it has come to light that some of these drug components aren’t being properly tested for safety, contamination or dosage effects. Big pharma saves quite a bit of money by outsourcing to China, but the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t seem particularly motivated to hold Chinese companies to a high standard.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently been forced to send a warning letter to the Shanghai company Tai Heng due to their systemic manipulation of key data and information. This fraudulent behavior has raised questions about the safety and quality of all Chinese products related to the pharmaceutical industry.
Chinese companies caught falsifying safety and quality records for prescription drugs
During a 2015 inspection of the Tai Heng plant, FDA inspectors uncovered processes that involved samples being routinely retested after failing to get acceptable results until such results were obtained. The drug quality failures were also never investigated to determine cause. After retesting, analysts would then manipulate the results shown in their computer systems. Operators also created “mock” sheets to current batch records look acceptable, according to the FDA warning letter.
READ MORE and get more links here>>>…
unner by the establishment.
The passage today of a Senate bill that would subject American citizens to indefinite detention.
A new study revealing how the government has neglected to oversee the "treatment" of foster children with mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs.
The threat by a Chinese general to take the U.S. and China to war if the U.S. decides to attack Iran.
people who suffered during disease epidemics. Orthodox medical treatments were dangerous and comparatively less successful in treating patients. Great divides existed between orthodox and homeopathic physicians. The attempt to suppress homeopathic medicine was accelerated in 1910 with the Flexner Report, influenced by the funding by John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. In effect, healthcare in the US was bought out and successful homeopathic physicians disallowed from further practice. This important change led to safe, inexpensive treatments being forced to the fringe of mainstream medicine, a practice which remains in effect today. Understanding healthcare's past can assist in better comprehending the obstacles and difficulties faced in today's very slanted pharmaceutical and vaccine-based model of healthcare. Today's Healthcare Today's healthcare has a strong emphasis on pharmaceuticals and vaccinations, which are entrenched in our medical health delivery system. One rarely leaves a physician's office without a prescription or recommendation for a vaccine. The growth of vaccinations in the last 60 years has been astronomical. In 1953, 16 dosages of 4 vaccines were recommended, while in 2013, 49 dosages of 14 vaccines were included in the recommended vaccine schedule. Healthcare In The 1800s At one time, physicians were highly trained in nutrition and homeopathic remedies. In the 1800s, a significant portion of physicians were homeopathic practitioners who used inexpensive, effective and safe homeopathic remedies to treat health conditions. The focus on vaccinations and pharmaceuticals was not as dominant as it is today. In the mid 1800s, the primary treatments of orthodox medicine included dangerous bloodletting and medicines made from arsenic, mercury and lead. In contrast, safe homeopathic medicine successfully treated various infectious, epidemic diseases that were rampant throughout America and Europe. Statistics showed that the death rate by those treated in homeopathic hospitals was one-half to as little as one-eighth compared to those treated in orthodox medical hospitals. During the 1849 cholera epidemic, Cincinatti homeopathic physicians reported only three percent of their 1,116 patients died, compared to 48-60 percent of those receiving orthodox medical treatments. Homeopathic Versus Orthodox Medicine Division between homeopathic physicians and orthodox medicine grew in both Europe and America. One reason for the division was homeopaths' criticism of orthodox medicine's use of formulas aimed at suppressing symptoms, making it more difficult to successfully treat patients with homeopathic remedies. Respected homeopath Dana Ullman reported in a historical summary of homeopathy:
"Despite the persecution, homeopathy continued to grow. It grew not just because it offered a systematic approach to treating sick people, but also because orthodox medicine was ineffective and even dangerous. There is general agreement among medical historians today that orthodox medicine of the 1700s and 1800s in particular frequently caused more harm than good."
Major adversity existed for quite some time between these two schools of medicine. The AMA refused to allow homeopathic physicians to join their medical group and evicted physicians who even consulted with a homeopathic physician.
READ MORE HERE: http://www.sott.net/article/315387-How-healthcare-was-transformed-to-sick-care-focused-on-vaccines-and-drugs…
ous medical journal demonstrated in the starkest of terms how pharmaceutical companies tend to publish research that's favorable to their products and leave unfavorable results tucked away in their files. It's a problem that everyone outside the industry already recognizes, but the results of this most recent study should really set off alarms. Led by Dr. Erick Turner of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland and published in theNew England Journal of Medicine , the study took the results of 74 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-registered trials of antidepressant medications (trials done by the companies that developed the drugs) and compared them with the results that the drug companies published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The study involved 12 antidepressants approved between 1987 and 2004. In seeking approval of new drugs, companies are required by law to register their clinical trials with the FDA before conducting them, and then report results to the agency when they're done. Of those 74 trials, the survey found 38 that showed antidepressants to be effective, and all but one of those was duly published. But stunningly, out of 36 trials that showed the drugs to be of questionable or no benefit, the results from only 3 trials were published accurately. Of the rest, 22 were not published at all. All of the other 11 that were published concluded that the drugs did have a positive benefit, in direct contradiction of FDA's conclusion. So, in the authors' words, "studies that the FDA judged as positive were approximately 12 times as likely to be published in a way that agreed with the FDA as were studies with nonpositive results." And it wasn't just a matter of holding back results. Trial-by-trial, the beneficial effects of antidepressants as published in medical journals were 18 percent bigger than those recorded in the official FDA data. The authors don't speculate on how this effectiveness-inflation occurred, but combined with selective publication of positive results, it made antidepressants look a lot better than they really are. Antidepressants are the most frequently prescribed class of drugs in the US, with about 60,000 prescriptions written every working hour. Encouraged by all those favorable journal papers, doctors tripled their prescription-writing for antidepressants between 1988 and 1998 , and prescriptions had shot up another 31 percent by 2005. The greatest increase has come among doctors who are not psychiatrists. The products have become a convenient way to deal with people who find themselves in rough situations. Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are reportedly being given "bags of antidepressants" and upwards of one-third of nursing-home residents are taking antidepressants at any given time. FDA registration is designed to curtail the kind of deceptive publication practices that can boost unnecessary prescribing, and their data for more recently developed drugs are available on the agency's website. (But getting data for the eight older drugs examined by Turner and colleagues required use of the Freedom of Information Act). Most academics, journalists, and others looking to inform the public on a drug's overall usefulness rely on studies published in medical journals as being the "gold standard" for reliability. So biased publishing, coming on top of heavy advertising [pdf], overtesting , and close interaction between sales reps and doctors, is a highly effective way to improve the market for a drug. Turner's study looked only for exaggeration of antidepressants' benefits, not at their often terrible side effects. But selective publication can also keep the public in the dark about serious harm that drugs can do. Most infamously, Merck & Co. was accused of leaving out some negative results and spinning others from trials of the pain-reliever Vioxx, when a study of the drug's association with an increased risk of heart attack was submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine. By the time Vioxx was withdrawn in 2004, FDA estimated that it had caused in the range of 25,000 to 50,000 fatal heart attacks. Each year, the drug industry churns out enough product to fill more than 15 prescriptions per American, and that adds up to more than $200 billion in annual sales. An international survey of the medical literature showing that around 5 percent of hospital admissions result from avoidable adverse drug reactions ; that means about 2 million of the pharmaceutical industry's customers end up needlessly hospitalized each year. Countless other people are suffering side effects without even taking the drugs; they are simply living too close to pharmaceutical factories in India and other countries that export to the US. It's a depressing situation, one that can be resolved only by taking drug testing out of the hands of the corporations themselves. Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine will be published by Pluto Press in April. They can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org. Notes 1. E.H. Turner et al., 'Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy', New England Journal of Medicine, 358: 252 (2008) 2. S.M. Foote and L. Etheredge, 'Increasing use of new prescription drugs: a case study', Health Affairs, Jul-Aug, 2000 3. D. Studdert et al., 'Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment', Journal of the American Medical Association 293: 2609 (2005) and D. Merenstein et al., 'Use and costs of nonrecommended tests during routine preventive health exams', American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30: 521 (2006). 4. H.J.M. Beijer and C.J. de Blaey, 'Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies', Pharmacy World and Science 24: 46 (2002)