NEJM's Data Deceivers

 

NEJM states: "Our mission is to publish the best research and information at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and to present this information in understandable, clinically useful formats that inform health care practice and improve patient outcomes."

Effective mission statements are supposed to be succinct, I presume NEJM chose to omit the other relevant sentence readers would want to understand, which is: "We don't care where the data comes from as long as it supports our chosen narratives."

de·ceiver

a person who causes someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.

New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

Eric Rubin, NEJM editor-in-chief

There have been nine editors-in-chief from 1921 to the present at the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The current editor-in-chief is Eric Rubin, the former chair of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health's Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases. (Immunology is the study of the immune system.) Before Rubin, NEJM's editors-in-chief was Jeffrey M. Drazen, an asthma and lung disease expert. Aside from Rubin, no NEJM editor-in-chief has had a background in Immunology and Infectious Diseases. 

The Boston Tea Party (Outsiders rarely invited)

Rubin was selected after a NEJM "international" committee conducted a global search. The committee was chaired by Dr. Lynda Young, past president of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Dr. Beverly Woo, of the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, served as vice-chair. Other committee members were:

Dr. Alain Chaoui, FAAFP, President, Massachusetts Medical Society;

Dr. Karen Antman, Dean, Boston University School of Medicine;

Dr. Harris Berman, Dean, Tufts University School of Medicine;

Dr. Edward W. Campion, Executive Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine;

Dr. Lois Dehls Cornell, Executive Vice President, Massachusetts Medical Society;

Dr. George Q. Daley, Dean, Harvard Medical School;

Dr. Jack Evjy, Past-President, Massachusetts Medical Society;

Dr. Terence Flotte, Dean, School of Medicine, UMass Medical School;

Dr. Danny Jacobs, President, Oregon Health and Science University;

Dr. Thomas Lee, Chief Medical Officer, Press Ganey, and NEJM Catalyst Leadership Board Founder;

Dr. Joseph Loscalzo, Chairman of the Department of Medicine, and Physician-in-Chief, Brigham and Women's Hospital;

Dr. Graham McMahon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education;

Dr. Erika von Mutius, Professor of Pediatric Allergology, Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital of the University of Munich, Institute for Asthma and Allergy Prevention, Germany;

Dr. John Noseworthy, Chief Executive Officer, Mayo Clinic;

Dr. Chana Sacks, Images Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and;

Dr. David Spriggs, Associate Editor, the New England Journal of Medicine, Director of the Gynecologic Oncology Program, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center.

The vast majority of this "international" search committee works in the Boston area.

For historical reference, the first quarterly edition of the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery and the Collateral Branches of Medical Science (Boston) was published in January 1812. It was a result of a collaboration between John Collins Warren, a Boston physician, and his colleague James Jackson. In 1921, their journal merged with the Boston Medical Intelligencer to become the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal; it also began weekly publication that year and was purchased by the Massachusetts Medical Society.

Rubin became NEJM's editor-in-chief in September 2019, approximately three months before the World Health Organization (WHO) was informed of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan City, China. On January 7, 2020, Chinese authorities identified coronavirus as the cause, and it was temporarily named "2019-nCoV." Rubin's September 2019 appointment as editor-in-chief at the NEJM was quite timely.

Not Long Before Controversy

Dressen is a preschool teacher from Saratoga Springs, Utah, who received the Astra Zeneca Covid vaccine during a clinical trial in November 2020. She has since experienced extensive adverse effects from the vaccine

On November 2, 2021, Bri Dressen participated in a US Senate meeting at which issues were raised about coronavirus vaccine harms and related mandates. Dressen was a clinical trial participant for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. 

After having just one dose, Dressen experienced adverse effects. The effects were so severe and long-lasting that she had to quit her job as a preschool teacher and hire a nanny to care for her two young children. Here's her testimony.

Dressen followed up her testimony by writing to the NEJM. She felt compelled to do so after reading an article the journal published in September 2021, entitled 'Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Covid-19 Vaccine'

In her initial email, Dressen pointed out the article's inaccuracies. Surprisingly, her email was directly answered by NEJM editor-in-chief Eric Rubin. Rubin told Dressen the NEJM would not publish her letter. He claimed, "The space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received."

Dressen contacted NEJM because they published inaccurate information that the journal should correct. She did not contact NEJM to request that her letter be published. However, the email exchange between Dressen and Rubin shows Rubin would not address these inaccuracies. Their email exchange can be read here.

