medical researchers and I spent years meticulously reviewing the statistical evidence regarding iatrogenic injury and death—that is, those conditions and deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by a medical treatment or diagnostic procedure. Our conclusions were shocking.
Our most stunning analysis was that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is more than 700,000 per year, making the American medical system itself the leading cause of death and injury in the US. The statistics present a grim reality for the American patient. In contrast, the purported leading causes of death in the United States today, heart disease and cancer, are responsible for 611,105 and 584,881 annual deaths, respectively. (8)  But has there been any improvement in the last 10 years since our figures were revealed to the world? Hardly.
In 2013, John James, PhD. published an article in the Journal of Patient Safety examining the prevalence of iatrogenic death in America. James concluded that more than 400,000 patients die in hospitals each year due to preventable harm. (9) He also stated that “serious harm seems to be 10- to 20-fold more common than lethal harm.” (10) In other words, anywhere between 4 million and 8 million Americans are seriously harmed during hospital admissions annually.
In a recent 2016 report, co-authors Dr. Martin Makary and Dr. Michael Daniel at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine estimated that over 250,000 deaths occur each year due to modern medicine’s errors. (11) However, the authors concede that the actual figure is far greater because their statistics only account for hospital deaths and not outpatient or nursing home settings. During an interview, Dr. Makary pointed out that death certificates do not reflect medical error. (12) He went on to state that “Incidence rates for deaths directly attributable to medical care gone awry haven’t been recognized in any standardized method for collecting national statistics… The medical coding system was designed to maximize billing for physician services, not to collect national health statistics, as it is currently being used.” (13)
Since population studies on iatrogenic deaths are sorely inadequate, it is reasonable to project an accurate mortality rate that surpasses the 797,926 figure we arrived at over a decade ago. In addition, a 2010 study showed that the frequency of ADEs (fatal and otherwise) has steadily trended upwards over the past years.(14) Nor does research into medical errors in nursing homes reflect improvement in patient safety. A 2009 study found serious discrepancies in the administration of medications for nearly 3 out of 4 admissions in nursing facilities. (15) In another study that evaluated assisted living facilities in South Carolina, healthcare staff committed errors in the preparation and administration of medication over 40% of the time. (16)
Given these astounding figures, it’s only right to ask how is it possible that our regulatory agencies have failed to address our costly nationwide epidemic of medical errors. To begin our search for answers we will turn our attention to the FDA, its astonishingly shoddy science and disturbing corruption that plagues America’s leading federal health agency.
Blowing the Whistle on Bad Medicine: Dr. David Graham
We decided to publish this information to call attention to the failure of the American medical system. By exposing the gruesome statistics, a basis may be established that might encourage competent and compassionate medical professionals to recognize the inadequacies of today’s medical establishment and begin to institute progressive reforms. One such professional is Dr. David Graham, whose testimony before Congress provides an important context for our discussion.
On November 18, 2004, Dr. David Graham, a former Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, testified before the US Senate. Dr. Graham graduated from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and trained in Internal Medicine at Yale and in adult Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania. (17)  His education and extensive experience qualify his expert opinion on the failures of pharmaceutical drugs.
Dr. Graham told the Senate:
During my career, I believe I have made a real difference for the cause of patient safety. My research and efforts within FDA led to the with- drawal from the US market of Omniflox, an antibiotic that caused hemolytic anemia; Rezulin, a diabetes drug that caused acute liver failure; Fen-Phen and Redux, weight loss drugs that caused heart valve injury; and PPA (phenylpropanolamine), an over- the-counter decongestant and weight loss product that caused hemorrhagic stroke in young women.
My research also led to the withdrawal from outpatient use of Trovan, an antibiotic that caused acute liver failure and death. I also contributed to the team effort that led to the withdrawal of Lotronex, a drug for irritable bowel syndrome that causes ischemic colitis; Baycol, a cholesterol-lowering drug that caused severe muscle injury, kidney failure and death; Seldane, an antihistamine that caused heart arrhythmias and death; and Propulsid, a drug for night-time heartburn that caused heart arrhythmias and death. . . .
I have done extensive work concerning the issue of pregnancy exposure to Accutane, a drug that is used to treat acne but can cause birth defects in some children who are exposed in utero if their mothers take the drug during the first trimester. During my career, I have recommended the market withdrawal of twelve drugs. Only two of these remain on the market today—Accutane and Arava, a drug for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis that I and a co-worker believe causes an unacceptably high risk of acute liver failure and death. (18)
The Los Angeles Times reported that witnesses told the Senate panel that Merck & Co. and the FDA knowingly had data well before the approval and licensure of Merck’s Vioxx® painkiller that proved the drug’s serious cardiovascular health risks. Nevertheless, the FDA granted it approval without resolving the risks, and Vioxx® was aggressively.(19)
Testifying about Merck’s Vioxx®, Dr. Graham states:
Today . . . you, we, are faced with what may be the single greatest drug safety catastrophe in the history of this country or the history of the world. We are talking about a catastrophe that I strongly believe could have, should have been largely or completely avoided. But it wasn’t, and over 100,000 Americans have paid dearly for this failure. In my opinion, the FDA has let the American people down, and sadly, betrayed a public trust. (20)
According to Dr. Graham. “Not only did the FDA ignore known risks from Vioxx® and related drugs but . . . it tried to prevent Graham and others from publicizing their own research that proved the extent of these risks.”(21)
Graham’s concerns were echoed by some members of Congress who heard his testimony. Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R–Iowa) said he was concerned that the FDA “has a relationship with drug companies that is too cozy.”(22)  Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D–New Mexico) said the problem was within the FDA’s own culture.“ This culture has been described as one whereby the pharmaceutical industry, which the FDA is mandated to regulate, is seen by the FDA as its client instead.(23)
In Graham’s view, drug safety problems began in 1992 with the passage of a law aimed at getting lifesaving drugs onto the market faster. In order to increase the FDA approval process, the law forced pharmaceutical companies to pay for most of the review process’ costs.  That left the FDA “captured by industry,” says Graham. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” (24)
The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists reports that Graham testified “in February [2007] that, had it not been for the protection of Sen. Charles Grassley (R–Iowa), FDA would have fired him for publicly speaking out about his concerns about Vioxx® and other drugs.” (25)
Dr. Graham says, “ You need to weed the garden patch of drugs that aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do. The FDA has not been very good about that; it likes to cultivate all these weeds.”(26)  Dr. Graham “named five other drugs whose safety is suspect, and noted that ‘the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx®.’” (27) Many media sources present at the hearing, such as the Los Angeles Times and Medscape Medical News, (28) report that Graham then added, “ We are virtually defenseless,”(29)  but this sentence does not appear in the final transcript and may have been stricken from the record.
One report begins, “The American public is ‘virtually defenseless’ if another medication such as Vioxx® proves to be unsafe after it is approved for sale, a government drug safety reviewer told a congressional committee.”(30)
Medicine Today: As Dangerous as Ever
A decade has passed since Dr. Graham’s public statements exposing the dangerous bad science and corruption and that infests the FDA. It’s difficult to imagine that such public exposure hasn’t forced the agency to clean up its act, but the evidence clearly shows that our government health officials would rather support pharmaceutical profiteering than the health and safety and American citizens.
The FDA’s questionable operations were put under the spotlight in a 2015 article appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine titled “ Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature,.” The article is a sobering assessment of the scale of scientific fraud and deception carried out by the FDA. Author Charles Seife of New York University examined the nature of the FDA’s inspection of various drug trials on human participants between 1998 and 2013.
