Unholy Trinity/ drs, drug companies, insurance companies........

August 21, 2004

" I can tell you this - the problem is not that doctors are " in bed

with " pharmaceutical companies, as Russ states on his site, or that

they wish to keep people sick so they can make more money. "

Well Becca, I think it's only fare that people ask themselves this

question. " When was the last time my doctor CURED me of anything? " I

ask my customers this question all the time, and the answer is always

the same, NEVER! I have helped many people reverse the effects of

many serious systemic infections, some life threatening, where drs

could do nothing for them.

The majority of practitionars are 'mass prescription writers' thats

what they do, suppress symptoms, destroy immune system, and keep

people marginally healthy so they keep coming back for more useless

drugs that don't work. They are not taught nutrition in school, and

they only know what the drug companies want them to know.

The 'Unholy Trinity' (drs, drug companies, and insurance companies)

not in bed together? I think I will let this one speak for itself.

Russ/CL

As Doctors Write Prescriptions, Drug Company Writes a Check

June 27, 2004

By GARDINER HARRIS

The check for $10,000 arrived in the mail unsolicited. The

doctor who received it from the drug maker Schering-Plough

said it was made out to him personally in exchange for an

attached " consulting " agreement that required nothing other

than his commitment to prescribe the company's medicines.

Two other physicians said in separate interviews that they,

too, received checks unbidden from Schering-Plough, one of

the world's biggest drug companies.

" I threw mine away, " said the first doctor, who spoke on

the condition of anonymity because of concern about being

drawn into a federal inquiry into the matter.

Those checks and others, some of them said to be for

six-figure sums, are under investigation by federal

prosecutors in Boston as part of a broad government

crackdown on the drug industry's marketing tactics. Just

about every big global drug company - including Johnson &

Johnson, Wyeth and Bristol-Myers Squibb - has disclosed in

securities filings that it has received a federal subpoena,

and most are juggling subpoenas stemming from several

investigations.

The details of the Schering-Plough tactics, gleaned from

interviews with 20 doctors, as well as industry executives

and people close to the investigation, shed light on the

shadowy system of financial lures that pharmaceutical

companies have used to persuade physicians to favor their

drugs.

Schering-Plough's tactics, these people said, included

paying doctors large sums to prescribe its drug for

hepatitis C and to take part in company-sponsored clinical

trials that were little more than thinly disguised

marketing efforts that required little effort on the

doctors' part. Doctors who demonstrated disloyalty by

testing other company's drugs, or even talking favorably

about them, risked being barred from the Schering-Plough

money stream.

Schering-Plough says that the activities under

investigation occurred before its new chief executive, Fred

Hassan, arrived in April 2003, and that it has overhauled

its marketing to eliminate inducements.

At the heart of the various investigations into drug

industry marketing is the question of whether drug

companies are persuading doctors - often through payoffs -

to prescribe drugs that patients do not need or should not

use or for which there may be cheaper alternatives.

Investigators are also seeking to determine whether the

companies are manipulating prices to cheat the federal

Medicaid and Medicare health programs. Most of the big drug

companies, meanwhile, are also grappling with a welter of

suits filed by state attorneys general, industry

whistle-blowers and patient-rights groups over similar

accusations.

In many ways, the investigations are a response to the

evolution of the pharmaceutical business, which has grown

in the last quarter-century from a small group of companies

peddling a few antibiotics and antianxiety remedies to a

$400 billion bemoth that is among the most profitable

industries on earth.

Offering treatments for almost any affliction and facing

competition in which each percentage point of market share

can represent tens of millions of dollars, most drug makers

now spend twice as much marketing medicines as they do

researching them. Their sales teams have changed from a

scattering of semiretired pharmacists to armies of young

women and men who shower physicians with attention, food

and - until the drug industry recently agreed to end the

practice - expensive gifts, just to get two to three

minutes to pitch their wares. A code of conduct adopted in

1990 by the American Medical Association suggests that

doctors should not accept any gift worth more than $100,

but the guidelines are widely ignored.

A quarter-century ago, the Food and Drug Administration was

the lone cop on the drug industry beat. But the F.D.A.'s

enforcement powers over drug marketing have been severely

curbed since 1976 by a series of court rulings based mainly

on the companies' free-speech rights. That left a vacuum

that many companies decided to exploit, said William Vodra,

a former F.D.A. lawyer.

" A lot of people decided there was no check on what they

were allowed to do, " Mr. Vodra said. Using fraud, kickback

and antitrust statutes, federal prosecutors, state

attorneys general and plaintiffs lawyers stepped into the

void, asserting that the companies' sales pitches have cost

the government billions of dollars in payments for drug

benefits.

This legal scrutiny can be expected to intensify. Once the

new Medicare drug benefit takes full effect in 2006, the

government will pay for almost half of all medicines sold

in the nation. So the marketing programs will cost the

government even more money and, if they are uncovered and

determined to be illegal, will probably result in even

larger fines.

Last month, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million and pleaded

guilty to criminal charges involving the marketing of the

pain drug Nuerontin by the company's Warner-Lambert unit.

AstraZeneca paid $355 million last year and TAP

Pharmaceuticals paid $875 million in 2001; each pleaded

guilty to criminal charges of fraud for inducing physicians

to bill the government for some drugs that the company gave

the doctors free.

Over the last two years, Schering-Plough, which had sales

of $8.33 billion last year, has set aside a total of $500

million to cover its legal problems - mainly for expected

fines from the Boston investigation and from a separate

inquiry by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia who are

investigating whether Schering-Plough overcharged Medicaid.