Dr. Fernando Polack  is a Specialist in Pediatric Infectious Diseases. His work is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Dr. Fernando Pedro Polack ~ Mira Vos! Argentina

Polack was the lead author in another NEJM article entitled, 'Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine', the conclusion of which was "A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines." BioNTech and Pfizer funded the trial.

As Covid hit Argentina, Polack became involved in a trial of immune plasma taken from patients who had recovered from Covid. This plasma was then given to patients who had recently contracted Covid. In May 2020, Polack speculated that this would make Covid like an ordinary cold.

The trial's conclusions boasted a positive outcome, and the results were published  in a February 2021 peer-reviewed article in--you've guessed it--the NEJM. NEJM reviewers concluded, "Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19."

BioNTech or Pfizer didn't fund this trial; The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded it.

A subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) didn't agree with Polack and the NEJM reviewers. They cited, "Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes."

Who is Dr. Fernando Pedro Polack?

Take a step into the unknown and read Fishy Business in the Rio de la Plata, an article by Prof.David Healy, Psychopharmacologist, Scientist and Author.

Who are NEJM's Reviewers?

This is a list of people who served as NEJM's reviewers between January and June 2021. Readers of medical journals should be aware that these reviewers, like most--if not all--reviewers, are reviewing ghostwritten material and have never seen the raw data from clinical trials. Many reviewers are probably still unaware that the material they review is written by pharmaceutical companies or PR companies hired by pharmaceutical companies. Further, if some reviewers are aware, or made aware, of these data sources, it's likely they do not care.

Are these NEJM reviewers data deceivers who refuse to reveal the truth about the source of the "data" they review? Are they disinterested in reviewing raw data? Are they dispassionate about ensuring the validity of the data they promote? Regardless of the reasons, I contend NEJM reviewers are likely data deceivers because they've been seduced by the financial and professional benefits that come from serving as "prestigious" NEJM reviewers.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole of ghostwriting, I recommend the following introductions, 1, 2, 3

Bob Fiddaman

Informed Consent ~ Changing the Paradigm

 

Rarely does a video cause me as much anger as one I recently viewed via Twitter. Before reading on, please view it below or here: 

After hearing Dr. Samuel White's story, I searched for an unedited version of the video and additional info about White, who has been a doctor in NHS for more than 17 years. White is now facing an interim orders tribunal regarding his fitness to practise. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) will carry out a tribunal to decide whether to:

1.Impose an interim order of conditions on White's medical registration.

2.Impose an interim order of suspension on White's medical registration.

3.Make no order.

As part of the ongoing process, White's licence to practise medicine within the NHS was suspended by a letter the NHS sent on 26 June 2021. His rebuttal, via his lawyers, can be seen here.

White has been temporarily suspended for telling his patients to review data provided by two government websites: the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card Adverse Event Reporting website in the UK and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US.

As of 8 August 2021, MHRA states they have received 342,014 reports for all the combined vaccines and that this accounts for more than 1 million total reactions, 1,559 of which were fatal. (Fig 1)

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Image courtesy of UK Column

This government-provided data is what Dr. White told his patients to read when deciding whether or not to have the COVID vaccine. The figures above change weekly and will increase as more people report their adverse reactions. It's also important to remember that because many adverse reactions and deaths are never reported to the MHRA, these figures above do not tell us the whole story.

The MHRA will argue that the reported reactions and deaths do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused them, often using the phrase, "correlation does not equal causation." They have done this throughout history with medicines that cause adverse events and even deaths.

White was giving his patients as much information as he had at his disposal; he didn't have the weekly stats for the vaccines' adverse events; hence his common-sense suggestion that patients check the two websites is appropriate. 

So what is Informed Consent?

It seems an easy question to answer, but no doctor can provide patients with all the information needed for fully informed consent because data from clinical drug trials is withheld from medical professionals and consumers. 

1. You must have the capacity (or ability) to make the decision.

2. The medical provider must disclose information on the treatment, test, or procedure in question, including the expected benefits and risks, and the likelihood (or probability) that the benefits and risks will occur.

3. You must understand the relevant information.

4. You must voluntarily grant consent, without coercion or duress.

Let's take a closer look at #2

For doctors to relay information about benefits and risks to their patients, they need all the information. But doctors and the MHRA do not receive all the data from the drug companies. Case Report Forms (CRFs) are individual patient data from clinical trials. These are all kept under lock and key--the only time one is ever granted access to CRFs is when a request for disclosure is made. Disclosure refers to a litigation procedure where each party in the suit must disclose any/all documents that may be considered relevant to the pending court case.