The investigation’s results were stunning:
Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published. (31)
These disturbing data suggest that the FDA’s evaluation of pharmaceuticals for safety and efficacy may be so flawed that only 4% of all trial results are identified as such. As a result, FDA scientists and officials responsible for approving drugs to the market are kept largely uninformed about the egregious scientific misconduct involved in obtaining study data. Further, these erroneous and fraudulent studies are published in peer-reviewed scientific literature and accepted as valid science
Seife commented on the FDA’s staggering scientific impropriety in an article he composed for Slate:
RECORD 4 was one of four large clinical trials that involved thousands of patients who were recruited at scores of clinical sites in more than a dozen countries around the world. The trial was used as evidence that a new anti-blood-clotting agent, rivaroxaban, was safe and effective. The FDA inspected or had access to external audits of 16 of the RECORD 4 sites. The trial was a fiasco. At Dr. Craig Loucks’ site in Colorado, the FDA found falsified data. At Dr. Ricardo Esquivel’s site in Mexico, there was “systematic discarding of medical records” that made it impossible to tell whether the study drug was given to the patients. At half of the sites that drew FDA scrutiny—eight out of 16—there was misconduct, fraud, fishy behavior, or other practices so objectionable that the data had to be thrown out. The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire study to be “unreliable.” Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes. This means that physicians around the world are basing life-and-death medical decisions on a study that the FDA knows is simply not credible. (32)
How are we supposed to have faith in a medical establishment that is responsible for the injury and death of thousands of Americans daily? How else does modern medicine exploit illness for profit and what lies at the root of this corrupt system? In the next article, we will uncover more about modern medicine’s deadly repercussions in the lives of millions of American people.
Endnotes:
  1. Leape, L. L. 1994. Error in medicine. JAMA, 272 (23):1851–7.
  2. James, John T. “A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care.” Journal of Patient Safety 9, no. 3 (September 9, 2013): 122-28. Accessed May 9, 2016. doi:10.1097/pts.0b013e3182948a69.
  3. Cha, Ariana Eunjung. “Researchers: Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death in United States.” Washington Post. May 3, 2016. Accessed May 11, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/.
  4. Culver AL, Ockene IS, Balasubramanian R, et al. Statin Use and Risk of Diabetes Mellitus in Postmenopausal Women in the Women’s Health Initiative. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(2):144-152. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.625.
  5. Institute of Medicine, US National Academy of Sciences. November 1999. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. http://www.iom. edu/Object.File/Master/4/117/ToErr-8pager. pdf (accessed January 25, 2009).
  6. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Interactions. Last updated July 31, 2002. http:// www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugReactions/default. htm#ADRs:%20Prevalence%20and%20Inci- dence (accessed January 25, 2009).
  7. Furberg, C. D., A. A. Levin, P. A. Gross, R. S. Shapiro, and B. L. Strom. 2006. The FDA and drug safety: a proposal for sweeping changes. Arch Intern Med 166 (18):1938–42.
  8. Nichols, Hannah. “Public Health Heart Disease Cancer / Oncology Stroke The Top 10 Leading Causes of Death in the US.” Medical News Today. September 21, 2015. Accessed April 21, 2016. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php.
  9. James, John T. “A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care.” Journal of Patient Safety 9, no. 3 (September 9, 2013): 122-28. Accessed May 9, 2016. doi:10.1097/pts.0b013e3182948a69.
  10. Ibid
  11. Makary MA, Daniel M. BMJ. 2016 May 3;353:i2139. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2139.
  12. Johns Hopkins Medicine. “Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 4 May 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160504085309.htm>.
  13. Ibid
  14. Bourgeois, Florence T., Michael W. Shannon, Clarissa Valim, and Kenneth D. Mandl. “Adverse Drug Events in the Outpatient Setting: An 11-year National Analysis.” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pharmacoepidem. Drug Safe. 19, no. 9 (September 19, 2010): 901-10. doi:10.1002/pds.1984.
  15. Tjia, J., Bonner, A., Briesacher, B. A., McGee, S., Terrill, E., & Miller, K. (2009). Medication Discrepancies upon Hospital to Skilled Nursing Facility Transitions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 24(5), 630–635. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-0948-2
  16. Zimmerman S ; Love K ; Sloane PD; et al. Medication administration errors in assisted living: scope, characteristics, and the importance of staff training. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011; 59: 1060-1068
  17. US Senate Finance Committee. Testimony of David J. Graham, MD, MPH, November 18, 2004. http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony/2004test/111804dgtest.pdf (accessed January 30, 2009).
  18. Ibid
  19. Alonso-Zaldivar, R., FDA Called ‘Defenseless’ Against Unsafe Drugs, Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2004. http://www.mcall.com/topic/ la-111804vioxx_lat,0,7473253.story (accessed January 31, 2009).
  20. US Senate Finance Committee. Testimony of David J. Graham, MD, MPH, November 18, 2004. http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony/2004test/111804dgtest.pdf (accessed January 30, 2009).
  21. National Coalition Against Censorship. FDA Suppressed Vioxx Studies Despite Evidence of Seri- ous Health Risks, November 25, 2004. http:// www.ncac.org/FDA_Suppressed_Vioxx_Studies (accessed January 30, 2009).
  22. Alonso-Zaldivar, R., “FDA Called ‘Defense- less’ Against Unsafe Drugs,” Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2004. http://www.mcall.com/ topic/la-111804vioxx_lat,0,7473253.story (accessed January 31, 2009).
  23. Ibid
  24. Yale Medicine. FDA’s top safety critic keeps a watchful eye on the public good, Summer 2005. References • 169 170 •Gary Null, PhD, et al. http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/ym_su05/faces. html (accessed January 31, 2009).
  25. Young, D., Safety Experts Call for Accountability from FDA, Drug Firms. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, March 23, 2007. http://www.ashp.org/import/News/HealthSys- temPharmacyNews/newsarticle.aspx?id=2503 (accessed January 31, 2009).
  26. Loudon, Manette, interviewer. The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower, parts of this interview appear in Gary Null’s documentary film, Pre- scription for Disaster, Garynull.com, August 30, 2005, reprinted by Natural News. http://www. naturalnews.com/011401.html (accessed Janu- ary 31, 2009).
  27. US Senate Finance Committee. Testimony of David J. Graham, MD, MPH, November 18, 2004. http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/ testimony/2004test/111804dgtest.pdf (accessed January 30, 2009).
  28. Yale Medicine. FDA’s top safety critic keeps a watchful eye on the public good, Summer 2005. http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/ym_su05/faces. html (accessed January 31, 2009).
  29. Alonso-Zaldivar, R., FDA Called ‘Defense- less’ Against Unsafe Drugs, Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2004. http://www.mcall.com/ topic/la-111804vioxx_lat,0,7473253.story (accessed January 31, 2009).
  30. Kelly, J. Harsh criticism lobbed at FDA in Senate Vioxx hearing, Medscape Medical News, November 23, 2004. http://medgenmed.medscape. com/viewarticle/538021_print (accessed January 31, 2009).
  31. Seife C. Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):567-577. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7774.
  32. Seife, Charles. “The Food and Drug Administration Covers Up Evidence of Fraud, Fabrication, and Scientific Misconduct.” Slate Magazine. February 09, 2015. Accessed April 22, 2016. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.html.
