Doctors Warn About Dangers of Genetically Modified Food

(NaturalNews) The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has warned that the public should avoid genetically modified (GM) foods, stating, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation."

A large number of studies and incidents have implicated GM foods in a wide variety of health problems, including accelerated aging, immune dysfunction, insulin disorders, organ damage and reproductive disruption.

For example, female rats fed a diet of GM soy experienced a drastically higher infant death rate, and their surviving infants were smaller and less fertile than the offspring of rats fed on a non-GM soy diet. Male rats fed the GM soy had their testicles change from pink to blue, and the GM soy was also observed to damage the DNA of sperm and embryos. Fertility problems such as abortion, infertility, premature delivery, prolapsed uteri, infant death, and even delivery of unformed infants (bags of water) have been observed in farm animals fed GM cottonseed and corn.

Animals consuming crops that have been genetically modified to produce the pesticide Bt (approved for human consumption in the United States) have died by the thousands, while animals grazing on a non-GM version of the same crops remained unharmed. Upon autopsies, researchers have found black patches in the animals' livers and intestines, internal bleeding and other signs of Bt poisoning. Farm workers in India have begun developing allergic reactions upon handling Bt corn, similar to the effects experienced by people exposed to Bt spraying.

In addition to these risks, GM soy and corn contain significantly higher concentrations of allergens than unmodified varieties. Evidence also suggests that the genetic abnormalities of GM foods may transfer to bacteria in the human gut, thereby exposing people to their detrimental effects long after a food has been consumed.

Yet in spite of all this evidence and the prevalence of GM crops in the U.S. food supply not a single clinical trial of any GM crop has ever been published.

"The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs," said Canadian geneticist David Suzuki. "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."

Sources for this story include: www.sentienttimes.com.

GE Attempts to Silence Doctor Who Warned About Dangers of Medical Imaging Drug

(NaturalNews) GE Healthcare, a British subsidiary of multinational giant General Electric, is suing Henrik Thomsen, a senior radiologist and professor of radiology, for sounding the alarm about the dangers of the company's medical imaging drug, Omniscan. After witnessing kidney patients who had received the drug develop potentially fatal conditions, Thomsen publicly exposed the drug's dangers which caused a firestorm of controversy.

In an effort to muzzle Thomsen, GE Healthcare has already spent more than 380,000 British pounds, or about $610,000, in legal fees pursuing litigation against him. Utilizing loopholes in Britain's libel laws, the company is alleging that Thomsen falsely accused GE of suppressing sensitive information about the drug's risks at an Oxford scientific congress presentation in 2007.

Investigation into these claims has shown that Thomsen accurately described his clinical experience and that no such misrepresentation took place. When questioned about this fact, GE spokesmen had no response other than to suggest that Thomsen indirectly slandered the company through insinuation.

Many in the scientific community have expressed outrage over the blatant misuse of British libel laws to silence honest and open debate and dissemination of unbiased information about medical procedures and drugs. Scientists and clinicians who act on behalf of patient safety by highlighting the facts rather than corporate talking points should not be gagged by powerful corporations who leverage their influence and money to manipulate the legal system for their own gain, say those who support libel reform.

Hundreds of people in both the U.K. and the U.S. have died from the side effects of Omniscan and two other similar medical imaging drugs. Filled with toxic contrasting agents like gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal, Omniscan is implicated in causing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, a skin condition that can cripple a person and possibly cause death.

Legal action is being taken against the companies that produce these drugs by patients in both the U.S. and the U.K. ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit news organization in the U.S. whose purpose is to serve the public interest, has been closely watching the effects of medical imaging drugs, divulging the truth about the dangers they pose.

Nevertheless, GE Healthcare is holding its ground in the fight against Thomsen. As it stands, the company has achieved success in silencing Thomsen as he now refuses to discuss the risks associated with Omniscan in public forums. Until libel reform is enacted, officials believe that companies will continue to misuse the courts to silence the truth and achieve their own ends.

Sources for this story include: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...

Merck Sat on Data Showing Vioxx Risks for Years Before Pulling Drug

(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine has revealed that information about heart risks from pharmaceutical giant Merck's Vioxx drug was available in 2000, four years before the Merck pulled the drug from the market. Because the information was not published and made public, Merck sat on it until a later clinical trial openly revealed that the drug was causing strokes and heart attacks.

Dr. Harlan Krumholz, study author from the Yale University School of Medicine, noted that he obtained pertinent safety data about Vioxx only after a lawsuit was filed against Merck by those who had been injured by the drug. It was discovered that out of the 30 studies conducted by Merck prior to when Vioxx was withdrawn, only 18 of them had been published. Six were published after the drug was withdrawn and six were never published at all.

After mulling through the study data, one trial at a time, Krumholz and his team clearly identified a link between Vioxx usage and increased heart attacks and strokes in patients. Based on when the studies were conducted, the connection was visible as early as December of 2000.

Ron Rogers, a Merck spokesman, denied the claims that any link could be observed and decried the methods used by researchers to come to this conclusion, despite acceptance of the findings following a rigorous peer review process. Rogers stated that the company's own extensive analysis showed no connection between Vioxx usage and increased cases of heart attack and stroke prior to the time when it was removed from the market, emphasized that the company had no prior knowledge of Vioxx's dangers.

However in 2004, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that it had seen internal Merck emails exchanged between company executives that expressed concern over Vioxx's tendency to increase the risk of heart attack. The entire series of emails clearly indicated that Merck knew about the dangers of Vioxx and was doing its best to conceal the information.

Dating back to the late 1990s, early emails contained dialogues about how to craft a study that would minimize the truth about Vioxx. An email from March of 2000 sent by Merck's research chief, Edward Scolnick, expressed clear affirmation that heart problems associated with Vioxx were "clearly there" and that it was a "shame."

When questioned about the emails, Merck once again denied the allegations, claiming that the emails were taken out of context. Merck never provided an explanation as to what the emails were referring to in their supposed proper context.

Thousands of injured patients and company shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against Merck following its removal of Vioxx from the market. Merck appealed the lawsuit on the grounds that "sufficient" information about the drug's risks were available when the drug hit the market. Merck succeeded in convincing a U.S. district judge to dismiss the lawsuit because it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations ended.

However an appeals court in Philadelphia reversed the decision on behalf of the many shareholders who lost a great deal when Vioxx was suddenly removed from the market, which caused Merck's stock values to plummet. Since it was determined that shareholders could not have known what was coming based on the information that was made publicly available, the Supreme Court is going to evaluate the case and make a decision on it next year.

Merck also agreed to a $4.85 billion settlement, one of the largest in history, on behalf of the thousands who filed personal injury lawsuits against the company due to serious injuries caused by Vioxx. (These cases were different from the ones included in the initial class action suit). The drug giant said it agreed to the settlement because the litigation process would have taken countless years to resolve, most likely hurting the company's reputation even further.

At the very least, drug safety tracking once receiving approval from the FDA to go to market needs a major overhaul. Dr. Krumholz and his colleagues stressed this point following their Vioxx discoveries. When fraud and criminal behavior are involved, as has shown to be the case with Merck, justice must be served.

The Vioxx scandal illustrates an important fact about the drug industry in general. Big Pharma continually gets away with massive impropriety. Its business practices, from research and development to marketing, are wrought with dishonesty, manipulation and downright fraud. There is arguably no other industry that gets away with its crimes as much as the pharmaceutical industry does. The consequences are also the most severe, costing millions of people their health and oftentimes their lives.

Bringing the issue to light as often and loudly as possible will only go so far. Massive reform, in some way, shape, or form, must be implemented if there is ever going to be an end to the madness.

Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/01/new...

Warning: drug ads are harmful to your health

(NaturalNews) If you watch TV or ever flip through a glossy magazine, you are bound to have seen ads conjured up by Big Pharma working with slick advertising agencies. As it turns out, what they are selling isn't necessarily health -- or the truth. They are pushing pills, even if they have to twist the facts a bit about what their drugs do, who needs them and why. Now a new study just published in the American Journal of Public Health concludes this prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) carries significant risks for the public.

Currently, some members of Congress, including Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), are calling for stricter FDA regulations of DTCA because the ads can lead to inappropriate prescribing. They also portray what may be a non-medical problem (such as over-active bladder, the latest "malady" discovered by Big Pharma) as a treatable medical illness requiring side-effect-laden medication.

For the new study, Dominick L. Frosch, Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and colleagues reviewed the evidence pro and con for DTCA. Their conclusions? There could be some benefits to drug advertising, but they are limited. On the other hand, the researchers found the current way prescription drug ads are presented to the public carries significant risk and potential harm.

Ads intentionally misinform viewers

For example, the researchers noted that the majority of ads fail to provide enough information to inform consumers about whether they actually need an advertised drug. What's more, the highly dramatized, emotional presentation of a medication's supposed benefits can also be misleading. Meanwhile, any information about risks tends to be diluted by the use of imagery that contradicts facts about side effects and warnings.

"American television viewers see as many as 16 hours of prescription drug advertisements each year, and the reality is that these ads are not doing a good job of helping consumers make better decisions about their health," Dr. Frosch said in a statement to the media. "If the pharmaceutical industry isn't willing to change the ads to make them more useful to consumers, Congress should consider passing legislation that will regulate the ads to improve the information provided in order to help patients make more informed choices."

Several drug company ads have already been changed or pulled because they were so blatantly misleading. Take the now defunct ad campaign for the statin drug Lipitor which featured Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart, for example. Wearing a white coat, Jarvik looked straight into the camera and proclaimed: "I'm glad I take Lipitor, as a doctor and as a dad." Then, in the final shot, we saw how super fit, cardiovascular-wise, this middle-aged, statin taking man was as he powerfully rowed a boat across a lake. The problem? He's not licensed as a medical doctor. And that wasn't even him rowing -- it was a muscular body double.

Another statin fiasco: the ad campaign hyping the efficacy of Vytorin seemed to blame high cholesterol not just on diet but on quirky relatives (and all anyone had to do was take a pill to resolve the problem). The Vytorin commercials were finally pulled after research emerged that Vytorin failed to show any benefit over a cheaper drug.

For more information:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cg...