The likelihood of CRFs from COVID vaccine clinical trials ever seeing the light of day is slim given that AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna, have all been granted indemnity. In other words, consumers who suffer from taking these COVID-related products can never sue the company that made them. So, no litigation, no CRFs.

Having no access to CRFs is bad enough, yet we also have ghostwritten "medical literature."

Who You Gonna Call?

Most people who see the names of medical doctors or Ph.D.'s followed by affiliated academic institutions as authors of medical journal articles likely believe the drug data and product claims promoted. The pharmaceutical companies promote these erroneous assumptions using a scheme called ghostwriting.

The authors of ghostwritten articles have not written them or read all the clinical trial data. Instead, the drug companies hire PR firms to draft articles and send them to academics who lend their names as authors. A classic example of this was ghostwriting PR outfit, Scientific Therapeutics Information (STI), that worked for drug kingpins, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

In a nutshell, GSK's pediatric trials for Paxil returned abysmal results. However, GSK knew all was not lost. The company only needed child psychiatrists to promote Paxil for kids by claiming the drug was safe and effective. STI's ghostwritten article helped convince many doctors to convince many parents that Paxil was safe for children. Years later, we learned through litigation why GSK never shared the clinical trial data: Internal documents showed GSK was worried that their clinical trial data would reduce product sales. 

You can read more about this case here, here, and here.

Doctors, including Samuel White, are not obliged to research drug company malfeasance; moreover, even if they did their own research, they are not obliged to inform patients of their findings.

The USA

An article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 20 August 2021 highlights how the American equivalent of the MHRA, the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), is preparing to grant full approval of the Pfizer vaccine without publicly discussing the data. Only a year ago, the FDA said it was "committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public."

So, why the sudden U-turn? Experts quoted in the BMJ article said politics drove the decision not to meet to discuss the data. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, who has also spoken at recent Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, said, "It's obvious that the FDA has no intention of hearing anyone else's opinion. But if you make decisions behind closed doors it can feed into hesitancy. It's important to have a public discussion about what kind of data are there and what the limitations are. As we think about risk versus benefit, we need to know."

The FDA and MHRA don't want to discuss the data because, as I previously stated, they don't have all the data.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the publicly funded smoke-and-mirrors shit show being performed for us. The truth of the matter is, everything is being hidden in plain sight. Whether you have taken these COVID drugs or not, you should question all of the above. It is easy (and lazy) to post memes on Facebook or Twitter chastising those who choose not to take these vaccines. It's easy to label people who don't get in line for pharma's new COVID products and call them "anti-vaxxers" or "conspiracy theorists.' Similar labels were assigned to folks who spoke out about the dangers of promoting and prescribing Paxil to children. Yet years later, GSK's lies were exposed during wrongful death litigation. 

Informed Consent ~ Changing the Paradigm

I'd like to see the term 'informed consent' used less frequently. It is meaningless when a doctor or patient does not have access to all the data. Instead, I'd like to use the opposite term, 'Informed refusal'.

Informed refusal is where a person has refused a recommended medical treatment based upon an understanding of the facts and implications of not following the treatment. Individuals need to be in possession of the relevant facts, all of them.

This may stick in the teeth of those who have already had the vaccine, a lot of whom claim that people who refuse the vaccine don't have any rights, 'it's not about them', we hear, 'it's about others.'

So, my right to informed refusal is based on the lack of data coming from the likes of Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca and now the FDA. Based on the information they are not giving me, I refuse to be treated and if that upsets those who have been treated and limits my freedoms, then so be it.

I'm on the side of truth, not suppression, be that in the form of access to raw data or the posting of infantile memes on social media by the 'monkey see, monkey do' individuals, all, of course, designed to silence those with the ability to think freely without fear. 

Fearbook

I've never seen a divide happen so quickly. On both Facebook and Twitter I now see posts from people declaring that they are deleting friends from their list who speak out about the vaccine, all fuelled by the regular 'flags' we now see daily on Facebook anytime anyone posts something negative about treatment. Flags such as:

So, it's okay to click on the 'Get Vaccine Info' link but, seemingly, not okay to click on any information that may oppose this information.

When Facebook go a step further and actually remove opinion you have the right to ask why. Here's the standard reply you get:

As this blog of mine points out, Facebook moderators don't have access to the safety or side effect data of COVID vaccines, they couldn't possibly know what is true or false.

The best one I've seen so far is the following:

So, a post or link of yours may offer 99% truth but Facebook 'fact-checkers' flag it for containing 'partly false' information.