Supplemental Statistics on Iatrogenic Death in the United States excerpted from Death By Medicine
As shown in Table 1, the estimated total number of iatrogenic deaths—that is, deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures—in the US annually is at least 581,926. It is evident that the American medical system is itself the leading cause of death and injury in the US. By comparison, approximately 652,091 Americans died of heart disease in 2005, while 559,312 died of cancer.(45) The mortality costs alone exceed $215 billion a year. “Healthcare costs in the United States are growing at an unsustainable rate,” according to former Senator Ron Wyden, who serves on the Senate’s Finance Committee, Subcommittee on Healthcare.(46)
The National Coalition on Healthcare reports that annual healthcare spending in the US has been increasing two to five times the rate of inflation since 2000.(47) In 2006, Americans spent more than $2.2 trillion on healthcare.(48) Total healthcare spending was $2.4 trillion in both 2007 and 2008, or $7,900 per person, which represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).(70) That’s about 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.(71) The total was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.(72) The National Coalition on Healthcare further states:It is estimated that we have spent as a nation nearly 16 trillion dollars on healthcare since 2000, but this expenditure has not resulted in demonstrably better quality of care or better patient satisfaction compared to other nations.(73)
Jason Lazarou, MSc, estimated 106,000 annual drug errors in his groundbreaking 1998 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association(74) the Institute of Medicine esti-
mated 98,000 annual medical errors. But if we use Dr. Lucian L. Leape’s 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million(75) multiplied by the 14% fatality rate he used in 1994,76 we find that the number of deaths would be increased by 216,000, for a total of 797,926 deaths annually as shown in Table 2.
References:
  1. Lazarou, J., B. H. Pomeranz, and P. N. Corey. 1998. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta- analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 279 (15):1200–5.
  2. Suh, D. C., B. S. Woodall, S. K. Shin, and E. R. Hermes-De Santis. 2000. Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Ann Pharmacother 34 (12):1373–9.
  3. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Preventable Adverse Drug Reactions: A Focus on Drug Inter-
actions. Last updated July 31, 2002. http:// www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugReactions/default. htm#ADRs:%20Prevalence%20and%20Inci- dence (accessed January 25, 2009).
  1. Institute of Medicine, US National Academy of Sciences. November 1999. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. http://www.iom. edu/Object.File/Master/4/117/ToErr8pager. pdf (accessed January 25, 2009).
  2. Thomas,E.J.,D.M.Studdert,H.R.Burstin,E. J. Orav, T. Zeena, E. J. Williams, K. M. Howard, P. C. Weiler, and T. A. Brennan. 2000. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 38 (3):261–71.
  3. Thomas, E. J., D. M. Studdert, J. P. Newhouse, B. I. Zbar, K. M. Howard, E. J. Williams, and T. A. Brennan. 1999. Costs of medical injuries in Utah and Colorado. Inquiry 36 (3):255–64.
  4. Xakellis, G. C., R. Frantz, and A. Lewis. 1995. Cost of pressure ulcer prevention in long-term care. J Am Geriatr Soc 43 (5):496–501.
  5. Barczak, C. A., R. I. Barnett, E. J. Childs, and L. M. Bosley. 1997. Fourth national pressure ulcer prevalence survey. Adv Wound Care 10 (4):18–26.
57 Health Grades Quality Study, Patient Safety in American Hospitals, July 2004. http:// www.healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/ hg_patient_safety_study_final.pdf (accessed March 3, 2009).
References • 175
176 •
Gary Null, PhD, et al.
  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimates of Healthcare-Associated Infections, last modified May 30, 2007. http://www.cdc. gov/ncidod/dhqp/hai.html (accessed January 24, 2009).
  2. Weinstein, R. A. 1998. Nosocomial infection update. Emerg Infect Dis 4 (3):416–20.
  3. Fourth Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. February 25, 2000, Vol. 49, No. 7, p. 138.
  4. Starfield, B. 2000. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 284 (4):483–5.
  5. Nursing Home Residents Dying of Hunger, Thirst. Consumer Affairs, November 29, 2004. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/ nursing_home_neglect.html (accessed March 4, 2009).
  6. Starfield, B. 2000. Deficiencies in US medical care. JAMA 284 (17):2184–5.
  7. Weingart, S. N., L. Wilson R. Mc, R. W. Gibberd, and B. Harrison. 2000. Epidemiology of medical error. West J Med 172 (6):390–3.