Besides looking into whether Schering-Plough paid doctors

large sums to prescribe the company's drug for hepatitis C,

prosecutors are investigating whether many

company-sponsored clinical trials for the drug were simply

another way to funnel money to doctors.

Dr. Chris Pappas, director of clinical research for St.

Luke's Texas Liver Institute in Houston, said that

Schering-Plough " flooded the market with pseudo-trials. "

Dr. Pappas and eight other liver specialists who were

interviewed say the system worked like this:

Schering-Plough paid physicians $1,000 to $1,500 per

patient for prescribing Intron A, the company's hepatitis C

treatment. In conventional clinical trials, participants

are given drugs free, but the doctors said that in these

cases the patients or insurers paid for their medication.

Because patients usually undergo Intron A treatment for

nearly a year and the therapy costs thousands of dollars,

Schering-Plough's payments to physicians left plenty of

room for the company to profit handsomely, the doctors

said.

In return for the fees, physicians were supposed to collect

data on their patients' progress and pass it along to

Schering-Plough, the doctors said. But many physicians were

not diligent about their recordkeeping, and the company did

little to insist on accurate data, according to Dr. Pappas

and the others.

One of the nation's most prominent liver disease

specialists, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear

of angering big drug makers, called the trials " purely

marketing gimmicks. "

" Science and marketing should not be mixed like that, " the

doctor said.

Schering-Plough did more than encourage physicians to place

patients on Intron A, many of the physicians said. They

said the company would remove any doctor from its clinical

program - and shut off the money spigot - if he or she

wrote prescriptions for competing drugs, participated in

clinical trials of alternatives to Intron A or even spoke

favorably about treatments besides Intron A.

The main competitor to Intron A, which Schering-Plough now

sells as Peg-Intron, is Roche's comparably priced drug

Pegasys.

Dr. Donald Jensen, the hepatology director at Rush

University Medical Center in Chicago, said he wanted to

perform clinical trials using drugs from both

Schering-Plough and Roche. " I was told by Schering-Plough

that I couldn't do both - that I had to sign an exclusive

agreement with them, " Dr. Jensen said. " That was the

juncture when Schering and I parted ways. "

Six specialists in liver disease said Schering-Plough also

paid what it called consulting fees to doctors to keep them

loyal to the company's products. The letter accompanying a

check for $10,000 explained that the money was for

consulting services that were detailed on an accompanying

" Schedule A, " said a doctor who insisted on anonymity. But

when the doctor turned to the attached sheet, he said,

" Schedule A " were the only words printed on an otherwise

blank sheet of paper.

Dr. Pappas, who in the past has consulted for

Schering-Plough and worked for Roche, said that stories

about the enormous sums that Schering-Plough paid its

consultants were common among liver specialists. " These

were very high-value consulting agreements with selected

opinion leaders that looked like payments of money with no

clear agreements on what was supposed to be executed, " Dr.

Pappas said.

In an interview, Mr. Hassan and other top executives

declined to discuss past marketing practices. Richard

Kogan, the company's previous chairman and chief executive,

declined to be interviewed.

Schering-Plough's current management says that much has

changed at the company since Mr. Hassan took over. The

company no longer allows sales representatives or marketing

executives to have any say over its clinical trials,

physician education or medical consulting, they said. And

in all clinical trials begun in the last year, they said,

drugs have been provided free to the enrolled patients,

rather than being billed to them or their insurers.

" The temptation to give clinical grants to high prescribers

and consulting agreements to high prescribers is why we

pulled those decisions out of the hands of the sales

representatives, " said Brent Saunders, who was named senior

vice president for compliance and business practices last

year. " Sales representatives had an input into that process

before, which I think is still fairly normal in the

industry. "

In the separate Philadelphia investigation, Schering-Plough

is expected to plead guilty soon to charges that it failed

to provide Medicaid with its lowest drug prices, as is

required by law, and to pay a fine. Investigators are

examining whether Schering-Plough, to gain sales with some

private insurers, offered premiums, such as free patient

consulting arrangements, with its drugs. Prosecutors are

arguing that such incentives had a market value and meant

that Schering-Plough was offering drugs to private payers

at prices well below those offered to Medicaid. Many other

drug companies are the targets of similar inquiries.

The Boston inquiry into suspected kickbacks and improper

marketing by Schering-Plough could take months more to

resolve, people close to the investigation say.

Schering-Plough may also be charged with obstruction of

justice and document destruction as part of the Boston

inquiry, according to the company's filings with securities

regulators.

Industry experts say the federal inquiries into

Schering-Plough and the other drug giants have led some

companies to adopt significant changes in the way they

peddle drugs to doctors. Other companies have been slower

to react. " These investigations came out of left field, and

no one saw them coming, " said Peter Barton Hutt, a former

F.D.A. general counsel who now advises drug companies. " The

industry has since had to reshape entirely what they are

doing, but it was too late to redo what they'd been doing

for years. "

Tony Farino, leader of the pharmaceutical consulting

service at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that as a result of

the investigations many companies in the drug industry were

hiring executives to police marketing and sales practices.

" Reputational risk is something they're all trying to

manage, " Mr. Farino said, " because the damages from failure

can be significant. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/business/27DRUG.final.html?ex=1089309139 & e

i=1 & en=97e21a324ed1ff21

, saba2r@a... wrote:

> I'm not intending to argue about this, but what bugged me was the

either/or mentality from some posters. All doctors bad - only

alternative medicine good. That is a dangerous opinion and it's scary

to think a person who needs medical attention would turn away from it

because they listened to that.

