Medical Doctors Accept Industry Payments—Oh Yes!

bigpharmabigmedica

Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine J. Frompovich
March 10, 2017

Taking ‘kickbacks’ from an industry one is a professional in, or involved with, has been classified in several ways.  The insurance industry calls it “rebating” [1].  Kickbacks also have been defined as “bribery” [2].  There’s an online site about “kickbacks in U.S. history” wherein the Cornhusker Kickback is mentioned.  That ‘affair’ involved congressional Democrats not having enough votes for ObamaCare to pass.  According to that website, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s vote supposedly was bought in exchange for some “pork” for his home state of Nebraska.  However, that ‘pork pie’ did not go over well, so the final upshot from congressional haggling was that all states would receive the same perks as Nebraska.

Nevertheless, how many healthcare consumers are aware their medical doctors also take kickbacks or get perks from Big Pharma?  Medical Press published the article “What’s the real extent of industry payments to doctors?”, which ought to enlighten patients and consumers as to why they may be taking so many prescription drugs and why parents are bombarded with mandatory vaccines for their children or else become ‘divorced’ from their family doctor’s practice.

A survey was taken with the results published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.  That survey, according to Medical Press, indicates “more than three in every five Americans see a doctor who receives some form of payment from industry.” [3]

One of the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, was that pharmaceuticals and medical devices manufacturers must report gifts and payments made to healthcare providers, which is publicly available on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments website.

That survey claims 65 percent of respondents visited a practitioner who took payments or kickbacks.

A 2016 survey regarding payments to dermatologists published in JAMA Dermatology [October 5, 2016. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3037] indicates 8,333 dermatologists received 208,613 payments totaling $34 Million in 2014 [4].

The top 15 companies were all pharmaceutical manufacturers and they paid dermatologists $28.7 million, which was 81 percent of the total amount disbursed, according to the study. [4]

So how much do you think was paid to pediatricians, the medical professionals who push vaccines and vaccinations on infants, toddlers, teens and their parents?  According to Clinical Pediatrics:

Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, 35 697 pediatricians received payments amounting to $30,031,960. [That’s million!]

General pediatricians received the majority of payments (71%). Median payment was $15 (interquartile range = $12-$24), mostly in the form of noncash items and services (84%). Significant diversity was observed in median payments among specialty providers. In conclusion, 42% of US pediatricians received industry payments in 2014.

That’s over $30 MILLION given to 35,697 pediatricians.  Let’s do some math.  $30,031,960 divided by 35,697 equals an average of $841.30, not $12 to $24!

Another way of doing the math is 35,697 multiplied by $24 [the highest payment in the $12-$24 range] equals $856,728; not $30 Million plus!  Is there a discrepancy variance of $29,175,232, or is my calculator wrong?

What’s going on; is someone messing with the math?

Well baby visits certainly seem profitable for pediatricians—doesn’t that seem so?  Those visits are the unfortunate times when pediatricians administer up to nine vaccines at once to infants weighing less than 25 pounds during one office visit. Outrageous!  That practice ought to be considered medical malpractice, especially injecting so many neurotoxic chemicals into a defenseless child whose immune system, for all intents and purposes, is harmed—or ‘castrated’ by all the toxins injected.  Isn’t that chemical child abuse?  Where’s legislation to deal with medical-toxic-vaccine [1] child abuse?


We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

David Rockefeller, 1991 Bilderberg Meeting, Baden, Germany

Read More At: ActivistPost.com

Reference:

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

Resource:

CDC’s Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

References:

[1] http://www.saracaldwellpa.com/newsletters/elder-law/unfair-and-deceptive-insurance-practices-rebating/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kickback_(bribery)
[3] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-real-extent-industry-payments-doctors.html
[4] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-10-industry-payments-dermatologists.html

 

Advertisements

65% of doctors are getting cash “kickbacks” from big pharma

Image: 65% of doctors are getting cash “kickbacks” from big pharma
Source: NaturalNews.com
Thomas Dishaw
March 9, 2017

Two-thirds of Americans are currently in the care of a physician that is being paid by a drug company, and they may not even realize it. A study conducted by Genevieve Pham-Kanter, Ph.D., surveyed more than 3,500 adults and linked their doctors to data from Open Payments, a government website that reports pharmaceutical and device industry payments to physicians.

The results of the study revealed that about 65% of the people surveyed had visited a doctor within the past year that had received payments or gifts from pharmaceutical or medical device companies. Even more shocking is that only 5% knew that their doctors had been given these incentives. Patients who were visiting an orthopedic surgeon or OBGYN doctor were shown to have the highest percentage of being under the care of a physician receiving some kind of incentive. Pham-Kanter said, “Patients should be aware of the incentives that their physicians face that may lead them to not always act in their patients’ best interest. And the more informed patients are about their providers and options for care, the better decisions they can make.” (RELATED: Get all the news Google is trying to hide from you at Censored.news)

The Open Payments website is a federal program that collects information about payments drug and device companies make to physicians in the form of travel, research, gifts, speaking fees, and meals. It also includes any ownership interests that doctors or their immediate family members may have in these companies as well. While most physicians receive payments averaging about $193, it does add up over time. Between August 2013 to December 2015 Genetech, Inc. ,the maker of drugs such as the allergy drug Xolair and anti-viral drug Tamiflu, made payments totaling $727 million to doctors and research hospitals.

Doctors have long disputed claims that the payments they receive from pharmaceutical companies have any relationship to how they prescribe drugs. An analysis created by ProPublica in 2016, however, found that doctors who received money or even just a meal from drug and device makers prescribed a higher percentage of brand-name drugs overall than doctors who didn’t. According to ProPublica, the analysis doesn’t prove industry payments sway doctors to prescribe particular drugs or even a particular company’s drugs, but it does show that payments are associated with an approach to prescribing that in the end benefits pharmaceutical companies’ bottom line.

Transparency sites like Open Payments not only keep patients informed, but it may influence physicians to think twice before taking incentives. Pham-Kanter surmised that even if patients don’t know about the information, physicians could be more likely to shy away from taking industry payments if they know the information will be made public. She says “Transparency can act as a deterrent for doctors to refrain from behaviors that reflect badly on them and are also not good for their patients.”

Read More: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Sciencedaily.com

Propublica.org

Cms.gov

Propublica.org

By Blacklisting Natural News Articles On Holistic Health & Cancer Prevention, Google Proves It Is A DANGER To All Humanity

Image: By blacklisting Natural News articles on holistic health and cancer prevention, Google proves it is a DANGER to all humanity

Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
February 26, 2017

“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell

Google advertising is funded to a large extent by direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising, making its recent blacklisting of the entire Natural News website not all that surprising to those who understand corruption.

Over the last few years, Google has intensified its bans on advertising of natural medicine, herbal remedies and nutritional therapies, thereby blockading providers of such products in a way that strengthens pharmaceutical monopolies. Now, with its censorship of Natural News, Google has moved into a new phase of blacklisting massive collections of human knowledge on holistic health and disease prevention, giving the pharmaceutical drug cartels yet another victory in their quest to suppress alternative medicine.

The human cost of this move, of course, will be higher rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, kidney disorders, osteoporosis and much more. Denied access to knowledge on holistic health and disease prevention, many more people will sooner or later become victims of the pharmaceutical drug cartels or the criminally-run cancer industry that preys upon human suffering and disease.

ACTION: SIGN THE WHITE HOUSE PETITION TO HALT GOOGLE CENSORSHIP. (Already nearly 50K signatures, we need 100K total, so share everywhere…)

Google: You are not allowed to know your options when it comes to health and medicine

In its outrageous censorship of the entire NaturalNews.com domain, Google has decided that you are not even allowed to know your options. By tweaking its search algorithm over the last few years, Google has also steadily penalized holistic health websites, making sure their rightful search results positions are replaced by “official” medical information that’s almost always tied to the pharmaceutical drug cartels, which dominate medical schools, government agencies and the funding of the media.

The conclusion is inescapable: Google is a tyrannical, monopoly enforcer of Big Pharma domination over public debate. Online content which does not promote pharmaceuticals, toxic vaccine ingredients (such as mercury) and chemotherapy is systematically penalized or blacklisted altogether, as is now irrefutably demonstrated with the unjustified blacklisting of NaturalNews.com. Meanwhile, sites that promote healthy living, organic food, nutritional therapies and disease prevention are buried in health symptom search results, nearly to the point of irrelevancy.

This is just one of the many reasons why Google has become a clear and present danger to humanity. Instead of serving as a tool of discovery for public debate where people might hear the holistic side of the debate, Google has crushed that debate by silencing the side that doesn’t pay it the most money. In essence, Google has sold out to the pharmaceutical interests and has exploited its monopoly power to make sure Big Pharma continues to be the only real “choice” when people are searching for solutions to their health symptoms.

When Google applies the same evil thinking to robotics, the result may be a “Rise of the Machines” war against humanity

The Brave New World is upon is, and it’s run by corrupt technocrats pushing poison for profit. This seems to surprise no one, since people have long had a feeling that Google was up to no good… they just couldn’t put their finger on it.

Now, Google is working on its “Rise of the Machines” project to build battlefield robots designed to eliminate human enemies. (You didn’t think all their robots were dreamed up just to work in factories, did you?)

Knowing that Google will sell out humanity for corporate interests, do you really think Google has the ethical pedigree to say “no” when the military wants them to build an army of robot soldiers? They’ll take the contract with a smile, and they’ll build the robot army that will one day be turned against the People. Review every scene from the original Terminator movie if you want a preview of what Google has in mind… steel-tracked war machines rambling over stacks of crushed human skulls is just the beginning.

The same nefarious corporate monstrosity that is right now trying to turn you into a pill-popping profit center for the drug cartels will also gladly engage in human depopulation activities using its advanced robotics technology, you see. As the factory jobs and agricultural jobs are replaced by human robots, the powers that be will see that they have no use for human labor anymore. With a simple command, Google will unleash its army of Terminator soldiers to execute the “undesirables” — which, if this were to happen today, would no doubt include all those who support President Trump.

Don’t think it could happen? Your grandparents never thought you would be living in a world where 75% of the adult population is swallowing expensive chemical medications on a daily basis, either. And now, with Google already proving it will destroy human knowledge that saves lives by banning Natural News, it’s only a small step to directly destroying human lives with robots in the near future.

Seriously, do you really think Google cares about humanity? No, it is an evil, dangerous, monstrous enemy of humanity that only cares about its own selfish power and greed.

Let us hope President Trump can find a way to investigate Google for anti-trust violations and halt its blatant and dangerous censorship of holistic health solutions.

I’ve elaborated on this in more detail in the following podcast called “A message to Google employees: When you get cancer one day, you’ll wish Google hadn’t censored Natural News.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Obamacare in the crosshairs: GOP takes action in repealing ACA

Source: RT
January 5, 2017

As the Republican leadership of the 115th Congress prepares to fulfill President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare, Democrats have been vigorously defending President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law. For more on this, former Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) joins ‘News With Ed.’

Many studies on genetic modification biased because of authors’ links to companies

conflictofinterest

Source: TimesOfIndia.com
Subodh Varmal
December 17, 2016

NEW DELHI: Researchers have found that a large share of scientific studies on genetically modified (GM) crops were tainted by conflicts of interest, mostly because of having an employee of a GM producing company as one of the authors or having received funding from the company.

Out of the 579 published studies on GM crops that were analysed, about 40 per cent showed such conflict of interest, the researchers affiliated to France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) found. Their study is published in the journal PLOS ONE this week.

“We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40 per cent of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest,” said the study.

They also discovered that studies with conflict of interest had much more likelihood of presenting a favourable outcome for GM crops compared to those with no conflict of interest.

“In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI (conflict of interest), the presence of a COI was associated with a 50 per cent higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company,” the study said.

Common crops like corn, soybean etc. can be made resistant to certain pests by introducing genes from a bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis, hence the name ‘Bt’. Considerable research has been devoted to charting efficacy and durability of Bt crops.

Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), told AFP that the team originally looked at 672 studies before narrowing down to the pool to 579 that showed clearly whether there was or was not a financial conflict of interest.

“Of this total, 404 were American studies and 83 were Chinese,” he said.

“The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops,” Guillemaud said.

“When studies had a conflict of interest, this raised the likelihood 49 per cent that their conclusions would be favorable to GMO crops.”

Among the 350 articles without conflicts of interest, 36 per cent were favorable to GM crop companies. Among the 229 studies with a conflict of interest, 54 per cent were favorable to GM companies.

“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Guillemaud told AFP.

One limitation of the study was that it investigated only direct financial conflict of interest. As the authors point out in the study paper itself, “authors may have affiliations to GM crop companies of other types, such as being members of advisory boards, consultants, or co-holders of patents, and this could also have a significant impact on the outcomes of studies on GM crops.”

Read More at: TimesOfIndia.com

CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest

conflictofinterest

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 24, 2016

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation with the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious conflict of interest in mind.

When, in 2014, William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher, publicly admitted he and his colleagues had buried data that would have shown the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism, he was throwing a stick of dynamite into the whole CDC operation. He was also saying, in recorded phone conversations, that the CDC was lying about vaccine safety in other studies.

This is why major media refused to cover or investigate Thompson’s claims. This is why they spread a blanket of silence over his revelations.

Thompson was threatening a $ 4-billion-a-year enterprise.

The CDC is both a PR agency for, and a buyer from, Big Pharma.

Continue Reading At: JonRappaport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Medical studies are being skewed by scientists with financial ties to drug manufacturers

Big Pharma
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
October 20, 2016

There should never be a situation where a pharmaceutical company that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars – and sometimes billions – developing a new drug is allowed to conduct its own self-controlled clinical trials, because the financial incentives to skew the outcomes of those trials in the company’s favor are far too great.

And yet it happens all the time, according to a recent report by NPR.org.

The publicly funded broadcast company says that doctors often turn to specially crafted studies when they are attempting to understand what is often confusing and contradictory findings in scientific literature. That’s because such studies are considered to be the “gold standard” for research.

However, a leading advocate for such studies is warning that they are increasingly being subverted by commercial interests, meaning their accuracy, too, is now in question as drug makers and the scientists they utilize improperly influence outcomes.

NPR.org notes that for years these studies, which are called meta-analyses and systematic reviews, appeared to fill information gaps with more complete findings. Doctors who once relied on each other for expert advice increasingly turned to crafted studies.

But over the years the number of such reviews ballooned and began offering contradictory findings. So in the 1990s doctors and medical advisory boards began to utilize studies that combined several different research projects that analyzed all of the available data to come to a general conclusion. That helped fast-track searches for answers.

Commercial interests taint 8 in 10 studies

Such studies are “extremely important,” Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine health research and policy at Stanford University, told NPR.org, adding that he himself has conducted several meta-analyses over his career. “They’re trying to make some sense out of a very convoluted scientific medical literature.

However, he said, now “there are just too many meta-analyses.”

Indeed, in a recent study on the issue, titled “The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,” Ioannidis chose example studies involving antidepressants.

He said that there were 185 published in academic literature over a period of just seven years, which translates into roughly 25 such meta-analyses per year, for the same drugs and the same indication for those drugs – major depression.

Worse, those studies are being conducted by scientists who have financial interests in the outcome, Ioannidis found. About eight-in-10 of them “have been funded or have some other conflicts of interests with manufacturers of these drugs,” he said.

Further, if one were to examine their conclusions, nearly all – with one exception – claim there are no issues or caveats with taking antidepressants.

If any downsides are mentioned at all, he said, you have to read deep into the studies to find, say, warnings about increased risk of suicide.

The problem is actually worse

That, of course, is very misleading to doctors who are turning to such analyses in order to get a quick take on what works and what does not, as well as the risks-versus-reward. Ioannidis told NPR.org that Big Pharma has begun using such analyses for commercial reasons rather than as an unbiased examination of the evidence. That, of course, represents a danger to the public.

Ioannidis said that drug makers can produce results or give the interpretation that most fits their interests and needs with self-funded analyses.

“So you can have the most power and prestigious design in current medical evidence, and it can be easily manipulated as an advertisement, as a marketing tool,” he said, noting that defeats the primary reason for such studies in the first place – making an over-abundance of findings more comprehensive and understandable.

Clinical professor emeritus Peter Kramer of Brown University, author of “Listening to Prozac,” delved deeply into the conduct of meta-analysis studies when writing his latest book, “Ordinarily Well.” What he discovered was even worse than Ioannidis claims.

In addition to finding commercial interests, Kramer also said he found many cases of academic bias among researchers, further skewing results.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NPR.org

Milbank.org

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

NaturalNews.com