  8. Siu, A. L., W. G. Manning, and B. Benjamin. 1990. Patient, provider and hospital characteristics associated with inappropriate hospitalization. Am J Public Health 80 (10):1253–6.
  9. Thomas, E. J., D. M. Studdert, J. P. Newhouse, B. I. Zbar, K. M. Howard, E. J. Williams, and T. A. Brennan. 1999. Costs of medical injuries in Utah and Colorado. Inquiry 36 (3):255–64.
  10. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/news/ ress/ pr2003/injurypr.htm. (Accessed May 22, 2006).
  11. Leape LL.Unnecessary surgery.Health Serv Res. 1989 Aug; 24(3):351–407.
  12. NationalCoalitiononHealthCare.HealthInsur- ance Costs: Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care, NCHC, 2009. http:// www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml (accessed Jan- uary 28, 2009).
  13. NationalCoalitiononHealthCare.“DidYouKnow?” section of home page of NCHC, 2009. http://www. nchc.org/ (accessed January 27, 2009).
  14. National Coalition on Health Care. Health Insurance Costs: Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care, NCHC, 2009. http://www.nchc. org/facts/cost.shtml (accessed January 28, 2009).
  15. NationalCoalitiononHealthCare.“DidYouKnow?” section of home page of NCHC, 2009. http://www. nchc.org/ (accessed January 27, 2009).
  16. Lazarou, J., B. H. Pomeranz, and P. N. Corey. 1998. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 279 (15):1200–5.
  17. National Patient Safety Foundation. Nationwide poll on patient safety: 100 million Americans see medical mistakes directly touching them [press release]. McLean, VA: October 9, 1997.
  18. Leape, L. L. 1994. Error in medicine. JAMA 272 (23):1851–7.
  19. National Patient Safety Foundation. Nationwide poll on patient safety: 100 million Americans see
References • 177
78 • Gary Null, PhD, et al. medical mistakes directly touching them [press release]. McLean, VA: October 9, 1997.
  1. Ibid.
  2. Xakellis, G. C., R. Frantz, and A. Lewis. 1995. Cost of pressure ulcer prevention in long-term care. J Am Geriatr Soc 43 (5):496–501.
  3. Barczak, C. A., R. I. Barnett, E. J. Childs, and L. M. Bosley. 1997. Fourth national pressure ulcer prevalence survey. Adv Wound Care 10 (4):18–26.
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimates of Healthcare-Associated Infections, last modified May 30, 2007. http://www.cdc. gov/ncidod/dhqp/hai.html (accessed January 24, 2009).
  5. Health Grades Quality Study, Patient Safety in American Hospitals, July 2004. http://www. healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/hg_ patient_safety_study_final.pdf (accessed March 3, 2009).
  6. Weinstein, R. A. 1998. Nosocomial infection update. Emerg Infect Dis 4 (3):416–20.
  7. Fourth Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. February 25, 2000, Vol. 49, No. 7, p. 138.
  8. Available at: http://www.cmwf.org/programs/ elders/burger_mal_386.asp. (accessed May 22, 2006).
  9. Starfield, B. 2000. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 284 (4):483–5.
  10. Starfield, B. 2000. Deficiencies in US medical care. JAMA 284 (17):2184–5.
  11. Weingart, S. N., L. Wilson R. Mc, R. W. Gibberd, and B. Harrison. 2000. Epidemiology of medical error. West J Med 172 (6):390–3.
  12. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/data/ hcup/ hcupnet.htm. (accessed May 22, 2006).
  13. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/news/ ress/ pr2003/injurypr.htm. (Accessed May 22, 2006).
  14. Leape LL.Unnecessary surgery. Health Serv Res. 1989 Aug;24(3):351–407.
  15. Peck, P. Patient safety requires fundamental changes to medical systems. Medscape Medi- cal News, 6 May 2004. http://www.medscape. com/viewarticle/475217 (accessed January 28, 2009).       PRN