Link between WebMD and Eli Lilly

We believe that corruption is running rampant thru the phamaceutical industry and the regulatory agencies, such as the F.D.A.

Moderator: ARTICLE

Link between WebMD and Eli Lilly

Postby ARTICLE » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:58 pm

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31511/

:evil: It is not too hard to find evidence of links between WebMD and drug giant Eli Lilly. :evil:

A 2002 article on the gigantic medical site about pain and depression says “Lilly is a WebMD Partner,” and an advertising award in 2004 went to the FCB “client” Eli Lilly & Co./WebMD—not clients.

Banner and skyscraper ads for Lilly’s blockbuster antidepressant Cymbalta on WebMD’s home page never seemed to yield to other advertisers in 2009, and the Washington Post reported Lilly and WebMD to be partners in 2000.

Now Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating financial ties between Lilly and WebMD Health Corp. because of a WebMD TV ad exhorting people to undergo a Lilly depression screening.

You can joke about the need to tell people they are depressed—do people need to be told they have a headache—but pharma’s screening ruse to recruit new patient pools for the volatile drugs among teens, adolescents, and new mothers is not funny.

Three thousand five hundred news articles about antidepressants linked to violence appear on the Web site SSRIstories.com, including 700 murders, 200 murder-suicides, 51 school shooting incidents, and 54 postpartum depression cases since 1989.

In addition to WebMD, WebMD Health Corp. includes the Web sites Medscape, MedicineNet, eMedicine, eMedicine Health, RxList, theHeart.org, and drugs.com.

The Washington Post says the original partners and investors included “Microsoft, DuPont, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (and his Fox TV networks), Silicon Graphics, Netscape founder Jim Clark, drug maker Eli Lilly, and EDS, the computer services company founded by H. Ross Perot.”
Lilly is not the only pharma company receiving unmarked product placement on WebMD.

Last summer, a WebMD video featured a woman patient confessing she was fearful of life while a voice-over said she needed treatment for general anxiety disorder, and the camera showed bottles of Forest Pharmaceuticals’ antidepressant Lexapro moving down the manufacturer’s assembly line. No disclaimer on the video or “sponsored content” appeared.

Another unsponsored WebMD video last summer urged people on antidepressants to remain on their therapy “despite side effects,” and a third WebMD video suggested women concerned about cancer, heart attack, and stroke risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy should continue their treatment at lowered doses. Hang in there, valued customers.

A search for Wyeth (now Pfizer) antidepressant Effexor a few months ago on WebMD elicited a JAMA study that found Effexor superior to other antidepressants by a Wyeth-funded second author, Graham Emslie, M.D. Effexor was the drug Andrea Yates took when she drowned her five children in 2001, a case found on SSRIstories.com.

Questions about conflict of interest have surfaced at WebMD’s Medscape, which administers many of the lucrative drug company-sponsored continuing medical education (CME) courses in the United States, which doctors must complete to keep their state licenses.
Last year psychiatrist Daniel Carlat, M.D., who recounts his adventures as a Wyeth-paid Effexor promoter in the New York Times magazine, writes that he received, as a member of Medscape, an envelope with “a brochure from Forest Laboratories advertising Lexapro, and nothing else. It was creepy, like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”

While Lilly is known for launching the SSRI antidepressant revolution with Prozac, Cymbalta does much of the heavy lifting now with worldwide sales of $3.075 billion in 2009.

Many remember Cymbalta as the drug 19-year-old healthy clinical volunteer Traci Johnson was taking when she killed herself during trials on the Lilly campus in 2004, soon after FDA investigations into suicide-antidepressant links.

Traci had no depression history said Rev. Joel Barnaby, a spokesman for the Johnson family, who called Lilly’s decision to proceed with Cymbalta’s launch as scheduled “offensive” posturing.

The FDA said five other suicides occurred during Cymbalta clinical trials, and twice the rate of suicide attempts were seen in women prescribed the drug for stress urinary incontinence. These patients had no history of depression.

