What Doctors Are Reading May Put Your Health at Risk

[Islander]

By Dr. Al Sears
07/17/2010

Most doctors rely on a handful of medical journals as a main source for information.
But drug companies are influencing what these journals publish.
And more importantly, what they don’t publish.
Many unfavorable facts and trials about new drugs don’t make it into these journals. Why?

A recent study showed that between two thirds and three quarters of the trials published in the major journals – Annals of Internal Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine – are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.(1)
Drug company ads made up 72% of all advertisements in the top five medical journals in 2006 and 2007.
Plus, journals with the most pharmaceutical ads were significantly more likely to publish articles concluding that dietary supplements were unsafe, than the journals with fewer pharma ads.(2)
Studies concluded pharmaceutical advertising biased these medical journals against non-drug therapies.
As a result, they often only publish stories that favor the drug companies.
Here’s what I’m talking about…

The JAMA once published a positive story about Celebrex. It was based on the clinical trial funded by its inventor, Pharmacia.
Later on, they discovered that researchers had omitted some side effects. They had failed to include six months of results from the trial and concealed that the drug caused ulcers. By then, Pharmacia had already distributed 30,000 copies of the JAMA article to doctors.

The Good News Is They’re Now Being Exposed
Finally, even those in the industry are fed up.
Dr. Drummond Rennie, a deputy editor of JAMA, said, “Drug companies try to bury negative results from clinical trials of new drugs well before publication.”
“To prevent publication of unfavorable results, companies have threatened researchers, stopped trials, and blocked publication. The consequence is biased reporting, resulting in biased treatments.”(3)
Dr. Richard Horton, editor of Lancet, wrote, “Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”(4)
Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, called these publications “primarily a marketing machine” for big drug companies “co-opting every institution that might stand in its way.” You may be taking the advice of a doctor whose primary source of medical information is one of these journals. That could be dangerous.
Many doctors are being lied to by a source they have relied on for dozens of years.

Think about this…
How many drugs that were used 50 years ago are still around today? I bet you can’t name more than one or two. We hardly use any of the drugs today that we used 50 years ago. Where have they gone? They’ve all been exposed for what they are. And were quietly withdrawn from the market.

Today there’s Vioxx, Bextra, Zelnorm, Rezulin, just to name a few that have been taken off the market since 2000.
That’s why it’s critical for you to stay informed.
It’s important you learn everything you can about a drug before using it. Don’t trust drug labels, package inserts, or even doctors to give you the full story. Many of them get their information on new drugs from these medical journals, sexy sales reps, and the drug companies. None of which have your best interests in mind.
Here’s a suggestion to help you get the information you need.
The next time a doctor wants to write you a prescription, ask him these three questions before rushing to your local pharmacy:

• 1. Are there any natural alternatives?
• 2. What are the side effects of this drug?
• 3. How long have you been recommending this drug?

It’s also a good idea to ask your doctor to explain why he thinks this drug is a good choice. And remember: It’s your body, and you have a right to refuse any prescription.

Sources:
1. Egger M, Bartlett C, Juni P (2001) “Are randomised controlled trials in the BMJ different?” BMJ 323: 1253.
2. Fugh-Berman A, Alladin K, Chow J (2006) “Advertising in Medical Journals: Should Current Practices Change?” PloS Med 3(6): e130. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030130
3. Wilson, Duff A. “Many New Drugs Have Strong Dose of Media Hype.” March 16, 2010, Seattle Times.
4. Horton R (2004) “The dawn of McScience.” New York Rev Books 51(4): 7–9.
5. Adapted from Wikipedia, List of Withdrawn Drugs and Worstpills.org

http://tinyurl.com/29twaoo

[mellowsong]

I saw some interview on TV, no clue who it was, but they were talking about the problems with Avandia. This doctor had the gall to say that the FDA should NOT fine SmithGlaxo but should go after the individuals who hid the data...that these huge fines only hurt patients in the long run. I wanted to smack him through the TV. Data would not have been covered up if the powers that be had not ordered it done!

[Islander]

Oh good grief, gimme a break. "the individuals who hid the data..." Uh...would that be, say, space aliens?

[Maurya]

Y'all really should come down here, to see the acres and acres of ground, with high fencing topped with razor wire around all, guards at the gates, and threatening signs all over everything. No, they have nothing to hide from the stupid public, do they?

[DizzyIzzy]

Wow, that'd freak me out. The Merck and... I think it's Glaxo HQ's here are both these kind of sterile-looking buildings, loads of tinted windows and floor-length blinds so you can't see in, perfectly manicured lawns, all very pretty but kind of scary - like the 'bad guy organisation' hq's always look like on TV, lol... not sure quite what they do though, probably just admin/distribution. Doesn't look particularly appetising anyway. Or maybe I'm just biased and the girl who sees the weeds in the garden as her medicine so *sensible* people ought not to listen to me.