More Jabs

The United States will begin widely distributing Covid-19 booster shots next month as apparent new data shows that vaccine protection dwindles over time.

“We are starting to see evidence of reduced protection against mild and moderate disease,” according to the statement signed by CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock, White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and other U.S. health leaders.

U.S. agencies are preparing to offer booster shots to all eligible Americans beginning the week of Sept. 20, starting eight months after their second dose of Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines.

So, the freedoms given to those who have currently been double-jabbed, concerts, sporting events, travel, will, seemingly, be taken away unless they have the booster.

Viruses mutate over time, they can strengthen or weaken. The majority of vaccines are developed over time and not rushed to market. Just because a vaccine gets approval (albeit 'Emergency Approval') does not make it safe. Data is collected and supposed to be assessed. This is called Post-Marketing Surveillance, designed to collect all the adverse events from the public. Most people don't know that clinical trials do not end in the lab - Any drug or vaccine that comes to market is just another phase of a clinical trial.

Dr White's bosses and, it seems, Facebook 'Fact-Checkers' are doing everything in their power to deter you and I from checking out the Post-Marketing Surveillance data. This is real-world data and not the data of a clinical trial setting.

You have to ask yourself, why the suppression?

Those who oppose members of the public who question the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine will, no doubt, continue to post various memes supporting the use of vaccines in adults, children and expectant mothers. Their pious position will be supported with posts and links to celebrities, journalists and ghost-written articles that appear in academic journals. None of these will be flagged by Facebook.

As I said before, Monkey see, monkey do.

As a side-note, I first heard about COVID-19 on January 1st 2020 (Back then it was just known as the "Corona Virus"). I was in Central America at the time and a neighbour of mine invited me over to his place for afternoon drinks. He asked me if I'd heard about the outbreak, he had business in China so was more up-to-speed than I.

A month or so later, I was back in the UK visiting family and friends. Within weeks of me landing back in Blighty, the whole country was locked down. It was then that I wrote a series of predictions. You can see those predictions here. People back then rolled their eyes at me and no doubt those same people will be rolling their eyes at this blog post.

Bob Fiddaman

Update: Dr. Vernon L. Kliewer and the 3 year-old

3 year-old Destiny Hager was prescribed Seroquel and Geodon after being diagnosed with bi-polar by pediatric psychiatrist Dr. Vernon L. Kliewer of Kansas.

Following on from my previous post about 3 year-old Destiny Hager. [Pictured]

Destiny was prescribed Seroquel and Geodon after being diagnosed with bi-polar by pediatric psychiatrist Dr. Vernon L. Kliewer of Kansas.

Destiny died of fecal impaction and had “antipsychotic drugs present in concentrations considered therapeutic in adults.” The dosage of Seroquel was ramped up to 600 milligrams per day by Kliewer.

Kliewer subsequently entered into an agreement with the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts that would restrict his license to practice medicine and surgery by placing that licence on probation.

Kliewer voluntary excluded treating children under the age of six and was ordered to pay costs to the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts of $13,079, about £8,000. [Back Story]

Both Seroquel and Geodon were prescribed off-label in this particular case.

Seroquel is sold and marked in the United States by AstraZeneca.

Geodon is sold and marked in the United States by Pfizer.

Dine and Dash

The drug industry last updated its marketing code in 2002, when it banned “dine and dash” events in which drug makers provided free dinners to doctors who agreed to listen to brief sales pitches.

On the scale of things Kliewer hasn't really received much from the drug industry but he certainly has been entertained by both makers of Seroquel and Geodon.

Statistics, from 2010 to 2012 show that Kliewer was taken for three meals by Geodon reps [Pfizer] and was given a gift or item to the value of $99.

The same statistics show that Kliewer was taken for two meals by Seroquel reps [AstraZeneca].

Here's the list [taken from ProPublica Dollars For Docs Database]

Pfizer - 2010 - Meals - $6
Pfizer - 2010 - Items, Gifts - $99
Pfizer - 2011 - Meals - $85
Pfizer - 2012 - Meals - $99
AstraZeneca - 2011 - Meals - $36
AstraZeneca - 2012 - Meals - $276

Unfortunately the database only starts from 2010. 3 year-old Desting Hager died in 2006. Is it safe to assume that Kliewer had already been targeted by both Pfizer and AstraZeneca reps?

The money isn't really an issue here, it's more of the motive.

Why would Pfizer and AstraZeneca reps entertain a pediatric psychiatrist?


