Drugs Kill More People Than Ever, Report Finds

[Ocean]

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/photoscom/drugskill.jpg


Drugs Kill More People Than Ever, Report Finds


The 2008, first quarter report of deaths and serious injuries associated with drug therapy was recently released by The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a nonprofit organization whose stated goal is to educate the healthcare community and consumers about safe medication practices. The findings of this report are astounding.

According to the information gathered from data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during the first quarter of 2008, there were 20,745 reported serious injuries associated with drug therapy, up 34% from the previous quarter, and up 38% from last year`s average. Even more eye-opening than the number of serious injuries is the number of reported deaths – 4,824 people were reported killed from pharmaceutical drugs in the first quarter of 2008, a 2.6 fold increase from the previous quarter. This figure represents the highest number of patient deaths ever reported in a single quarter as a result of drug therapy. It also accounts for more deaths than those due to homicide during the same period.

It is important to keep in mind that these figures represent quarterly findings. Given the upward trend in both serious injuries and deaths over the past several years due to pharmaceutical drugs, these numbers are expected to continue their rate of increase in quarters and years to come.

Even if the numbers were to remain the same for the rest of 2008, the total number of reported serious injuries would total 83,000 while the total number of reported deaths would reach nearly 20,000. Again, this is assuming the first quarter findings remain constant – the report emphasizes that the trend has continued to veer upward, indicating that future reports will most likely contain even higher numbers.

What is more striking than these numbers is the fact that they represent only the adverse events that were reported to the FDA during this time period. Since the reporting system is voluntary and almost 85% of the reports come from the pharmaceutical companies themselves, it is obvious that these numbers represent only a miniscule percentage of the total adverse events that are actually occurring. Numerous published scientific reports on adverse event reporting accuracy, including reports from the Journal of the American Medical Association and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have concluded that no more than 10% and in some cases as little as 1-2% of adverse events caused by drugs are even reported to the FDA. Thus, based upon the first quarter data, the actual number of adverse events from drug therapies in the first quarter of 2008 could be anywhere from 207,000 to over 2,000,000 with roughly 23% of these representing deaths.

While the report goes on to outline, in detail, most of the culprit drugs, including varenicline, heparin, oxycodone, and even acetaminophen (the active drug in Tylenol), its “bigger picture” discovery remains blatantly obvious. Assuming a best case scenario of only a 10% reporting rate, this report essentially spells out the fact that at least 830,000 cases of serious injury or death occur every year in America due to the harmful effects of pharmaceutical drugs, with possibly a quarter of these cases resulting in death.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, about 2.5 million people die every year in the United States. Assuming a 10% reporting rate of adverse events to drug therapy based on Q1, 2008 data, it can be concluded that about 8% of the deaths that occur every year in America are due to complications with pharmaceutical drugs. Assuming only a 1% reporting rate, that percentage increases to over 77%. Thus, it can be estimated that the number of people that die every year in the U.S. from adverse drug effects is anywhere from about 192,000 to almost 2,000,000.

To put these numbers into perspective, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 2006, 44,572 people died in car accidents, 18,029 from homicide, and 560,102 from all forms of cancer.

It becomes abundantly clear from this report that no one knows for sure exactly how many people are negatively affected by pharmaceutical drugs, but that the number is quite large and is getting increasingly larger. Even on the low end of the estimate spectrum, the data elucidates the obviously prodigious danger of pharmaceutical drugs and the inadequate work being performed by the FDA in protecting the public from dangerous drugs.

Considering the scrutiny with which other industries are regulated and controlled by the FDA, it is shocking that, with even a conservative estimate of about 200,000 yearly deaths related to pharmaceutical drugs, the FDA is hardly phased. The agency continues to pander to pharmaceutical interests, including its support for the industry`s immunity from being held accountable for these “adverse events” under the law.

Perhaps as this type of data becomes more mainstream, the public will forcibly hold the drug cabal accountable for the destruction it is inflicting on American society, and the regulatory agencies accountable for turning a blind eye to the damage being perpetrated against the very people it is supposed to be representing and protecting.

 

[Laura]

It also accounts for more deaths than those due to homicide during the same period.

Well, since Bush let pharmaceutical companies off the lawsuit hook, maybe we should just start arresting them and charging them with murder?

 

[Oxajil]

Thanks for posting this Ocean! To be honest, I find this quite shocking. Especially when I read in another thread:

I've also nearly destroyed my liver taking paracetamol type pain relievers.

My brothers and I take paracetamol almost like candy! So I started to search for more information about how medicine can be damaging to us and I found this paper (from 2004) entitled 'Death by Medicine' written by Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD (writer of 'The Miracle of Magnesium'), ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD :


A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking. These researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents compelling evidence that today’s system frequently causes more harm than good.

[...]

Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one article. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually, each representing a tiny fragment of the whole picture. To look at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is like standing an inch away from an elephant and trying to describe everything about it. You have to step back to see the big picture, as we have done here. Each specialty, each division of medicine keeps its own records and data on morbidity and mortality. We have now completed the painstaking work of reviewing thousands of studies and putting pieces of the puzzle together.


_http://www.scribd.com/doc/3918555/Death-by-Medicine

or

_http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

I really recommend you all to read this, especially if you're still a little skeptic about it or for the sake of collecting more data.

Here are some passages that I find important... [edited for easier reading]:

In response to these baseless challenges to natural medicine, the Nutrition Institute of America commissioned an independent review of the quality of “government-approved” medicine. The startling findings from this meticulous study indicate that conventional medicine is “the leading cause of death” in the United States.

[...]

Over 700,000 Americans die each year at the hands of government-sanctioned medicine, while the FDA and other government agencies pretend to protect the public by harassing those who offer safe alternatives.

[...]

Medicine is not taking into consideration the following critically important aspects of a healthy human organism:

(a) stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes;
(b) insufficient exercise;
(c) excessive caloric intake;
(d) highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil; and
(e) exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins.

Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being spent on preventing disease.

As few as 5% and no more than 20% of iatrogenic acts are ever reported. This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have an annual iatrogenic death toll much higher than 783,936. In 1994, Leape said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes resulting in death annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.(16) Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day.

[...]

We are fully aware of what stands in the way of change: powerful pharmaceutical and medical technology companies, along with other powerful groups with enormous vested interests in the business of medicine. They fund medical research, support medical schools and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With deep pockets, they entice scientists and academics to support their efforts. Such funding can sway the balance of opinion from professional caution to uncritical acceptance of new therapies and drugs. You have only to look at the people who make up the hospital, medical, and government health advisory boards to see conflicts of interest. The public is mostly unaware of these interlocking interests.

[...]

The ABC news report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90% chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug-company-funded study will show favorable results only 50% of the time. It appears that money can't buy you love but it can buy any "scientific" result desired.

[...]

Leape calculated the error rate in the intensive care unit study. First, he found that each patient had an average of 178 “activities” (staff/procedure/medical interactions) a day, of which 1.7 were errors, which means a 1% failure rate. This may not seem like much, but Leape cited industry standards showing that in aviation, a 0.1% failure rate would mean two unsafe plane landings per day at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport; in the US Postal Service, a 0.1% failure rate would mean 16,000 pieces of lost mail every hour; and in the banking industry, a 0.1% failure rate would mean 32,000 bank checks deducted from the wrong bank account.

[...]

At a 1997 press conference, Leape released a nationwide poll on patient iatrogenesis conducted by the National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF), which is sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA). Leape is a founding member of NPSF. The survey found that more than 100 million Americans have been affected directly or indirectly by a medical mistake. Forty-two percent were affected directly and 84% personally knew of someone who had experienced a medical mistake

[...]

A study conducted in two obstetrical units in the UK found that only about one-quarter of adverse incidents were ever reported, to protect staff, preserve reputations, or for fear of reprisals, including lawsuits.

[...]

Standard medical pharmacology texts admit that relatively few doctors ever report adverse drug reactions to the FDA. The reasons range from not knowing such a reporting system exists to fear of being sued. Yet the public depends on this tremendously flawed system of voluntary reporting by doctors to know whether a drug or a medical intervention is harmful.

Pharmacology texts also will tell doctors how hard it is to separate drug side effects from disease symptoms. Treatment failure is most often attributed to the disease and not the drug or doctor. Doctors are warned, “Probably nowhere else in professional life are mistakes so easily hidden, even from ourselves.” It may be hard to accept, but it is not difficult to understand why only 1 in 20 side effects is reported to either hospital administrators or the FDA.

If hospitals admitted to the actual number of errors for which they are responsible, which is about 20 times what is reported, they would come under intense scrutiny. Jerry Phillips, associate director of the FDA's Office of Post Marketing Drug Risk Assessment, confirms this number. “In the broader area of adverse drug reaction data, the 250,000 reports received annually probably represent only 5% of the actual reactions that occur.” Dr. Jay Cohen, who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions, notes that because only 5% of adverse drug reactions are reported, there are in fact 5 million medication reactions each year.

A 2003 survey is all the more distressing because there seems to be no improvement in error reporting, even with all the attention given to this topic. Dr. Dorothea Wild surveyed medical residents at a community hospital in Connecticut and found that only half were aware that the hospital had a medical error-reporting system, and that the vast majority did not use it at all. Dr. Wild says this does not bode well for the future. If doctors don't learn error reporting in their training, they will never use it. Wild adds that error reporting is the first step in locating the gaps in the medical system and fixing them. Not even that first step has been taken to date.

[...]

Prescription drugs constitute the major treatment modality of scientific medicine. With the discovery of the “germ theory,” medical scientists convinced the public that infectious organisms were the cause of illness. Finding the “cure” for these infections proved much harder than anyone imagined. From the beginning, chemical drugs promised much more than they delivered. But far beyond not working, the drugs also caused incalculable side effects. The drugs themselves, even when properly prescribed, have side effects that can be fatal, as Lazarou's study showed. But human error can make the situation even worse.

[...]

A 2002 study shows that 20% of hospital medications for patients had dosage errors. Nearly 40% of these errors were considered potentially harmful to the patient. In a typical 300-patient hospital, the number of errors per day was 40.

Problems involving patients' medications were even higher the following year.

[...]

The drugs with the worst record of side effects were
- selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs),
- nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and
- calcium-channel blockers.


[...]

The study found that one of the reasons for this failure is that in nearly two-thirds of the cases, doctors could not diagnose drug side effects or the side effects persisted because the doctor failed to heed the warning signs.

[...]

Patients seeking a more joyful existence and relief from worry, stress, and anxiety often fall victim to the messages endlessly displayed on TV and billboards. Often, instead of gaining relief, they fall victim to the myriad iatrogenic side effects of antidepressant medication.

Moreover, a whole generation of antidepressant users has been created from young people growing up on Ritalin. Medicating youth and modifying their emotions must have some impact on how they learn to deal with their feelings. They learn to equate coping with drugs rather than with their inner resources. As adults, these medicated youth reach for alcohol, drugs, or even street drugs to cope. According to JAMA , “Ritalin acts much like cocaine.” Today's marketing of mood-modifying drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft ® makes them not only socially acceptable but almost a necessity in today's stressful world.

And as the C's said themselves:

Q: (T) I have not been remembering most of my dreams.
A: Try melatonin; avoid any antidepressants. Some have suggested.

More on antidepressants in this thread.

Also read this for more info on antidepressants:

https://www.sott.net/articles/show/168133-Psychiatry-Instrument-of-Death-

To reach the widest audience possible, drug companies are no longer just targeting medical doctors with their marketing of antidepressants. By 1995, drug companies had tripled the amount of money allotted to direct advertising of prescription drugs to consumers. The majority of this money is spent on seductive television ads. From 1996 to 2000, spending rose from $791 million to nearly $2.5 billion. This $2.5 billion represents only 15% of the total pharmaceutical advertising budget. While the drug companies maintain that direct-to-consumer advertising is educational, Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe of the Public Citizen Health Research Group in Washington, DC, argues that the public often is misinformed about these ads. People want what they see on television and are told to go to their doctors for a prescription. Doctors in private practice either acquiesce to their patients' demands for these drugs or spend valuable time trying to talk patients out of unnecessary drugs. Dr. Wolfe remarks that one important study found that people mistakenly believe that the “FDA reviews all ads before they are released and allows only the safest and most effective drugs to be promoted directly to the public.

Another aspect of scientific medicine that the public takes for granted is the testing of new drugs. Drugs generally are tested on individuals who are fairly healthy and not on other medications that could interfere with findings. But when these new drugs are declared “safe” and enter the drug prescription books, they are naturally going to be used by people who are on a variety of other medications and have a lot of other health problems. Then a new phase of drug testing called “post-approval” comes into play, which is the documentation of side effects once drugs hit the market. In one very telling report, the federal government's General Accounting Office "found that of the 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985... 102 (or 51.5%) had serious post-approval risks... the serious post-approval risks (included) heart failure, myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects and fetal toxicity, and blindness."

This is really awful! Blindness even?!

In the US, over 3 million pounds of antibiotics are used every year on humans. With a population of 284 million Americans, this amount is enough to give every man, woman, and child 10 teaspoons of pure antibiotics per year. Agger says that exposure to a steady stream of antibiotics has altered pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staplococcus aureus, and entercocci, to name a few.

[...]

The CDC warns that 90% of upper respiratory infections, including children's ear infections, are viral and that antibiotics do not treat viral infection. More than 40% of about 50 million prescriptions for antibiotics written each year in physicians' offices are inappropriate. Using antibiotics when not needed can lead to the development of deadly strains of bacteria that are resistant to drugs and cause more than 88,000 deaths due to hospital-acquired infections.

What constitutes the “best care”? The CDC does not elaborate and ignores the latest research on the dozens of nutraceuticals that have been scientifically proven to treat viral infections and boost immune-system function. Will doctors recommend vitamin C, echinacea, elderberry, vitamin A, zinc, or homeopathic oscillococcinum? Probably not. The CDC's common-sense recommendations that most people follow anyway include getting proper rest, drinking plenty of fluids, and using a humidifier.

[...]

A cross-sectional survey of 125 patients attending specialty pain clinics in South London found that possible iatrogenic factors such as “over-investigation, inappropriate information, and advice given to patients as well as misdiagnosis, over-treatment, and inappropriate prescription of medication were common.”

[...]

Unfortunately, no all-encompassing follow-up study such as Dr. Abel's exists to indicate whether there has been any improvement in cancer-survival statistics since 1989. In fact, research should be conducted to determine whether chemotherapy itself is responsible for secondary cancers instead of progression of the original disease. We continue to question why well-researched alternative cancer treatments are not used.

[...]

Like prescription drug use driven by television advertising, unnecessary surgeries are escalating. Media-driven surgery such as gastric bypass for obesity “modeled” by Hollywood celebrities seduces obese people to think this route is safe and sexy. Unnecessary surgeries have even been marketed on the Internet. A study in Spain declares that 20-25% of total surgical practice represents unnecessary operations.

[...]

In one review of the literature, the authors found “a significant rate of overutilization of
- coronary angiography,
- coronary artery surgery,
- cardiac pacemaker insertion,
- upper gastrointestinal endoscopies,
- carotid endarterectomies,
- back surgery, and
- pain-relieving procedures.”

[...]

In present-day medicine, coronary angiography is an invasive surgical procedure that involves snaking a tube through a blood vessel in the groin up to the heart. To obtain useful information, X-rays are taken almost continuously, with minimum dosages ranging from 460 to 1,580 mrem. The minimum radiation from a routine chest x-ray is 2 mrem. X-ray radiation accumulates in the body, and ionizing radiation used in X-ray procedures has been shown to cause gene mutation. The health impact of this high level of radiation is unknown, and often obscured in statistical jargon such as, “The risk for lifetime fatal cancer due to radiation exposure is estimated to be 4 in one million per 1,000 mrem.”

Dr. John Gofman has studied the effects of radiation on human health for 45 years. A medical doctor with a PhD in nuclear and physical chemistry, Gofman worked on the Manhattan Project, discovered uranium-233, and was the first person to isolate plutonium. In five scientifically documented books, Gofman provides strong evidence that medical technology—specifically x-rays, CT scans, and mammography and fluoroscopy devices—are a contributing factor to 75% of new cancers. In a nearly 700-page report updated in 2000, “Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population,”(90) Gofman shows that as the number of physicians increases in a geographical area along with an increase in the number of x-ray diagnostic tests performed, the rate of cancer and ischemic heart disease also increases. Gofman elaborates that it is not x-rays alone that cause the damage but a combination of health risk factors that include poor diet, smoking, abortions, and the use of birth control pills. Dr. Gofman predicts that ionizing radiation will be responsible for 100 million premature deaths over the next decade.

[...]

Even x-rays for back pain can lead someone into crippling surgery. Dr. John E. Sarno, a well-known New York orthopedic surgeon, found that there is not necessarily any association between back pain and spinal x-ray abnormality. He cites studies of normal people without a trace of back pain whose x-rays indicate spinal abnormalities and of people with back pain whose spines appear to be normal on x-ray. People who happen to have back pain and show an abnormality on x-ray may be treated surgically, sometimes with no change in back pain, worsening of back pain, or even permanent disability. Moreover, doctors often order x-rays as protection against malpractice claims, to give the impression of leaving no stone unturned. It appears that doctors are putting their own fears before the interests of their patients.

For more data and the whole paper see one of the two links above.