Others remember Cymbalta as the drug Carol Anne Gotbaum, daughter-in-law of New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, was taking during her macabre death in police custody at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in 2007.

But now Lilly and WebMD are pushing Cymbalta for pain since it was approved for fibromyalgia in 2008. “Across cultures, patients who complain of pain tend to be depressed,” says the 2002 article, which calls WebMD and Lilly partners, a finding from a “huge international study by Prozac manufacturer Eli Lilly and Company.”

“Could your muscle aches be related to depression?” hawks WebMD text under the heading “Recognizing the Symptoms of Depression.” Next to it is a picture of a depressed woman with arrows pointing to the pain in her head and neck, chest, stomach, arms, hands, legs, feet, and back.
“Print out this symptom diary, and fill it out. Then take it to your doctor to discuss what may be causing your symptoms.”
This content, we’re told, is “selected and controlled by WebMD’s editorial staff” but “funded by Lilly USA.” :shock:

Martha Rosenberg is a journalist who lives in Chicago. 8)
Posted by one of the activists
ARTICLE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:26 am

The Institutionalized Quackery of Antidepressants

Postby ARTICLE » Wed May 05, 2010 12:33 am

http://www.wyrdy.com/news/2009/03/14/th ... pressants/

Last year was a bad year for the pharmaceutical industry and mainstream medicine. The bestselling SSRI antidepressants were revealed to be no better than sugar pills. Not only are they useless to most people but the pharmaceutical companies have also been caught manipulating and hiding studies to create the impression that they are effective and safe although the direct opposite is true.

Hiding studies? Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately it is very real. The New England Journal of Medicine published a paper that investigated studies on SSRI antidepressants. It exposed how 22 negative study results were either buried or manipulated to look good, while all 37 positive trials were proudly published in full by pharmaceutical companies. 1

Burying negative studies is exactly the kind of practice that usually ends up causing a couple of hundred thousands deaths. Vioxx is a recent example among many.

If studies are buried, how are doctors going to be able to correctly judge the benefit of the drugs they are asked to prescribe? Compounding the problem is a sad state of affairs; pharmaceutical sales reps and their marketing material are normally not geared towards objectively informing physicians of risks and benefits. A study of the advertising material and marketing brochures sent out by drug companies to GPs in Germany has shown that about 94% of the information in them have no scientific basis. 2

It doesn’t look good when large corporations knowingly kill people for profit, but maybe we are starting to get used to it in the case of pharmaceutical companies? Or is there another reason why they are allowed to continue doing it?

… AND AN UPPERCUT…

Another heavy blow was dealt by a review pronouncing that Prozac and a number of other similar modern antidepressants simply do not work. The review combined the results of 47 trials and found only very minimal benefits over placebo, except for the most depressed patients. 3

SSRI antidepressants are a tremendous commercial success — but they don’t work any better than sugar pills! How is that possible?

Part of the success of SSRI antidepressants can be attributed to the successful advertising campaign that created the image of the “Happy Pill” — an image that bolstered the use of Prozac and similar drugs as recreational mind-altering drugs rather than medicine. Pharmaceutical companies also used the normal “disease-mongering” tactic in promoting antidepressants, expanding the depression diagnosis to include all kinds of normal reactions to problems in everyday life.

In the ads, they elevated unproven theories about depression to scientific fact, but now we know they hoodwinked millions of people all over the world into taking a dangerous and ineffective medication. They were so successful that we now face the problem of having SSRI medication in drinking water at levels that create problems for aquatic life. And the frogs are not smiling.

The incongruence between the scientific literature and the claims made in FDA-regulated SSRI advertisements is remarkable, and possibly unparalleled.

– Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect Between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature, Jeffrey R. Lacasse, Jonathan Leo.

Let’s get back to the review I just mentioned. They found that modern antidepressants do not work for most patients. This is damaging for the manufacturers, but there was another thing the study exposed that might hit them even harder in the end — even more buried data.

Well, that’s it! Pop goes the weasel. No more dilly dallying. Rules and regulations now must be put into place to ensure pharmaceutical companies do not again swindle us into believing problematic or marginally effective drugs are wonder drugs — and since many popular pharmaceuticals are only marginally effective, pharmaceutical companies might be in for some well-deserved rough times..

STILL STANDING

Maybe. Or maybe not. The Vioxx scandal was thought to be the last straw that was going to break the back of the Pharma Industry influence at the FDA. A landmark drug safety bill was drafted to protect the public.

Finally! That was about time. It is estimated that Vioxx caused over a 100.000 deaths in the U.S. alone. This tragedy must galvanize anyone into doing the right thing.

So, what happened to the bill? It was watered down by senators that received millions in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. The bill that finally passed did not sufficiently address the underlying problems.

Is it really true? Are the senators corporately controlled jumping jacks? You can be the judge. The pharmaceutical companies spent $855 million on lobbying from 1998 to 2006, according to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity. Senators that very consistently have shown themselves to protect pharmaceutical industry interests also happen get very large contributions from this industry. (Richard Burr $520,694, John Kerry $304,888, Joe Lieberman $281,040, Arlen Specter $259,699, Orrin Hatch $241,850, Chuck Grassley $216,599, Max Baucus $199,000, Chris Dodd $192,025, Tom Carper $183,794, Mike Enzi $174,338, all since 2001) 4

So maybe the popular practice of burying data still is not going to stop, and the institutionalized quackery of antidepressants is going to be allowed to continue.

QUACKERY

Quackery? Yes. Quackery. I don’t know what else to call it.

Doctors are prescribing drugs for depression that are no more effective than sugar pills, claiming the drugs are correcting chemical imbalances in the brain, in particular levels of serotonin, when in fact there is no real supporting evidence at all for the “chemical imbalance theory of depression”. 5

“Nothing has harmed the quality of individual life in modern society more than the misbegotten belief that human suffering is driven by biological and genetic causes and can be rectified by taking drugs or undergoing electroshock therapy. [...] If I wanted to ruin someone’s life, I would convince the person that biological psychiatry is right — that relationships mean nothing, that choice is impossible, and that the mechanics of a broken brain reign over our emotions and conduct. If I wanted to impair an individual’s capacity to create empathetic, loving relationships, I would prescribe psychiatric drugs, all of which blunt our highest psychological and spiritual functions.”

– Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in the Foreward to Reality Therapy in Action by William Glasser, M.D. (Harper Collins, 2000), p. xi.

Also, there are no tests in use that can confirm the need for drugs to influence the serotonin levels of a patient. These drugs are prescribed anyway. The only thing we know about them is that they achieve their impact through the disruption of normal brain function, and we can only hope that this will have beneficial results for the unlucky patient who starts taking them.

If this isn’t quackery, I don’t know what is. If it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

THE CHEMICAL IMBALANCE THEORY

The only evidence we have that supports the serotonin hypothesis is the claimed curative effects of SSRIs — if they relieve your depression, the problem must have been your serotonin levels to begin with. That is just as wrong as claiming that the miniscule reduction in cardiac events provided by statins proves that high cholesterol is the cause of heart disease.

“… there is not a single peer-reviewed article that can be accurately cited to directly support claims of serotonin deficiency in any mental disorder, while there are many articles that present counterevidence.”

– Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect Between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature, Jeffrey Lacasse, Jonathan Leo, November 8, 2005, PLoS Journal.

The purported effectiveness of SSRI’s has been used to prop up the failing chemical imbalance theory, especially in superficial media reports and in pharmaceutical advertisements. We now know that modern antidepressants are mostly ineffective. The evidence supporting the chemical imbalance theory is now in the same realm as the evidence supporting paranormal events. We might as well return to the belief that evil spirits and demons cause depression. Or we could try to develop more realistic models.

Even if we manage to find proof in the future that an imbalance in brain chemicals do cause depression, the failure of SSRI medication proves that this imbalance is not the root cause of depression.

Read the rest of long article at
http://www.wyrdy.com/news/2009/03/14/th ... pressants/
Posted by one of the activists
ARTICLE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:26 am


Return to Corruption

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest