How Pharma Creates A New Disease to Sell its Drug

Dr. Meryl Nass, Faked Medical Data, Medical Cartel, Top Stories, Undue Influence

How Pharma Creates A New Disease to Sell its Drug

No Comments 24 December 2009

.
.
.

Meryl Nass
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com
12/23/2009

How Merck Created a New Disease (Osteopenia) to Sell its New Drug, FOSAMAX/ NPR

MUST_READ from NPR (thanks to Marc Crispin Miller)

… armed with the firm conviction that he was about to do good in the world, and coincidentally sell a ton of drugs for Merck, Jeremy Allen set out to completely rework the way that bone was measured in America.

Now, to do this, he figured, the first thing he needed was an institution, an entity whose mission was not to sell drugs, but to serve the public good. So he decided to create one. In 1995, Allen convinced Merck to establish a nonprofit called the Bone Measurement Institute. On its board were six of the most respected osteoporosis researchers in the country. But the institute itself had a rather slim staff: Allen, you see, was its only employee.

Mr. ALLEN: There was no payroll, there was no building, there was no office with the name Bone Measurement Institute…

… Jeremy Allen says that to encourage other companies to take seriously Merck’s goal of dropping the price of measuring machines, Merck actually purchased a bone measurement business.

Mr. ALLEN: We bought one of the companies and showed how low the price could become purely to get everybody’s attention. And we got everybody’s attention. And subsequently, when everybody else moved, we let it go, and the company closed. And we cheered its demise…

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine

Dr. Meryl Nass, H1N1, News

FDA plans (dated June 26, 2009) for safety evaluation of Swine Flu Vaccines

No Comments 29 October 2009

Anthrax Vaccine — posts by Meryl Nass, M.D.

Here is an FDA briefing document for the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting of July 23, 2009. It lays out the plan that has been followed since then. The plan involved very limited safety data collection before starting vaccinations, and a detailed plan for obtaining data on adverse reactions after vaccinations have been given.

Although scientifically sound, and apparently meeting FDA’s need for “adequate” safety data, the glaring problem with this plan is that it will fail to identify significant vaccine problems (such as development of chronic autoimmune conditions) until after tens or hundreds of millions have been vaccinated. Excerpts follow from “Regulatory Considerations Regarding the Use of Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Vaccines.” [The italics and color are mine--Nass]

Section 5.1.6. Safety Monitoring:
Subjects should record age appropriate local and systemic reactogenicity for seven days after each vaccination. In addition, unsolicited adverse events, serious adverse events (SAEs), and deaths should be assessed for 21 days after each vaccination. Subjects should be followed for 6 months after the second vaccination for assessment of SAEs, deaths and new onset chronic medical conditions. If the study included evaluation of investigational adjuvants, subjects should be followed for 12 months after the second vaccine dose for occurrence of SAEs, deaths and new onset chronic medical conditions. For studies that include evaluation of antigen formulated with an investigational adjuvant, we recommend safety laboratory evaluations at baseline and at early and late time points post-vaccination (e.g., days 7 -10, and 21).

5.1.7 Endpoints

Safety: For each antigen dose and age group:

• The incidence of solicited local and systemic events within 7 days of each
vaccine dose
• Occurrence of unsolicited adverse events, serious adverse events (SAEs) and
new onset chronic medical conditions throughout the entire study, including
the 6-12 month follow-up period after the last dose of study vaccine

6.0 Post Marketing Evaluation:

FDA and CDC together with other agencies in the Dept. of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) are working to strengthen their ability to rapidly detect and
evaluate potential safety signals following administration of novel influenza A
(H1N1) virus vaccines. At the time of initial use of these vaccines there will be limited data from clinical studies evaluating safety. In addition, there is a possibility that some vaccines may be used under EUA (see Section 4.0).
Because of these considerations, as well as the 1976 swine influenza vaccine
experience, a number of methods to enhance surveillance for adverse events
following administration of novel influenza A (H1N1) vaccines will be utilized.

Current plans are to monitor adverse events through reports to the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as well as through diagnoses and
related data in the Vaccine Safety Data (VSD) link system, the Department of
Defense (DoD), Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), the
Veterans’ Health Administration (VHA), and other population based
(MCO/HMO) health care organizations. DHHS is coordinating these activities.
One challenge is linking adverse event data with vaccine administration data and DHHS is exploring ways to improve the link between vaccine receipt and adverse
event data.

FDA, CDC and their contractors are developing data mining tools, daily reports
designed for novel influenza A (H1N1) vaccines, and vaccinee cards with vaccine
and adjuvant details, including the manufacturer, lot numbers and date of
administration, as well as “how to make a VAERS” report” information to
enhance adverse event reporting.

FDA and CDC are planning safety surveillance systems which adapt to the
various scenarios of public/private payment and administration of vaccines. Both
agencies are working with states and on a national level to prepare multiple safety
surveillance systems, which could be adapted to study sub-populations (e.g.,
young children, adolescents, pregnant women and the elderly) and to respond to
the epidemiologic data identifying which populations should be targeted for early
vaccination. Furthermore, FDA is also developing international collaborations for
vaccine safety surveillance (standard case definitions, safety surveillance studies,
communication, and risk management activities). FDA will be working with
manufacturers and government agencies to coordinate surveillance plans. Given
the limitations of clinical trial data prior to vaccine utilization, post-marketing or post-EUA surveillance studies are critical to evaluate safety and effectiveness of novel influenza A (H1N1) vaccines.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine

Dr. Meryl Nass, News

The Guillain-Barre syndrome and the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 influenza vaccines

No Comments 20 October 2009

The Guillain-Barré syndrome and the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 influenza vaccines/ NEJM

From the Blog of Meryl Nass, M.D.
As I’ve said previously, before the 2009 swine flu came along, public health officials knew that vaccinations sometimes led to small increases in cases of GBS.  GBS cases (above baseline incidence levels) were not limited to the 1976 swine flu vaccine, but have occurred after other vaccines, although less commonly.

During the 1992-3 flu season, the incidence of GBS roughly doubled in flu vaccine recipients during the six week period following vaccination, according to a 1998 article in the New England Journal of Medicine by CDC and U Maryland authors:

BACKGROUND: The number of reports of influenza-vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome to the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System increased from 37 in 1992-1993 to 74 in 1993-1994, arousing concern about a possible increase in vaccine-associated risk. METHODS: Patients given a diagnosis of the Guillain-Barré syndrome in the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 influenza-vaccination seasons were identified in the hospital-discharge data bases of four states. Vaccination histories were obtained by telephone interviews during 1995-1996 and were confirmed by the vaccine providers. Disease with an onset within six weeks after vaccination was defined as vaccine-associated. Vaccine coverage in the population was measured through a random-digit-dialing telephone survey. RESULTS: We interviewed 180 of 273 adults with the Guillain-Barré syndrome; 15 declined to participate, and the remaining 78 could not be contacted. The vaccine providers confirmed influenza vaccination in the six weeks before the onset of Guillain-Barré syndrome for 19 patients. The relative risk of the Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with vaccination, adjusted for age, sex, and vaccine season, was 1.7 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 2.8; P=0.04). The adjusted relative risks were 2.0 for the 1992-1993 season (95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 4.3) and 1.5 for the 1993-1994 season (95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 2.9). In 9 of the 19 vaccine-associated cases, the onset was in the second week after vaccination, all between day 9 and day 12.
CONCLUSIONS
: There was no increase in the risk of vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome from 1992-1993 to 1993-1994. For the two seasons combined, the adjusted relative risk of 1.7 suggests slightly more than one additional case of Guillain-Barré syndrome per million persons vaccinated against influenza.

In 2004, CDC scientists reported that, “Guillain-Barré syndrome remains the most frequent neurological condition reported after influenza vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since its inception in 1990.”

A separate 1979 review of GBS cases found 532 people developed GBS shortly after swine flu vaccination. Canadian data questionably found a slight increase in GBS 2-7 weeks after flu vaccinations over many flu seasons.

From the Sept. 2009 Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Diseases comes a study of GBS reports to VAERS.  The authors concluded, “Our results suggest that vaccines other than influenza vaccine can be associated with GBS.”

CDC was concerned about the Menactra (meningitis) vaccine and GBS; see the MMWR on this subject. The WHO agreed that a small increased risk of GBS existed from meningitis vaccine.

Thus the link between GBS and vaccination has clearly been established, and acknowledged by CDC, despite obfuscation recently in the media.

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 11:41 AM

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • PDF
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • NewsVine

Newsletter

Click to Join Our Newsletter! Carl Bruning Constitutional Larimer County Sheriff

Users Online

Featured Vaccine Book

Dr. Todd Elsner's Book

 

Today, according to the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule, a child receives 36 shots containing a total of 126 vaccines from birth through six years of age. This is quadruple the number of vaccines a child received in the 1980’s. In 1983 a child received only 10 shots containing 30 vaccines.

Could this quadrupling of the schedule be responsible for the drastic increase in childhood disorders we are seeing today?

 

Get the information your pediatrician will never tell you!

Live Healthy

Award Winning Inspirational Documentary by Valya Boutenko
Best Selling Books and DVDs from the Raw Family

Ads

Silver Lungs

Optimize Your Health

Vibrant Living with Delicious Green Smoothies