|
In the wake of the H1N1 terrorist attack* of 2009 it is essential to our very survival that we examine the state of medical ethics. Unfortunately most of the well meaning professionals were "just following orders" and for the most part did not have the mental capacity to question the underlying assumptions of the H1N1 propaganda. Refer to the Milgram experiment to see how people react when directed by an authority they recognize. A Massachusetts anesthesiologist accused of fabricating data in studies of pain drugs will plead guilty to federal criminal charges under an agreement with prosecutors. According to the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston, Pfizer had given some $74,000 to Reuben for a placebo-controlled study of celecoxib (Celebrex) as part of a "multimodal" painkiller regimen for outpatient knee ligament surgery. The study was to enroll 100 patients. Reuben subsequently reported to Pfizer and in the journal article that 200 patients entered the trial and that the celecoxib regimen was effective. "In fact, Reuben had not enrolled any patients into that study, and the results reported both to Pfizer and to Anesthesia & Analgesia and, in turn, to the public were wholly made up by Reuben and therefore false," prosecutors wrote in a court filing. Link
More than a third of clinical trials watchdogs have financial relationships with industry, calling into question the objectivity of institutional review boards, according to investigators here. Link Journal of the American Medical Association institutes a new policy forbidding members from disclosing potential conflicts of interest to third parties. "You asked in your previous e-mail why I contacted the press. At the time, I was highly skeptical that JAMA would set the record straight on this matter. It has been almost five months since this matter was brought to your attention, and JAMA has done nothing to correct the record." Link According to a survey of 107 chairs of institutional review boards (IRBs), one-third of medical schools and academic medical centers did not require board members to disclose relationships with industry, reported Christine Vogeli, Ph.D., of Massachusetts General Hospital, and colleagues in the April issue of Academic Medicine. Link Investigators submitted the protocol to three for-profit review boards. Two rejected it, calling the study "awful," a "piece of junk," and the "riskiest thing I've ever seen," according to Kutz. The third IRB, Coast Independent Review Board, was taken in by the ruse, and it approved the study by unanimous vote, saying the "gel is probably very safe." Stupak said "the evidence suggests that Coast was more concerned with its financial bottom-line than protecting the lives of patients." Link Analysis of 124 oncology clinical trials showed that those with a conflict of interest -- either direct industry funding or an author's declarations of financial relationships -- were more than twice as likely to find significantly improved patient survival, according to Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., of the University of Michigan, and colleagues. Link
* Professionals within the medical industry did intimidate the public and our public officials with inflated claims as to the lethality of the H1N1 virus for profit. These professionals intentionally caused serious risk to public health by advocating the use of untested adjuvants (AS03 used in the GSK version of the H1N1 vaccine used in Canada). in the Here is the applicable section of the Canadian Criminal Code “terrorist activity” means (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada, (i) that is committed (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and (ii) that intentionally (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence, (B) endangers a person’s life, (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public, (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.
|