Regardless, what Islander said. And in my experience, despite what these editors are saying, most doctors I've spoken to would put that down to 'conspiracy theory'. Yes, all that drug advertising and sponsorship and whatever else is just a conspiracy from the tinfoil hat brigade. Right.

[EmmaPeel]

I live very close to Monsanto. Modern, very well maintained tinted glass building with security camera's and lazer motion detectors everywhere, seen and unseen.

Anywho, I read journals constantly, and I can certainly see how many doctors, male and female, could use these Journals as references for prescriptions. They are absolutely LOADED with studies that appear to be skewed towards a particular drug(s). I stopped reading them because it disgusted me to see how legalized drug testing on innocent people is advertised.

Case in point; I know someone who is being treated with multiple oral antibiotics for a Stage IV coccygeal ulcer. This person is a diabetic. When I suggested to the Dr. that I had been researching and seen that Vitamin D and C in large doses, as well as a probiotic would benefit this person, this Dr. blew me off even after I provided well researched, peer reviewed data from multiple sources.
Let me also add, that we had ordered many hundreds of $$ of manuka honey dressings for this person. After about a week, this doctor discontinued them stating that it was a waste of money, without giving it a reasonable amount of time.

How does one avoid being biased and approach any health situation with sound, diverse, accurate information?

For us here on this site who are regular's we know it is to Read. Read from many sources. Investigate. Question. Discuss. Share. And most importantly, never paint with a broad brush. Everyone's body is unique..we know this.

I sometimes feel so despondent that there is no way out of the clutches of Big Pharma. Except that, for now, we still have control over our own bodies, for the most part.

I fear that after reading of Mellowsong tell of her situation, that because money rules medical, this may be an illusion as tests and diagnostics that would guide treatment are not available unless one is either very rich, or very influential.

[Aaltrude]

I fear that after reading of Mellowsong tell of her situation, that because money rules medical, this may be an illusion as tests and diagnostics that would guide treatment are not available unless one is either very rich, or very influential.

We are not rich but have managed to scrape together some money for both of us to see a Medical Herbalist and yes the cost is far in excess of seeing a doctor but the results have far surpassed anything we have received from convenional medicine.

[Islander]

Emma, well said. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[DizzyIzzy]

Emma, well said. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This.


It's a shame about the manuka, that stuff is incredible. One of my teachers had an electric fence wire snap and lash her face, causing a split from the corner of her mouth right through her cheek, burnt and painful. She slathered on the manuka and she doesn't even have a scar.

I've had a lot of big wounds that I've done the same with that should have left me scarred and infected and all sorts. It's worked every time.

Sad for the patients who need it. :(

[mellowsong]

It's a shame about the manuka, that stuff is incredible. One of my teachers had an electric fence wire snap and lash her face, causing a split from the corner of her mouth right through her cheek, burnt and painful. She slathered on the manuka and she doesn't even have a scar.
:(

When I had my surgery in March, one of the incisions got pretty infected. I even told 3 people at the ER it was infected and not one person looked at it. Anyway, I could not afford the manuka honey at the health food store, but I do have raw honey so I started washing it with colloidal silver, then covering it in honey and putting gauze over that. It took awhile, but it healed without antibiotics. I imagine if I'd had Manuka it would have healed a lot more quickly. Four months later though, I still have a big, purple painful scar. Oh well :(

[EmmaPeel]

Diz, Islander and Mello,

The manuka honey dressing we ordered are commercial, and I have used them many times with patients. They are incredible. The wound is kept clean and there is no odor. Granulation of tissue is faster compared to other dressings that are slathered with antibiotic creams, and even the plain normal saline soaked packing that is so widely used and prescribed.

It was such a shame that this doctor discontinued them so soon. Now we have many boxes with hundreds of dollars worth of treatment dressings left. We do not have these kind of wounds come around often because the basic skin and circulatory care is quite good on my unit.
I think that this particular patient will benefit from a longer course.

I plan to re-introduce this idea again to this doctor. He already thinks I am a pain-in-the-*** so what the heck?!
Hee hee....most of the doctor's I encounter think I am an a weird 'organic' nurse who wears a tin foil hat on my days off....HA! The only HMO's who agree with me are the older one's from India who practiced along side Ayurvedic practitioners in their own country.

Still, my feelings are irrelevant. My patients are what matter to me, and if I can advocate for them anyway I can, I will. And, the mega doses of Vit. C and D...

[mellowsong]

You go EMMA!!!!

[Maurya]

You go EMMA!!!!

What she said!

[Islander]

+ 1! Amen!

[Aaltrude]

+ 1! Amen!

Thumbs Up