#BigPharma #FDA – Famous Medical-Journal Editor Torpedoes Medical Journal

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 1, 2017

“There is a system designed to affect every human on the planet, from cradle to grave. For each person, I’m talking about 30 or 40 diagnoses of physical and mental conditions, many of which are false; and treatment with toxic chemicals that progressively debilitate, confuse, weaken, and destroy health and life. What would you call this system? Who would you blame?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Her name is Dr. Marcia Angell.

During her 20 years of work, she looked at, perused, and analyzed more medical studies than all mainstream science bloggers in the world put together.

You want to listen to an actual pro? Listen to her:

Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“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.”

Before you count Dr. Angell as a hero, consider this: why didn’t she blow the whistle loud and clear while she was editing The New England Journal? Why didn’t she burn her own Journal down to the ground? After all, she was publishing studies of clinical trials of new drugs, and those fake studies were praising the drugs as safe and effective.

And therefore, The New England Journal was aiding and abetting a crime—unleashing dangerous and ineffective drugs on the public.

Her Journal was responsible for that.

Yes, the dreaded R word. Responsibility. In many circles these days, it’s not a popular term.

Take drug companies, for example. As I wrote in a recent piece, when lawsuits are launched against these companies for making drugs that kill and maim, the standard defense is: “Don’t blame us. The FDA approved our medicine as safe and effective. We’re off the hook. We’ve discharged our responsibility.”

Really? Who created the drug in the first place? Who did the clinical trials? Who sells the drug?

There’s an either-or situation here. It needs to be exposed. It goes this way: Either the pharmaceutical company or the FDA is responsible for people dying. You can’t accuse both. Pick one.

That’s a fool’s game. Both entities are responsible; the company that created the drug and the FDA who approved it and certified it as safe and effective. (And the medical journals that published the crooked studies of clinical trials are also responsible.)

The FDA seal of approval doesn’t automatically exonerate the company. “Well, the government said our company’s drug was fine.” So what? Since when does the government have the last word? Would you say the US military-industrial complex is solely the responsibility of the government, and the defense contractors play no role in launching endless wars? That would be naïve to the extreme.

As my readers know, because I’ve cited the key review dozens of times, pharmaceutical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year. That’s a conservative mainstream estimate. (See Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”)

All those drugs are approved as safe and effective by the FDA. They’re also created, developed, tested, and sold by drug companies. Anyone with a shred of understanding of RESPONSIBILITY would correctly point to the FDA AND the drug companies. (And medical journals.)

Therefore, a company arguing in court that they’re off the hook for killing people with their drugs, because the FDA approved them, is evading responsibility and trying to shift it to the government. And an honest judge and a reasonably intelligent jury would recognize that in a minute.

From the drug company’s point of view, there is a game going on. The company is doing whatever it can to please and satisfy the FDA, and if it can, then it can walk away without shouldering blame.

Obscuring one’s own responsibility is one of the major industries in any nation you care to examine. The numbers of people involved, the amount of money, the time, energy—this is a field of endeavor that expands every year.

A simple law would go a long way toward righting the ship: “A government certification of a product does not exempt the creator, developer, and seller of the product from facing legal action in criminal and civil court.”

From the street thug, to the highest corporate boardroom, to professional academic fabricators, the theme is the same: “It wasn’t me.”

Oh yes it was. And is.

Let’s break down the word-origin of “responsible.” “Respond” comes from the Latin. “Re”=“again.” “Spondere”=“to pledge.” This construction eventually morphed into: pledging again for one’s actions, standing behind one’s actions, re-affirming one’s actions. And finally, “responsible” also means “legally accountable.”

—As opposed to attributing the cause of one’s action to someone else.

“I defend my actions by claiming: ‘it wasn’t me’, someone else was in charge, someone else decided my actions were correct.”

No. Not even close.

Of course, the US Dept. of Justice isn’t interested in any of these matters. If they were, they would be arresting drug company executives and researchers, FDA executives and drug-reviewers, and medical-journal editors who permit the publication of obviously fake studies of new drugs.

Understand: When you have medical drugs killing 106,000 Americans a year, this necessarily implies that published studies of clinical trials of those drugs—studies that praise those drugs as safe and effective—are a rank fraud.

Medical journals, the FDA, drug companies (and doctors)—a club. And each member of the club is responsible. Accountable. Culpable.

The next time a doctor, or some “science blogger” who loves mainstream published studies, sounds off about “real science,” show them this piece. And if they say that Dr. Marcia Angell is just one medical-journal editor, point them to the following:

Richard Horton (another pro’s pro), editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Two famous editors (Angell and Horton) of two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world torpedo their own corrupt practices.

And if that isn’t enough to put a dent in some potato-head, conventional, medical devotee, then just keep going with this, by the same Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet (from the same piece I just quoted:

Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules—meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.

Horton: “‘A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]”.

Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You’re working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.

Starting sentences with “the FDA approves” or “the CDC confirms” or “a study published in The New England Journal established” isn’t a ticket to the truth. Far from it.

You’re wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don’t know it; or you do know it and you don’t care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you’re doomed if you follow the party line.

This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It’s a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn’t. It’s a lying cartoon.

And it has vicious consequences for the health of the millions of people.

Read More At: JonRappoport.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.

Advertisements

Researchers Demand American Psychiatric Association Retract Study That Fabricated Benefits Of Antidepressants, Covered Up Adverse Health Effects

Celexa

Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
August 9, 2016

A large group of medical doctors, psychiatrists and researchers are demanding that the American Psychiatric Association retract a shady study that relied upon industry influence to determine the effectiveness of an antidepressant that’s widely prescribed among children and teens.

The study, published more than a decade ago in the American Journal of Psychiatry, touted the benefits of Celexa in younger populations suffering from depression.

However, a recent analysis of the research found “gross misrepresentations” about the safety and effectiveness of the drug, including the fact that Celexa worked no better than the placebo.

Study showing benefits of Celexa in children was written by the drug’s maker

The researchers say that the study reflected the “pervasive influence” of the marketing objectives of Forest Laboratories, the Celexa manufacturer, adding that the “scientific” manuscript was “written primarily for marketing purposes and only secondarily as a peer-reviewed journal.”

In other words, the study was totally fabricated to extend the consumer base for Celexa to children and teens, the fastest growing demographic for which antidepressants are prescribed.

The analysis revealed that the study was written by none other than ghost writers employed by Forest Laboratories who “seriously misrepresented” the data about the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“Forest’s own internal documents disclosed in litigation show that company staff were aware that there were serious problems with the conduct of this trial but concealed the problems in advancing their commercial objectives,” said the researchers.

As reported by Stat News, “Procedural deviations in the study were not reported; negative outcomes were not reported; [and] side effects were misleadingly analyzed.”

Fabricated study continues to be cited by the pharmaceutical industry

The researchers’ letter demanding a retraction is dated August 1, 2016, and addressed to Dr. Maria Oquendo, president of the American Psychiatric Association. It asks Oquendo to urge the current editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry to issue a retraction.

“Our main concern is that children and adolescents are continuing to be at risk of harm unnecessarily because well-intentioned physicians have been misled,” they wrote.

“We believe that the unretracted … article represents a stain on the high standard of the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Neither the AJP nor the APA can claim to be a leader in scientific research.”

New research finds antidepressants totally ineffective and dangerous for children

The revelations come roughly two months after a groundbreaking report revealed that most antidepressants marketed for children and teens are not only ineffective, but downright dangerous.

The research, published in The Lancet, reports that out of 14 antidepressants, only one (Prozac) provided depression relief for children and teens. Other antidepressants such as Effexor increased the risk of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in younger populations.

The study is the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted regarding antidepressant use among children and teens.

Supermodel says antidepressants made her a ‘sociopath’

The adverse effects of antidepressants continue to be disclosed by both physicians and patients alike. English fashion model Cara Delevingne recently told Britain’s Esquire magazine that antidepressants turned her into a “sociopath.”

Delevingne, who took the drugs for two years as a teenager, said she lost all feelings, and was “just numb” until she stopped taking them.

“I didn’t feel s**t. It was horrible. I was like a sociopath. When something was funny I would go, ‘Ha ha!’ just because other people laughed, but then I’d stop immediately because I wasn’t really very good at faking it.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com
_______________________________________________________________

Sources:

FreePDFHosting.com[PDF]

StatNews.com

CBSNews.com

CaraDelevingne.Esquire.co.uk

Science.NaturalNews.com

Bombshell Study Admits Antidepressants Increase Suicide Attempts In Teens & Are Completely Worthless For Treating Depression

Antidepressants
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
June 13, 2016

A bombshell study published in the medical journal The Lancet admits what Natural News and others in the holistic health community have been reporting for years: antidepressants kill. On Wednesday, researchers published the most comprehensive analysis to date of the safety and efficacy of widely prescribed antidepressants in children and teens.

What they found is that the majority of antidepressants prescribed to young people have far more risks than benefits, doing essentially nothing to ease symptoms of depression, while significantly increasing suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, CBS News is reporting.

Out of 14 antidepressants analyzed by researchers, only one – fluoxetine (marketed under the name Prozac and Sarafem) – proved effective for relieving symptoms of depression better than a placebo pill. Venlafaxine (Effexor), on the other hand, was shown to increase the risk of suicidal tendencies in children and teens compared to a placebo and five other antidepressants.

The study results are major considering the fact that antidepressant use among young people is at an all-time high. Shockingly, children under 5-years-old are the fastest growing group being prescribed mind-altering drugs.

Most antidepressants do NOTHING to help depression, study finds

Antidepressant use among children and teens rose from 1.3 to 1.6 percent between 2005 and 2012, according to a separate study published in The Lancet.

As the authors of this latest study confirm, the implications of drugging children with powerful, mind-altering drugs is completely unpredictable, which is why international guidelines encourage doctors to use non-drug approaches including “cognitive behavioral or interpersonal therapy.”

Lead study author Dr. Andrea Cipriani says that because brains in children and teens are not yet developed, it’s important to lead with caution when prescribing medication, “because we don’t know the potential implications in the long term … .”

The U.S National Institutes of Health estimates that some 2.8 million children (or about 11 percent) between the ages of 12 and 17 have suffered from at least one episode of depression, for which we now know that antidepressant drugs are totally worthless.

Dr. Cipriani explains that depression in children differs widely from that of adults. “Not only is it still under-diagnosed and under-treated but also it tends to present in a different way,” he said. “Depressive symptoms in children and adolescents are rather undifferentiated. You notice more irritability, aggressive behavior and problems at school. And consequences of depressive episodes in children and adolescents are dramatic because they include impairments in their social functioning but also an increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempts.”

FDA privy to antidepressant harm in children for decades

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has known for more than a decade that antidepressants pose immense harm to patients, particularly children, which is why it implemented “black box” warnings in 2004 for users under the age of 24. The labels clearly state that the drugs up your chances of becoming suicidal or intensify preexisting suicidal thoughts and behavior.

Yet, irresponsible physicians continue to push harmful drugs on children and teens that alter brain chemistry. Not only that, but doctors are increasingly prescribing the drugs for off-label uses.

This was substantiated just weeks ago in a study published in the May issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which found that nearly half of people prescribed antidepressants aren’t even depressed.

After analyzing a decade of antidepressant prescription records, researchers concluded that only 55 percent were given for depression, while the remaining 45 percent was written for conditions such as anxiety, sleeping problems, pain, panic disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Doctors prescribing depression pills for pretty much anything

Other off-label uses include digestive problems, eating disorders, migraines and menopausal symptoms. Twenty-nine percent of antidepressant prescriptions were written for off-label uses. The study authors expressed grave concerns about the fact that these drugs, which are proven to be dangerous, are being prescribed for conditions for which there is no evidence supporting their efficacy, or safety for that matter.

The reason doctors are pushing unproven drugs, is because they’re being advised to do so by Big Pharma, and not by scientific research, said the study authors.

Further illustrating just how worthless these drugs are, medical researcher Peter Gotzsche said last year that nearly all psychiatric drugs, including antidepressants, could be withdrawn from the market without damaging public health. In fact, he recommends it.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com