Answers on a postcard please to:

Off-Label Promotional Tactics
A.N.Y Pharmaceutical Company
PO Box 666


Bob Fiddaman

CafePharma Boards

Was browsing through the boards over at CafePharma earlier, I enjoy reading some of the threads on the GlaxoSmithKline page where disgruntled employees, many of them reps, attack the likes of Andrew... [**coughs]...sorry, Sir Andrew Witty.

I'm sure many of the anonymous posters on these boards are legit and are genuinely miffed about the company they work for. Long hours, promises of bonuses, changes in company mantra, promoting drugs off-label to doctors whilst wining and dining them or bringing their staff in coffee from Starbucks or donuts from the company that tell you to 'dunk them'

With what seems like a bitchin' pot of messages to Glaxo it surprises me that none of the disgruntled army of ex and current employees have ever thought about blowing the whistle on those they target.

Sure, it's great to beeatch and off-load your angst against the company but does it really change anything?

Glaxo aren't the only pharmaceutical company that comes under fire, there's different boards for each of the leading pharmaceutical companies, each of which are ladened with current and ex-employees attacking the various policies and management [ahem mismanagement] of the companies they once worked/work for.

I'm writing this in the hope that someone from these boards will pick up on it. By all means carry on bitchin', it makes great reading, but do something about it. Let's face it, the companies you work/ed for don't exactly look after you as they do their key opinion leaders [thought leaders] do they?

When was the last time a rep was given a big, fat meaty cheque for promoting a drug? Okay, they get a wage and, sometimes a bonus [when it's paid on time] but nowhere near to the sums paid to thought leaders such as Karen Wagner, Josef Biederman and/or Marty "bling bling" Keller.

I'd be miffed if I were an employee or ex-employee of major pharmaceutical companies. I'd be pissed at the fact that my employee had used me to promote drugs to children when, in actual fact, my company knew all along that these drugs were not safe for children. I'd be pissed that my company had paid out millions of dollars to thought leaders yet made me work extra-long hours for a mere pittance and a performance based bonus... based on how I could promote drugs for populations that weren't meant for those populations.

I'd be so pissed off with allowing myself to be manipulated by company spin just so I couldn't see the wood through the trees, the dense forest hiding the facts that I had been used as a drug peddler, my objective being to push doctors to prescribe to the vulnerable populations out there... Children.

Hey ho, thankfully I've never been down that road. My conscience is clear.

The bitchin' on CafePharma continues, the main objective, it seems, being just a place to let off steam.

Only way these disgruntled masses can get back at those who treated them with contempt is to start blowing whistles. I'm sure there are many whom have witnessed fraudulent acts against the US government. Whether or not they have been part of these acts is irrelevant - they can and should try to bring about change.

I'm a big fan of US attorneys, Baum Hedlund. They've kicked GlaxoSmithKline's ass to infinity... and beyond on many occasions. They, I'm sure, would welcome employees or ex-employees of big pharma to bitch at them down the phone.

Whistleblower suits are becoming more popular these days, particularly against pharmaceutical companies.

Allen Jones blew the whistle on Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit for promoting the off-label use of Risperdal in children. J&J settled with a payment of $158 million, some of which went Jones' way for blowing the whistle. The settlement came less than a month after J&J officials agreed to pay more than $1 billion to the U.S. and a number of states to end a civil investigation into Risperdal marketing practices.

Cheryl Eckard, who humiliated GlaxoSmithKline with regard to the appalling lapses at their manufacturing plant in Cidra, Puerto Rico, was also paid handsomely for whistleblowing. A cool $96 million went her way.

Helen Ge was a former contractor at Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. She learned that Takeda have been playing down risks of three of their drugs, particularly when combined with other drugs. She was fired from her position when she brought this to the attention of her seniors. She has now filed a whistleblower suit.

The more the merrier, I say.

So, I do hope that this post makes it across cyberspace to CafePharma. I also hope that I can somehow tap into the conscience of those who throw the flames anonymously on the boards over there.

Do what's right. Blow the whistle.

Just click on the image to start the ball rolling.

Alternatively, drop me an email... cos I just love blowing the whistle.






Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE

AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Interview With the Seroquel Lawsuit Blogger

Last week [Sept 4, 2001] I highlighted the story of the Seroquel Lawsuit blogger who has took it upon himself to post the settlement package offered by Seroquel manufacturer's AstraZeneca.

A settlement package is often made in litigation cases whereby the defending party, make an offer of compensation to claimants that have made the allegations against one of its products. It is the norm for that settlement to include no admittance of liability and also a 'gagging order', which prevents those it has made the settlement with, not to speak out publicly.

AstraZeneca have offered a settlement to over 28,000 litigants that are currently part of a group action against the company. The package, which can only be described as derisory, has incensed a number of claimants and has now been posted online and made public. This has further angered AstraZeneca, lawyers representing them and lawyers representing the 28,000+ litigants.

It appears that two offers have been tabled, one by The Miller Firm LLC and one by Weitz & Luxenberg. The litigants have, it appears, also been contacted by Garretson, the court appointed claims administrator.

Moving in the circles I do, I have managed to bag an interview with the anonymous blogger. Rather than chop and use selective quotes, I decided to post the interview 'as is' for your perusal.



What made you create the Seroquel Lawsuit Blog?
The blog was started because there was nothing out there questioning anything to do with this litigation or covering the patient/victim/injured parties perspective besides what the main stream media was being spoon fed by AstraZeneca and law firms.

Here we have a powerful & dangerous antipsychotic drug being mass marketed for everything under the sun by a criminal corporation at the tune of  $5.5 billion a year in profit Couple that fact (that along with similar others drugs), that Seroquel was (and still is) permanently injuring (if not killing) many tens of thousands of people and all we hear, in relationship to this tragedy, is endless drivel about meaningless small fines, and Wall Street dollars figures.

The evidence is overwhelming and well documented that AstraZeneca did and continues to mass market and sell a drug that is unsafe by a litany of nefarious means.Meantime, our government (including the Department of Justice) looks on idol and blinded while taking a small token hush bribe, which has just further emboldened and allowed AstraZeneca to continue their criminal business as usual model, without any admission of guilt or accepting responsibility for the many crimes they have perpetrated upon the citizens of America and people around the globe.

Someone had to speak out - why not the SeroquelLawSuitBlog?

We don't have an epidemic of Psychosis in America after all, what we do have is a population mired down in the mud bog of apathy which allows corporations like AstraZeneca to disease monger and continue their criminal assault upon some of the most vulnerable populations imaginable (our children, elderly, and returning veterans).

Can you list some of the side effects caused by Seroquel?
All anyone needs to do is pull out the latest Seroquel package insert, there are over seventy pages of serious side effects: weight gain, diabetes, sudden death from cardiac related issues, metabolic issues, and the list just goes on and on as more debilitating side effects are being added all the time.

AstraZeneca knew these problems existed, but instead of conducting further testing about the myriad of safety concerns AstraZeneca buried and hid the bad news, while turning this drug over to their marketing department. Still to this day, AstraZeneca is conducting trials that are pushing for, and focused on, broadening/expanding the use of this drug for general consumption by the public. "Shameful" would be a mammoth understatement

Have you been told of the implications in publishing a 'settlement package' online?
I would hope the implication of this blog is that people become informed and knowledgeable to what is actually going on here. This is a criminal corporation that for mere pocket change and an insulting token offer  is about to walk away emboldened, unscathed, and rewarded for their unscrupulous practices. I happen to see this ongoing corporate pharmaceutical industry assault on the public as one of the greatest and horrible crimes of modern times. When you look around at what has conspired in the corporate world, banking, Wall Street, and governments currently and over the past few decades, that's saying a lot.
.
As far as these ambulance chasing law firms go, they have no doubt sold injured parties down the river for their own gain and profit. The numbers don't lie, the public needs to know about these sleazy goings on. Change won't happen until we, the public, demand and force it to happen. The days of America and populations around the world sitting back thinking someone else (the government, the courts, lawyers, FDA, Department of Justice) will take care of these problems for us has long past.

I have nothing to fear, it is quickly coming to the point in time where there will be nothing left for criminal elements to take from us. 'Too Big to Fail' really means too big and corrupted not to fail. Simply, we have a situation that is unsustainable.

If there was one message you could give to claimants in the Seroquel litigation, what would it be?
I would hope Seroquel Claimants would become informed and active participants in this process, look at the evidence, look at the numbers, start questioning, take the time to seriously consider what's really being placed on the table and think for themselves. I would hope each litigant would do a serious gut check, put this litigation and the lawyers to the smell test, follow what's in their hearts...and do the right thing.

In your mind, what would be a reasonable settlement?
That's a tough one, I believe each litigant needs to assess that question based on the level of damage done, losses incurred, suffering endured. Very difficult to place a price tag on permanent damage done to ones health or the death of a loved one.

AstraZeneca has ten billion dollars sitting in cash reserves, that is blood money made upon damaging the health of others. In a just and fair world AstraZeneca would have to place half of that money (5 billion) in a medical trust that would provide ongoing and future medical care to those they have injured ( The general public still don't seem to realize that they, the public tax payer, are being left with the financial burden of caring for those AstraZeneca has harmed). Beyond that, the other 5 billion could be a small start in compensating the victims of AstraZeneca's crimes.

But even more important than the money AstraZeneca needs to openly apologize to each injured victim and the general public while accepting full responsibility for what they have done..

Until that day comes...nothing will really change.


The Seroquel Lawsuit Blog continues to be updated on a regular basis and can be found HERE

"Five thousand dollars isn't going to change anyone's life," Seroquel Lawsuit Blogger

A few days ago I reported on the anonymous Seroquel Lawsuit blogger and his publishing of a settlement package on his blog that has got law firms and pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca running around in circles and wondering how to handle this spanner in their works.

The news is growing and spreading across the Internet pretty fast, Reuters have now posted twice about the anonymous blogger. Reuters latest, Alison Frankel, carries the headline, "Law firms blast disclosure of Seroquel settlement documents" where she interviews the anonymous blogger.

Frankel writes:

I asked the blogger if he was concerned that his posts could derail settlements that many Seroquel plaintiffs want to accept. He said he is not. "Five thousand dollars isn't going to change anyone's life," he told me. "I'm holding a pin, and I'm trying to fend off a herd of charging elephants."

Damn and blast, doncha just love a mental health advocate with balls, humongous balls at that!

The blogger, is pretty much on the ball, his latest offering sees him press the peddle to the floor with a repost of Frankel's article from Reuters, which also includes a cartoon image of an elephant in bed with a mouse!

It would appear that the highly paid law firm, the inbetweeners and AstraZeneca have met their match.

Whoever you are...I salute you.




Fid 


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING 


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Seroquel Blogger Told To "Cease and Desist"

Blogging can be a very useful tool to get under the skin of corporate companies that are used to getting their own way. In the past I, myself, have been sent a threatening letter by GlaxoSmithKline lawyers, Addleshaw Goddard, I apparently upset one of GlaxoSmithKline's employees, Head of Psychiatry, Alastair Benbow because of a video I created and posted to YouTube. According to GSK, Benbow no longer works for them.


More recently Leonie Fennell, who writes about Lundbeck, Cipramil [Celexa] and Irish psychiatrists amongst other things, was sent not one but two letters by Brophy Solicitors, an Irish law firm representing Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey. Casey didn't like what Fennell had wrote about her. Boo hoo.


Now we have an anonymous blogger who writes the Seroquel Lawsuit Blog. Seroquel [Quetiapine], a powerful antipsychotic, is used to treat schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder, it's also prescribed "off label" for an array of other "mental disorders." It has, in the past, also been used for "sleep disorders".

The blog, it appears, was created for victims of AstraZeneca's Seroquel to have a voice, a place to disseminate information, and to bring about awareness. More recently AstraZeneca have offered an out of court settlement to plaintiffs who claim that they have been left with diabetes and other serious injuries after ingesting Seroquel.

A number of posts appeared throughout the month of June that related to that settlement. At the end of June the anonymous blogger publicly posted the settlement package online. This, it would appear, has set the hounds out from lawyers who represent the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, which involves over 28,000 claimants and, according to the Seroquel Lawsuit Blog, each claimant has been offered between $11,000 - $25,000. This seems a paltry amount considering the injuries sustained by the claimants.

At this point it may be beneficial to know that when a settlement is reached, the defendant normally admit no liability.

The trouble with litigation is that it is purely about money. The law firm representing the plaintiffs try and get the best deal possible without actually entering a Courtroom. In this instance the law firm have determined that a figure between $11,000 - $25,000 is suitable compensation for those harmed by Seroquel... or rather those who are part of the group action where no liability is being admitted. The anonymous blogger claims that 40% will be deducted from each amount, which makes the final settlement quite paltry.

The blog is certainly having an impact. On Aug 17 2011 Reuters, the news agency directed readers to the letter Weitz & Luxenberg sent to its Seroquel clients, announcing the group settlement and explaining the allocation process. The letter was uploaded by the anonymous Seroquel Lawsuit blogger.

The whole blog is a minefield of information, much of which has prompted attorney's to contact a litigant in the lawsuit whom they believe to be the source of information behind the blog.

It's interesting to see victims of pharmaceutical products taking a stance like this and shows just how powerful a tool the Internet can be for the small man. Future litigation cases may take into account recent events and pharmaceutical companies, like AstraZeneca, may have to just stop and think before they make such degrading offers to victims harmed by their products.

The Seroquel Lawsuit Blog can be read HERE

The author can be contacted at seroquellawsuitblog@gmail.com

GlaxoSmithKline & AstraZeneca - Voodoo You Think You Are

Image: danse-macabre.net

I had to laugh at a couple of pictures sent into me by a reader. He was walking along Brighton beach front last week and came across a 'Gypsy style' caravan that was offering tarot card readings. On closer inspection of the sign he saw that 'Ivor' had a list of corporate clients, two of which were pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline!

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

I'm left wondering if this is a genuine attempt at 'putting something back' into the public purse or if both GSK and AZ follow the cards from the tarot pack. One would assume that their futures are in their own destiny's. Here's an idea guys, try making your drugs safer and give some respect to the consumers of your products. Oh, and while we are on the subject of respect, try and explain the sense in giving children a drug in a clinical trial when you already know that the drug you are giving them can bring on suicidal thoughts and acts, I think you call it "emotional liability."

Maybe GSK should consider 'putting something back' by setting up detox clinics so patients can taper safely and effectively off their addictive antidepressant Seroxat or maybe some sort of counselling service to those left behind whose children, brothers, sisters, husbands and wives have committed suicide as a result of Seroxat use. Furthermore, they could offer it to parents whose children have been born with heart defects as a result of the expectant mother taking Seroxat during her pregnancy.

They could offer the same counselling to family members whose loved ones have died from heart attacks after taking their diabetes drug Avandia.

Maybe AstraZeneca could really help the community by offering lump sums of money to children's families who have been harmed as a result of taking their atypical antipsychotic Seroquel - hey, wouldn't they feel so much better helping families rather than promoting and paying kickbacks to Doctors for prescribing the drug for unapproved uses.

Just a thought.


Fid

Read the new book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal

ORDER THE PAPERBACK - 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT [PAXIL] SCANDAL'

US/CANADA COPIES HERE OR UK/IRELAND FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

The name's MacFadden... Wayne MacFadden

Interesting to note that many bloggers have been writing about AstraZeneca's very own Casanova, Wayne MacFadden.

MacFadden, apparently offered sexual favours in return for 'privy information'.

How times have changed.

Maybe I'm a sexist pig but I always thought it was women who lured men, after all most men think with their dicks don't they? [Answers on a postcard please]

Anyway, a few mentions here.

Phil Dawdy over at Furious Seasons writes:

"Now, a new tale of conflict of interest has cropped up, one involving a senior medical official at AstraZeneca responsible for the drug Seroquel who had sexual relationships with a British researcher, who studied the drug and wrote positively of it, and with an American medical ghostwriter, who among other things assisted in writing two published academic papers known as BOLDER I and BOLDER II, in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2005 and the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology in 2006 that were at the heart of Seroquel's 2006 approval by the FDA for bipolar depression. According to court records, there is evidence Macfadden gave one of the women prescription painkillers and exchanged emails with them showing relationship of "control and dependence."

Brazilian blogger Ana links in with Phil Dawdy's article with the headline, Wayne MacFadden - "Say Seroquel is good, baby!" She writes:

"It seems that in the future we will have some amazing X-rated novels on psychiatrists, researchers, key opinion leaders, ghost-writers... the whole brothel. "The confessions of a psychiatrist" was written in 1954 but is about doctor-patient relationship. Wow! What a relief that plenty other characters will be in action. I guess writers have already a good start with Wayne MacFadden's story."

Last... but not least, Steph over at Soulful Sepulcher, cleverly links in a certain Martin Brecher. She writes:

"Martin Brecher used to work at GSK (Paxil/Seroxat) and then moved on to AstraZeneca (Seroquel). Both medications are highly controversial with regard to data being truthful and/or buried and hidden from the public, and both medications have caused alleged bodily harm to patients due to using the drugs."

As early as 2007, my good friend, Truthman, had written about Brecher. Truthman wrote:

"By October of 1990, FDA had decided the issue of suicide on antidepressants was as Martin Brecher of FDA put it: "not .. a real issue, but rather as a public relations problem" (Brecher 1990)(appendix 7). My question is whether CSM/MCA had made a similar decision."

It seems this story isn't going to go away. Fair play to all those that have wrote about MacFadden. As long as you keep writing, I'll keep throwing up the links on here.

Fid

*Pic courtesy of Cecropia Inc - Modified for entertainment purposes

Read the new book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING