USA Today

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends: My husband just brought home a copy of USA today. You

can look at an article entitled " Lyme disease not as rampant as fear " at

http://www.usatoday.com/life/health/general/lhgen121.htm - This is an

absolutely OUTRAGEOUS article and I urge all of you to e-mail those

SOB's at USA Today and DEMAND that Fred Bayles be FIRED for writing this

BULLS* & T !!!!! Can you tell I'm really, really P%$%$^ & D OFF????

Lovette

[Guest guest]

--- " F. Mott " <smott@...> wrote:

> From: " F. Mott " <smott@...>

>

> Dear Friends: My husband just brought home a copy

> of USA today. You

> can look at an article entitled " Lyme disease not as

> rampant as fear " at

> http://www.usatoday.com/life/health/general/lhgen121.htm

> - This is an

> absolutely OUTRAGEOUS article and I urge all of you

> to e-mail those

> SOB's at USA Today and DEMAND that Fred Bayles be

> FIRED for writing this

> BULLS* & T !!!!! Can you tell I'm really, really

> P%$%$^ & D OFF????

>

> Lovette

> Lovette-

After reading the article I was just as angry as you are. I have

already sent them an email on the feedback part of the site and pretty

much let them know how I felt about the article and that I was greatly

offended by what is implied in this article.

Just one more way to make us appear to crazy and noe paranoid and

neurotic as well.

L(MI)

> ---------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/19/99 9:56:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

green@... writes:

<< THEY GAVE US PB FOR SARIN NERVE GAS >>

,

Why did you get PB since you were never deployed to the Gulf?

[Guest guest]

User102241@... wrote:

>

> From: User102241@...

>

> Check It Out!

>

> Almost a full page article in today's USA Today, Life Section -- 8D. Great

> picture of retired Lt. Col. Redmond Handy.

THEY GAVE US PB FOR SARIN NERVE GAS,SOMIN WAS NEVER MENTIONED,PB WOULD

HAVE BEEN USELESS AGINST SARIN!!!!DOD AND BERNIE AND WILLIE NEED TO GET

THEIR LIES STRAIGHT!! Green

[Guest guest]

List - ,

Jim didn't take the little white PB tablets to my knowledge. I believe

he was referring to " us in general " as gulfwarvets. He did

take a small round valium sized yellow pill that had a sour medicinal

taste, as did some others who were stationed in Germany during the Gulf

War. He is not the only one of that group who is sick with Gulf War

Illness either. Any guesses from the list's pharmacists as to what was

in that pill (no break line in the pill) Surely someplace their is

documentation on that. Someone ordered them, sent them, and of course

produced those too.

Gretchen

User102241@... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/19/99 9:56:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> green@... writes:

>

> << THEY GAVE US PB FOR SARIN NERVE GAS >>

>

> ,

----

> Why did you get PB since you were never deployed to the Gulf?

>

>

------------

From an article on PB pills:

" " Troops were ordered to take three of the flat white tablets each day

as long as they were in the region, although it appears they did so

erratically. "

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 05/17/2000 3:40:00 PM !!!First Boot!!!,

randi@... writes:

<< In contrast, the House Government Reform Committee issued a report noting

that the order is unlawful. >>

Dear list,

In this piece that Randi posted from my USA Today Letter to the Editor, I

figured I'd clarify my wording. I wrote in my original submission that the

House Report (106-556) " suggests " the order is unlawful. This was modified

as you can see in the piece that was printed on 9 May.

Although it is merely a technicality to some, I know to all of us it's

essential that what we report or write or question is 110% accurate. In this

case it is essentially accurate because the House Report does indeed say:

<<Recommendation #5. While an improved vaccine is being developed, use of

the current anthrax vaccine for force protection against biological warfare

should be considered experimental and undertaken only pursuant to FDA

regulations governing investigational testing for a new indication.>>

Since this inoculation program is mandatory those FDA Regs. and 10 US Code

1107 are not being abided by and this does make the order unlawful. I just

wanted to clarify for you all this wording and conclusion.

Sincerely,

Buzz

[Guest guest]

Colley wrote:

> USA Today

> July 20, 2000

> Pg. 9D

>

> U.S. Wants To Draft Antibiotic Against Anthrax

>

> By Rita Rubin, USA Today

> <snip>

>

> But unlike private physicians, the U.S. government is not allowed to use

> any approved drug " off

> label " — that is, for a non-approved use.

> <snip>

{Insert sound bite of " Tickle me Elmo " laughing}

RIGHT! 'Nuf said!

Jeff Swan

[Guest guest]

Ya know, I wonder, since it says the U.S. government can not use this drug

in an " off-label " way, what would happen if we were to make public the fact

that DOD already HAS used it, for treating and preventing Anthrax infections

after a supposed exposure, during the Gulf War...??? Might put quite a

crimp in the trials and methods, eh ? I have loads of DOD documents that

show that they bought 90 million dollars worth of it during the war,

intending to use it as an adjunct witht he anthrax vaccine in case of any

exposures, and DID use it at Al Jubail, 19/Jan/91, for a solid month on the

SeaBees as well as the Marines that were there...they also gave the SeaBees

an extra, early anthrax vaccination, about 2 weeks before they were due for

the next one....follows the proven fact that if one is exposed to the

spores, one MUST get another vaccination, ewven if one is already fully

vaccinated witht eh series of 6 shots !!! Also proven is the fact that

alot less than 100 percent survival is ALL one will get fromt he vaccine

alone, as per experiments done by DOD themselves...as such, the vaccine is

proven NOT to be a stand-alone treatment, as borne out by the approach now

being used by DOD to get the antibiotic Cipro approved for something they

already USED it for.....I guess thye will not have to do as many trials this

way. They alreay have the data needed for the FDA approval....they got it

from US !!!! As such, I think this seems it might be a worth-while effort

to chase down......any takers ?

Jim Brown

Dir., GulfWatch, I.N.S.

(704)868-2907

gulfwatch@...

USA Today

>USA Today

>July 20, 2000

>Pg. 9D

>

>U.S. Wants To Draft Antibiotic Against Anthrax

...... "

[Guest guest]

I just had my son, 2 1/2 tested at the HRI Pfeiffer Institute in Naperville,

IL. We get the results back in about 6 weeks. From what I have read, high

levels of mercury can be caused from the thimeresol used as a preservative

in many vaccinations. The high levels of heavy metals cause a reaction in

the brain with symptoms similar to autism. The have a safe procedure to

detox the body of these heavy metals. You can get info on the pfeiffer

institute at www.hriptc.org.

Dana Tucker

dtucker@...

[ ] USA Today

Hello everyone!

The cover of today's USA Today has an interesting article about

mercury in tuna/fish that contains high levels of toxic mercury,

called methylmercury...and that a physician in San Francisco

discovered this mercury in patients through blood and hair samples.

I know that mercury issues have come up before, but has anyone had

their children tested by blood/hair samples to see if it exists in

their children? And if so, what if anything can be done about this?

Thanks, Kim

[Guest guest]

3 AM

Today's Top News Stories

•

After brief eruption, pressure builds again inside St. Helens - 8:46 AM

•

U.S., Iraqi troops battle pockets of resistance - 5:56 AM

•

Workers evacuated after suspicious powder found in Iowa building - 2:33 AM

•

Shuttle's spring 2005 launch date delayed - 4:17 AM

•

U.S., Iraqi forces launch offensive in Samarra - 5:43 PM

•

Add USATODAY.com headlines to your Web site

E-Mail Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free Daily Briefing e-newsletter and get the top news of the day in your inbox.

E-mail:

Select one: HTML Text

Breaking News E-Mail Alerts

• Get breaking news in your inbox as it happens

Prescription for reform?

By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY

Against a backdrop of spiraling prescription drug costs, questions are mounting about whether drugmakers — and the doctors who test and prescribe their products — always have patients' best interests in mind. Increasingly, critics say, money, not medicine, drives drug development and use.

But recently, there have been signs of a backlash:

• A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee began a meeting on Monday to discuss whether to require stronger labels warning about antidepressant use in children. The FDA meeting follows allegations that drugmakers suppressed unfavorable studies. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, or PhRMA, a trade group, announced last week that it will launch an online, voluntary registry of clinical trials Oct. 1, but others say it should be mandatory.

BE DIRECT

In her new book about the drug industry, former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell suggests that consumers ask their doctors the following questions when prescribed a new medication: What is the evidence that this drug is better than an alternative drug or treatment approach? Has it been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, or are you relying on information from drug company representatives?

Is this drug better only because it's given at a higher dose?Would a cheaper drug be as effective if it were given at an equivalent dose?

Are the benefits worth the side effects, the expense and the risk of interactions with other drugs I take?Is this a free sample? If so, is there a generic drug or other less-expensive equivalent when the free samples run out?

Source: The Truth About the Drug Companies

• New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued GlaxoKline in June, alleging that the company withheld studies that showed its antidepressant Paxil was not effective in children and adolescents and actually raised the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in young patients. Spitzer dropped the lawsuit last month after Glaxo agreed to post online the results of all clinical trials of its drugs, not just those that were favorable.

• At a House Commerce subcommittee hearing last Thursday, an American Medical Association trustee outlined his group's criteria for a mandatory national registry that would list the results of all clinical trials. "Physicians need complete and unbiased information about the safety and effectiveness of the treatments they prescribe for their patients," told the panel. The hearing had been postponed from July because then-subcommittee chairman Rep. Greenwood, R-Pa., who had spearheaded it, announced that he will become head of a biotechnology trade group — whose members include drug companies — when his term expires.

• The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on Wednesday announced that its 11 journals will publish only studies that had been entered into a public registry of trials. "Honest reporting begins with revealing the existence of all clinical studies, even those that reflect unfavorably on a research sponsor's product," according to the group's statement.

• Four new books — two by former editors of The New England Journal of Medicine and two by Harvard-affiliated doctors — slam the drug industry and doctors who accept its largess for profiting at the expense of Americans' health.

Focus on profits

PhRMA president Alan Holmer blames the intense scrutiny on the fact that patients have to pay a bigger chunk out-of-pocket for prescription drugs than they do for doctor visits or hospital care.

"That's why people are writing these books, and that's why politicians are beating up on the pharmaceutical industry, because we have a lack of insurance for these medicines that are becoming an increasingly important part of our medical system," Holmer says.

PhRMA wrote a 28-page rebuttal to The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It by former New England Journal editor Marcia Angell, the only book it obtained before publication.

Angell and her colleagues say the problem is as big as the drug companies' pockets are deep. Pharmaceutical firms now fund the majority of U.S. clinical trials. On top of that, it's hard to find a high-profile researcher who doesn't pad his pay with speaking or consulting fees from the makers of relevant drugs. Lesser lights accept meals and other freebies from drug sales reps in exchange for listening to their spiels.

Harvard clinical professor Abramson, author of Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine, bluntly assesses the situation this way: "I've written this book because I want my colleagues to understand that much of what they believe to be true about the best way to practice medicine is distorted by commercial interests and has no more integrity than commercially sponsored infomercials on TV."

Drug companies have funded studies of their own products for years, Angell notes. "But it used to be they gave grants at arm's length," she says. "They had nothing to do with the way the study was done or whether it was published. Now they are intimately involved in every detail of the study."

Because the companies decide what gets studied, Angell says, there are too many "me-too" drugs that are quite similar to six or seven already on the market. "What I'm most concerned about is the opportunity costs of all the me-too drugs," she says. "We do have shortages of some drugs. Too few antibiotics. We have way too few drugs for tropical diseases and other non-paying customers."

Holmer counters that so-called me-too drugs are usually cheaper and some patients tolerate them better than older drugs on the market. Besides, he says, "the government does a lot of good things, but discovering and, particularly, developing new medicines is not one of them."

Surprisingly, Rost, a vice president at drug giant Pfizer, sides with Angell. He posted a 5-star review of her book on Amazon.com.

"It's really hard to find new drugs, and it's getting harder and harder," Rost, representing himself, not Pfizer, said in an interview. "There is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there that has been picked off. It is very, very difficult to really find a breakthrough." Instead, Rost says, drugmakers focus on tweaking existing drugs to make money, not to advance science.

Changing principles

Critics say the medical profession deserves part of the blame for drug companies' ascendancy.

"Gee, journals are not interested in publishing negative studies?" says Jerome Kassirer, former New England Journal of Medicine editor and author of Bad Medicine, which will hit bookstores early next month. "Doctors were involved in those studies. Why weren't they out there screaming that these studies were no good?"

Editorial writers sharpened their pencils after learning that all but one author of a July report calling for more aggressive treatment of high cholesterol have financial ties to companies that make cholesterol-lowering drugs. While the co-authors might well have based their advice solely on the science, critics say their industry connections can't help but raise doubts.

"The problem, of course, is that many of the people with true expertise in an area are called upon by the pharmaceutical industry to help with the design of clinical trials and the evaluation of data," says update co-author Sidney , a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill cardiologist.

rejects Angell's suggestion that experts be excluded from writing practice guidelines because of their conflicts of interest. "If all this amounted to was analyzing drug trials, then you could have a biostatistician doing it," he says. But expertise in treating patients and conducting trials is important, too, says.

Times have certainly changed, Kassirer says. "When I was a fledgling researcher in the '60s and '70s, if you were taking money from a drug company to do research, people would look down their nose at you," he says. "Now ... there's prestige associated with the fact that you've become a consultant for various companies."

Doctors' role

The drug industry and doctors go way back, notes DeAngelis, editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association. To this day, DeAngelis says, she still feels ashamed about accepting a doctor's black bag from Eli Lilly at the end of her first year of medical school. Now, when she unexpectedly finds that a professional dinner to which she has been invited is being paid for by a drug company, DeAngelis either pays for the meal herself or only drinks water.

Can gifts and free meals persuade doctors to prescribe a particular drug? "Probably. To what degree? I don't know. It should be zero," DeAngelis says. "To me, it would be a problem if only one physician were involved. Of course, I know there are many more than one."

No doctor can escape drug companies' attempts to shape prescribing habits, says Harvard doctor Jerry Avorn, author of Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs.

"We simply can't keep going on the way we have been with the industry being the main source of information for doctors about the appropriateness of drugs and the choice of drugs," Avorn says.

That's all going to change this fall in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, when those states begin sending out their own sales reps to doctors' offices, Avorn says.

They'll be taking a page from the drug companies' marketing manuals, he says. For example, if doctors say they don't have time to meet, the pharmacists will offer to buy them lunch. But, Avorn says, these reps, mainly pharmacy professors, will be promoting only the most cost-effective treatments.

"We as prescribers are starved for neutral information," says Avorn, whose research serves as a basis for the state programs. "I think the trouble is not that doctors are easy marks, but that there ain't no alternative."