>

> Nowhere have I stated that I don't understand the dangers of

antibiotics. There is that either/or thing again. One of my points

was that understanding the problems they have caused does not rule

them out in situations where they are warranted. I can tell you this

- the problem is not that doctors are " in bed with " pharmaceutical

companies, as Russ states on his site, or that they wish to keep

people sick so they can make more money. Most physicians are

extremely intelligent. If all they wanted was money, they could make

ten times as much in the corporate world. I do agree that pharm

companies are in it for money - they are businesses. So let's

dispense with the evil doctor horror scenarios.

>

> Why would you feel I wouldn't " admit " ignorance? That is an

obnoxious statement. Many physicians are open to learning more about

alternative treatments. They also must constantly fight off the

ignorant *patients*, who demand medications/treatments they don't need.

>

> Let's keep in mind that a lot of folks here are pushing products

because THEY are attempting to make money and sell stuff. Let's not

be hypocrites.

>

> I'm here because I firmly believe in a return to natural remedies.

(However, thank God for modern medicine in a lot of situations). I

think everyone should share what works for them. I've been a little

dismayed by the " No, that doesn't work " , " Yes it worked for me " , " My

stuff is the only thing that works " , etc etc. A little hard to sort

out. We are supposed to have " Peaceful Minds " .

>

> Becca

>

> In a message dated 8/19/2004 9:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

" johndson2600 " <johndson2600> writes:

>

> > I don't think that anyone here would dispute the value of

> >antibiotics in situations such as septicemia.

> > The truth of the matter is though that antibiotics are given

> >routinely by vast majority of MD's,DO,s,physician assistant,nurse

> >practioneers and the like for the simple reason of ignorance of

> >alternative treatments.

> > I seriously doubt that I will get you to admit there is any

> >ignorance in the allopathic community.

> > Just this past week I saw a 51 yo man die because of misuse of

> >antibiotics and a 22 yo indian woman rendered sterile for the same

> >reason.I am not,at this moment going to explain the pathophysiolgy of

> >either case,but you can bet these cases are just the tip of the

> >iceberg.

> > The root cause of the onset of most sinus problems are allergys.

> > Dr John D. Son NMD.

> > , saba2r@a... wrote:

> >> I believe the root cause of the sinus problems must be found. It's

> >not a simple A B C for everyone. The word " infection " was brought up

> >initially, which is why I posted that antibiotics indeed might be in

> >order in some cases. We could go back and forth all day with

> >stories - antibiotics are " bad " , but just as the lady posted about

> >her daughter damaged by vaccines, I can tell you that my husband

> >would be dead if it were not for antibiotics, due to a massive

> >septicemia. I think we should avoid the this is good and that is

> >bad, etc. stuff. Herbs and natural remedies can be " bad " if

> >misused. The word " infection " should not be used to describe all

> >sinus problems. Some people may in fact be suffering from

> >allergies. And so on. Everyone needs to determine what works for

> >their particular problem.

> >>

> >> Becca

> >>

> >> In a message dated 8/15/2004 10:21:41 AM Eastern Daylight

> >Time, " johndson2600 " <johndson2600> writes:

> >>

> >> >

> >> > I am an intergrative medical school educated physician who

> >> >specializes in Chelation and other IV therapies.In regard to sinus

> >> >infection the best treatment is that as described in post #10107.

> >> > Of course,methods used to rebuild the immune system-such as IV

> >> >administration of vitamins,minerals and amion acids-as well as PO

> >use

> >> >of herbs- are vitally important to living a long and disease free

> >> >life.Another thing that should be mentioned is gluten

> >intolerance.I

> >> >would estimate that maybe at the most 5-10 % of people who have a

> >> >sensitivity to gluten are aware of it.Avoidance of gluten-which is

> >> >very difficult to do-is sometimes the first and biggest step to

> >> >rebuilding your immune system.Another important step-getting rid

> >of

> >> >parasites-is important.Every dog,cat,and cow in the world has

> >> >parasites.Why would anyone think that humans are different in

> >terms

> >> >of biology.Don't trust your allopath and his lab to diagnose the

> >> >situation either.

> >> > Sincerely,Dr John D. Son NMD

> >> > , gkbmusic@a... wrote:

> >> >> Try an Intergrative MD They are amazing! Find someone who uses

> >IV

> >> >Therapy to

> >> >> rebuild the system with vitamins & supplements ..

> >> >> I am having amazing results!

> >> >>

> >> >> and I have had awful doc experiences my entire life .. I am

> >now

> >> >42 . .

> >> >> wishing love & prayers. .

> >

August 24, 2004

I have to say- I've had MD's fix broken 3 arms, stitch a huge gash in

my leg, help deliver a baby, etc.- that helped. One removed my gall

bladder, which " fixed " the problem though I doubt that that extreme

needed to be taken.

However, I've never had an alternative doc help me. They're insanely

expensive and they like to ramble on and on and on about stuff that

is completely irrevelant to me. Like I'm trying to find a solution

to the psoriasis I have, went to a well recommended alternative doc,

and he rambled on and on about how he's interested in aloe vera pills

and the concentration and blah, blah, blah.... 60 bucks later, I have

no solution because the aloe vera pills are prohibitively

expensive.

I went through a similar thing with a foster dog that has seizures

that I saw a well recommended alternative vet for. Ramble, ramble,

ramble... lots of misinformation (like it's ok to feed a dog cooked

bones).... a homeopathic solution....$180 bill.... and his remedies

didn't help in the slightest.

I have to agree with Becca that everyone goes on and on about just go

to an alternative doc and everything will be ok. Well, I've tried

both alternative and MD's and as far as I can tell, the only real

solution is to educate yourself and figure things out that way. It's

much cheaper.

I don't like the perspective regular MD's have- the " attack the germ "

idea. But I respect them and don't believe that the majority are in

cohoots with pharmaceutical companies. They just really believe the

drugs work. And some do. But with side effects. And I understand

why they've gotten where they are. because they're tired of beating

their head against the wall trying to get lazy americans to change

their habits --- americans just want a drug, an easy solution. they

don't want to be told they've got to exercise and eat less to lose

weight- they want a drug. they don't want to be told that to get

sick less, they need to sleep more and eat better- they want

antibiotics, or a flu shot, or whatever. I've had some luck with

MD's just coming out and saying " hey, I'll change my habits, but I

won't fill any Rx that you give me. " And then they come up with

other ideas.

Krissy

, " russnhs " <ccruss@i...>

wrote:

>

> " I can tell you this - the problem is not that doctors are " in bed

> with " pharmaceutical companies, as Russ states on his site, or that

> they wish to keep people sick so they can make more money. "

>

> Well Becca, I think it's only fare that people ask themselves this

> question. " When was the last time my doctor CURED me of anything? "

I

> ask my customers this question all the time, and the answer is

always

> the same, NEVER! I have helped many people reverse the effects of

> many serious systemic infections, some life threatening, where drs

> could do nothing for them.

> The majority of practitionars are 'mass prescription writers' thats

> what they do, suppress symptoms, destroy immune system, and keep

> people marginally healthy so they keep coming back for more useless

> drugs that don't work. They are not taught nutrition in school, and

> they only know what the drug companies want them to know.

>

> The 'Unholy Trinity' (drs, drug companies, and insurance companies)

> not in bed together? I think I will let this one speak for itself.

> Russ/CL

>

> As Doctors Write Prescriptions, Drug Company Writes a Check

>

> June 27, 2004

> By GARDINER HARRIS

>

> The check for $10,000 arrived in the mail unsolicited. The

> doctor who received it from the drug maker Schering-Plough

> said it was made out to him personally in exchange for an

> attached " consulting " agreement that required nothing other

> than his commitment to prescribe the company's medicines.

> Two other physicians said in separate interviews that they,

> too, received checks unbidden from Schering-Plough, one of

> the world's biggest drug companies.

>

> " I threw mine away, " said the first doctor, who spoke on

> the condition of anonymity because of concern about being

> drawn into a federal inquiry into the matter.

>

> Those checks and others, some of them said to be for

> six-figure sums, are under investigation by federal

> prosecutors in Boston as part of a broad government

> crackdown on the drug industry's marketing tactics. Just

> about every big global drug company - including Johnson &

> Johnson, Wyeth and Bristol-Myers Squibb - has disclosed in

> securities filings that it has received a federal subpoena,

> and most are juggling subpoenas stemming from several

> investigations.

>

> The details of the Schering-Plough tactics, gleaned from

> interviews with 20 doctors, as well as industry executives

> and people close to the investigation, shed light on the

> shadowy system of financial lures that pharmaceutical

> companies have used to persuade physicians to favor their

> drugs.

>

> Schering-Plough's tactics, these people said, included

> paying doctors large sums to prescribe its drug for

> hepatitis C and to take part in company-sponsored clinical

> trials that were little more than thinly disguised

> marketing efforts that required little effort on the

> doctors' part. Doctors who demonstrated disloyalty by

> testing other company's drugs, or even talking favorably

> about them, risked being barred from the Schering-Plough

> money stream.

>

> Schering-Plough says that the activities under

> investigation occurred before its new chief executive, Fred

> Hassan, arrived in April 2003, and that it has overhauled

> its marketing to eliminate inducements.

>

> At the heart of the various investigations into drug

> industry marketing is the question of whether drug

> companies are persuading doctors - often through payoffs -

> to prescribe drugs that patients do not need or should not

> use or for which there may be cheaper alternatives.

> Investigators are also seeking to determine whether the

> companies are manipulating prices to cheat the federal

> Medicaid and Medicare health programs. Most of the big drug

> companies, meanwhile, are also grappling with a welter of

> suits filed by state attorneys general, industry

> whistle-blowers and patient-rights groups over similar

> accusations.

>

> In many ways, the investigations are a response to the

> evolution of the pharmaceutical business, which has grown

> in the last quarter-century from a small group of companies

> peddling a few antibiotics and antianxiety remedies to a

> $400 billion bemoth that is among the most profitable

> industries on earth.

>

> Offering treatments for almost any affliction and facing

> competition in which each percentage point of market share

> can represent tens of millions of dollars, most drug makers

> now spend twice as much marketing medicines as they do

> researching them. Their sales teams have changed from a

> scattering of semiretired pharmacists to armies of young

> women and men who shower physicians with attention, food

> and - until the drug industry recently agreed to end the

> practice - expensive gifts, just to get two to three

> minutes to pitch their wares. A code of conduct adopted in

> 1990 by the American Medical Association suggests that

> doctors should not accept any gift worth more than $100,

> but the guidelines are widely ignored.

>

> A quarter-century ago, the Food and Drug Administration was

> the lone cop on the drug industry beat. But the F.D.A.'s

> enforcement powers over drug marketing have been severely

> curbed since 1976 by a series of court rulings based mainly

> on the companies' free-speech rights. That left a vacuum

> that many companies decided to exploit, said William Vodra,

> a former F.D.A. lawyer.

>

> " A lot of people decided there was no check on what they

> were allowed to do, " Mr. Vodra said. Using fraud, kickback

> and antitrust statutes, federal prosecutors, state

> attorneys general and plaintiffs lawyers stepped into the

> void, asserting that the companies' sales pitches have cost

> the government billions of dollars in payments for drug

> benefits.

>

> This legal scrutiny can be expected to intensify. Once the

> new Medicare drug benefit takes full effect in 2006, the

> government will pay for almost half of all medicines sold

> in the nation. So the marketing programs will cost the

> government even more money and, if they are uncovered and

> determined to be illegal, will probably result in even

> larger fines.

>

> Last month, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million and pleaded

> guilty to criminal charges involving the marketing of the

> pain drug Nuerontin by the company's Warner-Lambert unit.

> AstraZeneca paid $355 million last year and TAP

> Pharmaceuticals paid $875 million in 2001; each pleaded

> guilty to criminal charges of fraud for inducing physicians

> to bill the government for some drugs that the company gave

> the doctors free.

> Over the last two years, Schering-Plough, which had sales

> of $8.33 billion last year, has set aside a total of $500

> million to cover its legal problems - mainly for expected

> fines from the Boston investigation and from a separate

> inquiry by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia who are

> investigating whether Schering-Plough overcharged Medicaid.

>

> Besides looking into whether Schering-Plough paid doctors

> large sums to prescribe the company's drug for hepatitis C,

> prosecutors are investigating whether many

> company-sponsored clinical trials for the drug were simply

> another way to funnel money to doctors.

>

> Dr. Chris Pappas, director of clinical research for St.

> Luke's Texas Liver Institute in Houston, said that

> Schering-Plough " flooded the market with pseudo-trials. "

>

> Dr. Pappas and eight other liver specialists who were

> interviewed say the system worked like this:

> Schering-Plough paid physicians $1,000 to $1,500 per

> patient for prescribing Intron A, the company's hepatitis C

> treatment. In conventional clinical trials, participants

> are given drugs free, but the doctors said that in these

> cases the patients or insurers paid for their medication.

> Because patients usually undergo Intron A treatment for

> nearly a year and the therapy costs thousands of dollars,

> Schering-Plough's payments to physicians left plenty of

> room for the company to profit handsomely, the doctors

> said.

>

> In return for the fees, physicians were supposed to collect

> data on their patients' progress and pass it along to

> Schering-Plough, the doctors said. But many physicians were

> not diligent about their recordkeeping, and the company did

> little to insist on accurate data, according to Dr. Pappas

> and the others.

>

> One of the nation's most prominent liver disease

> specialists, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear

> of angering big drug makers, called the trials " purely

> marketing gimmicks. "

>

> " Science and marketing should not be mixed like that, " the

> doctor said.

>

> Schering-Plough did more than encourage physicians to place

> patients on Intron A, many of the physicians said. They

> said the company would remove any doctor from its clinical

> program - and shut off the money spigot - if he or she

> wrote prescriptions for competing drugs, participated in

> clinical trials of alternatives to Intron A or even spoke

> favorably about treatments besides Intron A.

>

> The main competitor to Intron A, which Schering-Plough now

> sells as Peg-Intron, is Roche's comparably priced drug

> Pegasys.

>

> Dr. Donald Jensen, the hepatology director at Rush

> University Medical Center in Chicago, said he wanted to

> perform clinical trials using drugs from both

> Schering-Plough and Roche. " I was told by Schering-Plough

> that I couldn't do both - that I had to sign an exclusive

> agreement with them, " Dr. Jensen said. " That was the

> juncture when Schering and I parted ways. "

>

> Six specialists in liver disease said Schering-Plough also

> paid what it called consulting fees to doctors to keep them

> loyal to the company's products. The letter accompanying a

> check for $10,000 explained that the money was for

> consulting services that were detailed on an accompanying

> " Schedule A, " said a doctor who insisted on anonymity. But

> when the doctor turned to the attached sheet, he said,

> " Schedule A " were the only words printed on an otherwise

> blank sheet of paper.

>

> Dr. Pappas, who in the past has consulted for

> Schering-Plough and worked for Roche, said that stories

> about the enormous sums that Schering-Plough paid its

> consultants were common among liver specialists. " These

> were very high-value consulting agreements with selected

> opinion leaders that looked like payments of money with no

> clear agreements on what was supposed to be executed, " Dr.

> Pappas said.

>

> In an interview, Mr. Hassan and other top executives

> declined to discuss past marketing practices. Richard

> Kogan, the company's previous chairman and chief executive,

> declined to be interviewed.

>

> Schering-Plough's current management says that much has

> changed at the company since Mr. Hassan took over. The

> company no longer allows sales representatives or marketing

> executives to have any say over its clinical trials,

> physician education or medical consulting, they said. And

> in all clinical trials begun in the last year, they said,

> drugs have been provided free to the enrolled patients,

> rather than being billed to them or their insurers.

>

> " The temptation to give clinical grants to high prescribers

> and consulting agreements to high prescribers is why we

> pulled those decisions out of the hands of the sales

> representatives, " said Brent Saunders, who was named senior

> vice president for compliance and business practices last

> year. " Sales representatives had an input into that process

> before, which I think is still fairly normal in the

> industry. "

>

> In the separate Philadelphia investigation, Schering-Plough

> is expected to plead guilty soon to charges that it failed

> to provide Medicaid with its lowest drug prices, as is

> required by law, and to pay a fine. Investigators are

> examining whether Schering-Plough, to gain sales with some

> private insurers, offered premiums, such as free patient

> consulting arrangements, with its drugs. Prosecutors are

> arguing that such incentives had a market value and meant

> that Schering-Plough was offering drugs to private payers

> at prices well below those offered to Medicaid. Many other

> drug companies are the targets of similar inquiries.

>

> The Boston inquiry into suspected kickbacks and improper

> marketing by Schering-Plough could take months more to

> resolve, people close to the investigation say.

> Schering-Plough may also be charged with obstruction of

> justice and document destruction as part of the Boston

> inquiry, according to the company's filings with securities

> regulators.

>

> Industry experts say the federal inquiries into

> Schering-Plough and the other drug giants have led some

> companies to adopt significant changes in the way they

> peddle drugs to doctors. Other companies have been slower

> to react. " These investigations came out of left field, and

> no one saw them coming, " said Peter Barton Hutt, a former

> F.D.A. general counsel who now advises drug companies. " The

> industry has since had to reshape entirely what they are

> doing, but it was too late to redo what they'd been doing

> for years. "

>

> Tony Farino, leader of the pharmaceutical consulting

> service at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that as a result of

> the investigations many companies in the drug industry were

> hiring executives to police marketing and sales practices.

>

> " Reputational risk is something they're all trying to

> manage, " Mr. Farino said, " because the damages from failure

> can be significant. "

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/business/27DRUG.final.html?

ex=1089309139 & e

> i=1 & en=97e21a324ed1ff21

>

, saba2r@a... wrote:

> > I'm not intending to argue about this, but what bugged me was the

> either/or mentality from some posters. All doctors bad - only

> alternative medicine good. That is a dangerous opinion and it's

scary

> to think a person who needs medical attention would turn away from

it

> because they listened to that.

> >

> > Nowhere have I stated that I don't understand the dangers of

> antibiotics. There is that either/or thing again. One of my points

> was that understanding the problems they have caused does not rule

> them out in situations where they are warranted. I can tell you

this

> - the problem is not that doctors are " in bed with " pharmaceutical

> companies, as Russ states on his site, or that they wish to keep

> people sick so they can make more money. Most physicians are

> extremely intelligent. If all they wanted was money, they could

make

> ten times as much in the corporate world. I do agree that pharm

> companies are in it for money - they are businesses. So let's

> dispense with the evil doctor horror scenarios.

> >

> > Why would you feel I wouldn't " admit " ignorance? That is an

> obnoxious statement. Many physicians are open to learning more

about

> alternative treatments. They also must constantly fight off the

> ignorant *patients*, who demand medications/treatments they don't

need.

> >

> > Let's keep in mind that a lot of folks here are pushing products

> because THEY are attempting to make money and sell stuff. Let's not

> be hypocrites.

> >

> > I'm here because I firmly believe in a return to natural

remedies.

> (However, thank God for modern medicine in a lot of situations). I

> think everyone should share what works for them. I've been a little

> dismayed by the " No, that doesn't work " , " Yes it worked for me " , " My

> stuff is the only thing that works " , etc etc. A little hard to sort

> out. We are supposed to have " Peaceful Minds " .

> >

> > Becca

> >

> > In a message dated 8/19/2004 9:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> " johndson2600 " <johndson2600> writes:

> >

> > > I don't think that anyone here would dispute the value of

> > >antibiotics in situations such as septicemia.

> > > The truth of the matter is though that antibiotics are given

> > >routinely by vast majority of MD's,DO,s,physician

assistant,nurse

> > >practioneers and the like for the simple reason of ignorance of

> > >alternative treatments.

> > > I seriously doubt that I will get you to admit there is any

> > >ignorance in the allopathic community.

> > > Just this past week I saw a 51 yo man die because of misuse of

> > >antibiotics and a 22 yo indian woman rendered sterile for the

same

> > >reason.I am not,at this moment going to explain the

pathophysiolgy of

> > >either case,but you can bet these cases are just the tip of the

> > >iceberg.

> > > The root cause of the onset of most sinus problems are allergys.

> > > Dr John D. Son NMD.

> > > , saba2r@a... wrote:

> > >> I believe the root cause of the sinus problems must be found.

It's

> > >not a simple A B C for everyone. The word " infection " was

brought up

> > >initially, which is why I posted that antibiotics indeed might

be in

> > >order in some cases. We could go back and forth all day with

> > >stories - antibiotics are " bad " , but just as the lady posted

about

> > >her daughter damaged by vaccines, I can tell you that my husband

> > >would be dead if it were not for antibiotics, due to a massive

> > >septicemia. I think we should avoid the this is good and that

is

> > >bad, etc. stuff. Herbs and natural remedies can be " bad " if

> > >misused. The word " infection " should not be used to describe

all

> > >sinus problems. Some people may in fact be suffering from

> > >allergies. And so on. Everyone needs to determine what works

for

> > >their particular problem.

> > >>

> > >> Becca

> > >>

> > >> In a message dated 8/15/2004 10:21:41 AM Eastern Daylight

> > >Time, " johndson2600 " <johndson2600> writes:

> > >>

> > >> >

> > >> > I am an intergrative medical school educated physician who

> > >> >specializes in Chelation and other IV therapies.In regard to

sinus

> > >> >infection the best treatment is that as described in post

#10107.

> > >> > Of course,methods used to rebuild the immune system-such as

IV

> > >> >administration of vitamins,minerals and amion acids-as well

as PO

> > >use

> > >> >of herbs- are vitally important to living a long and disease

free

> > >> >life.Another thing that should be mentioned is gluten

> > >intolerance.I

> > >> >would estimate that maybe at the most 5-10 % of people who

have a

> > >> >sensitivity to gluten are aware of it.Avoidance of gluten-

which is

> > >> >very difficult to do-is sometimes the first and biggest step

to

> > >> >rebuilding your immune system.Another important step-getting

rid

> > >of

> > >> >parasites-is important.Every dog,cat,and cow in the world has

> > >> >parasites.Why would anyone think that humans are different in

> > >terms

> > >> >of biology.Don't trust your allopath and his lab to diagnose

the

> > >> >situation either.

> > >> > Sincerely,Dr John D. Son NMD

> > >> > , gkbmusic@a...

wrote:

> > >> >> Try an Intergrative MD They are amazing! Find someone who

uses

> > >IV

> > >> >Therapy to

> > >> >> rebuild the system with vitamins & supplements ..

> > >> >> I am having amazing results!

> > >> >>

> > >> >> and I have had awful doc experiences my entire life .. I

am

> > >now

> > >> >42 . .

> > >> >> wishing love & prayers. .

> > >

August 24, 2004

I am saddened by Krissy's close-minded thinking here... (I believe you are sadly mistaken sweetie...)

Today, more than ever, people want to use alternative help because it makes good sense! Some Doctors are in "cohoots with pharmaceutical companies".

Most people today get that a good (properly combined organic) diet/regular exercise/and rest will bring the body back to it's natural state.

(And that most quick fix pill programs don't work)...

Please please please... rethink your stand and as you said allow others to figure it out for them selves.

Love and Light,

A friend,

Sean B

krissy_texas [krissy_texas]Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:07 AM Subject: Re: Unholy Trinity/ drs, drug companies, insurance companies........I have to say- I've had MD's fix broken 3 arms, stitch a huge gash in my leg, help deliver a baby, etc.- that helped. One removed my gall bladder, which "fixed" the problem though I doubt that that extreme needed to be taken.However, I've never had an alternative doc help me. They're insanely expensive and they like to ramble on and on and on about stuff that is completely irrevelant to me. Like I'm trying to find a solution to the psoriasis I have, went to a well recommended alternative doc, and he rambled on and on about how he's interested in aloe vera pills and the concentration and blah, blah, blah.... 60 bucks later, I have no solution because the aloe vera pills are prohibitively expensive. I went through a similar thing with a foster dog that has seizures that I saw a well recommended alternative vet for. Ramble, ramble, ramble... lots of misinformation (like it's ok to feed a dog cooked bones).... a homeopathic solution....$180 bill.... and his remedies didn't help in the slightest.I have to agree with Becca that everyone goes on and on about just go to an alternative doc and everything will be ok. Well, I've tried both alternative and MD's and as far as I can tell, the only real solution is to educate yourself and figure things out that way. It's much cheaper.I don't like the perspective regular MD's have- the "attack the germ" idea. But I respect them and don't believe that the majority are in cohoots with pharmaceutical companies. They just really believe the drugs work. And some do. But with side effects. And I understand why they've gotten where they are. because they're tired of beating their head against the wall trying to get lazy americans to change their habits --- americans just want a drug, an easy solution. they don't want to be told they've got to exercise and eat less to lose weight- they want a drug. they don't want to be told that to get sick less, they need to sleep more and eat better- they want antibiotics, or a flu shot, or whatever. I've had some luck with MD's just coming out and saying "hey, I'll change my habits, but I won't fill any Rx that you give me." And then they come up with other ideas.Krissy , "russnhs" <ccruss@i...> wrote:> > "I can tell you this - the problem is not that doctors are "in bed> with" pharmaceutical companies, as Russ states on his site, or that> they wish to keep people sick so they can make more money."> > > Well Becca, I think it's only fare that people ask themselves this> question. "When was the last time my doctor CURED me of anything?" I> ask my customers this question all the time, and the answer is always> the same, NEVER! I have helped many people reverse the effects of> many serious systemic infections, some life threatening, where drs> could do nothing for them. > The majority of practitionars are 'mass prescription writers' thats> what they do, suppress symptoms, destroy immune system, and keep> people marginally healthy so they keep coming back for more useless> drugs that don't work. They are not taught nutrition in school, and> they only know what the drug companies want them to know.> > The 'Unholy Trinity' (drs, drug companies, and insurance companies)> not in bed together? I think I will let this one speak for itself.> Russ/CL> > As Doctors Write Prescriptions, Drug Company Writes a Check> > June 27, 2004> By GARDINER HARRIS> > The check for $10,000 arrived in the mail unsolicited. The> doctor who received it from the drug maker Schering-Plough> said it was made out to him personally in exchange for an> attached "consulting" agreement that required nothing other> than his commitment to prescribe the company's medicines.> Two other physicians said in separate interviews that they,> too, received checks unbidden from Schering-Plough, one of> the world's biggest drug companies.> > "I threw mine away," said the first doctor, who spoke on> the condition of anonymity because of concern about being> drawn into a federal inquiry into the matter.> > Those checks and others, some of them said to be for> six-figure sums, are under investigation by federal> prosecutors in Boston as part of a broad government> crackdown on the drug industry's marketing tactics. Just> about every big global drug company - including Johnson & > Johnson, Wyeth and Bristol-Myers Squibb - has disclosed in> securities filings that it has received a federal subpoena,> and most are juggling subpoenas stemming from several> investigations.> > The details of the Schering-Plough tactics, gleaned from> interviews with 20 doctors, as well as industry executives> and people close to the investigation, shed light on the> shadowy system of financial lures that pharmaceutical> companies have used to persuade physicians to favor their> drugs.> > Schering-Plough's tactics, these people said, included> paying doctors large sums to prescribe its drug for> hepatitis C and to take part in company-sponsored clinical> trials that were little more than thinly disguised> marketing efforts that required little effort on the> doctors' part. Doctors who demonstrated disloyalty by> testing other company's drugs, or even talking favorably> about them, risked being barred from the Schering-Plough> money stream.> > Schering-Plough says that the activities under> investigation occurred before its new chief executive, Fred> Hassan, arrived in April 2003, and that it has overhauled> its marketing to eliminate inducements.> > At the heart of the various investigations into drug> industry marketing is the question of whether drug> companies are persuading doctors - often through payoffs -> to prescribe drugs that patients do not need or should not> use or for which there may be cheaper alternatives.> Investigators are also seeking to determine whether the> companies are manipulating prices to cheat the federal> Medicaid and Medicare health programs. Most of the big drug> companies, meanwhile, are also grappling with a welter of> suits filed by state attorneys general, industry> whistle-blowers and patient-rights groups over similar> accusations.> > In many ways, the investigations are a response to the> evolution of the pharmaceutical business, which has grown> in the last quarter-century from a small group of companies> peddling a few antibiotics and antianxiety remedies to a> $400 billion bemoth that is among the most profitable> industries on earth.> > Offering treatments for almost any affliction and facing> competition in which each percentage point of market share> can represent tens of millions of dollars, most drug makers> now spend twice as much marketing medicines as they do> researching them. Their sales teams have changed from a> scattering of semiretired pharmacists to armies of young> women and men who shower physicians with attention, food> and - until the drug industry recently agreed to end the> practice - expensive gifts, just to get two to three> minutes to pitch their wares. A code of conduct adopted in> 1990 by the American Medical Association suggests that> doctors should not accept any gift worth more than $100,> but the guidelines are widely ignored.> > A quarter-century ago, the Food and Drug Administration was> the lone cop on the drug industry beat. But the F.D.A.'s> enforcement powers over drug marketing have been severely> curbed since 1976 by a series of court rulings based mainly> on the companies' free-speech rights. That left a vacuum> that many companies decided to exploit, said William Vodra,> a former F.D.A. lawyer.> > "A lot of people decided there was no check on what they> were allowed to do," Mr. Vodra said. Using fraud, kickback> and antitrust statutes, federal prosecutors, state> attorneys general and plaintiffs lawyers stepped into the> void, asserting that the companies' sales pitches have cost> the government billions of dollars in payments for drug> benefits.> > This legal scrutiny can be expected to intensify. Once the> new Medicare drug benefit takes full effect in 2006, the> government will pay for almost half of all medicines sold> in the nation. So the marketing programs will cost the> government even more money and, if they are uncovered and> determined to be illegal, will probably result in even> larger fines.> > Last month, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million and pleaded> guilty to criminal charges involving the marketing of the> pain drug Nuerontin by the company's Warner-Lambert unit.> AstraZeneca paid $355 million last year and TAP> Pharmaceuticals paid $875 million in 2001; each pleaded> guilty to criminal charges of fraud for inducing physicians> to bill the government for some drugs that the company gave> the doctors free.> Over the last two years, Schering-Plough, which had sales> of $8.33 billion last year, has set aside a total of $500> million to cover its legal problems - mainly for expected> fines from the Boston investigation and from a separate> inquiry by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia who are> investigating whether Schering-Plough overcharged Medicaid.> > Besides looking into whether Schering-Plough paid doctors> large sums to prescribe the company's drug for hepatitis C,> prosecutors are investigating whether many> company-sponsored clinical trials for the drug were simply> another way to funnel money to doctors.> > Dr. Chris Pappas, director of clinical research for St.> Luke's Texas Liver Institute in Houston, said that> Schering-Plough "flooded the market with pseudo-trials."> > Dr. Pappas and eight other liver specialists who were> interviewed say the system worked like this:> Schering-Plough paid physicians $1,000 to $1,500 per> patient for prescribing Intron A, the company's hepatitis C> treatment. In conventional clinical trials, participants> are given drugs free, but the doctors said that in these> cases the patients or insurers paid for their medication.> Because patients usually undergo Intron A treatment for> nearly a year and the therapy costs thousands of dollars,> Schering-Plough's payments to physicians left plenty of> room for the company to profit handsomely, the doctors> said.> > In return for the fees, physicians were supposed to collect> data on their patients' progress and pass it along to> Schering-Plough, the doctors said. But many physicians were> not diligent about their recordkeeping, and the company did> little to insist on accurate data, according to Dr. Pappas> and the others.> > One of the nation's most prominent liver disease> specialists, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear> of angering big drug makers, called the trials "purely> marketing gimmicks."> > "Science and marketing should not be mixed like that," the> doctor said.> > Schering-Plough did more than encourage physicians to place> patients on Intron A, many of the physicians said. They> said the company would remove any doctor from its clinical> program - and shut off the money spigot - if he or she> wrote prescriptions for competing drugs, participated in> clinical trials of alternatives to Intron A or even spoke> favorably about treatments besides Intron A.> > The main competitor to Intron A, which Schering-Plough now> sells as Peg-Intron, is Roche's comparably priced drug> Pegasys.> > Dr. Donald Jensen, the hepatology director at Rush> University Medical Center in Chicago, said he wanted to> perform clinical trials using drugs from both> Schering-Plough and Roche. "I was told by Schering-Plough> that I couldn't do both - that I had to sign an exclusive> agreement with them," Dr. Jensen said. "That was the> juncture when Schering and I parted ways."> > Six specialists in liver disease said Schering-Plough also> paid what it called consulting fees to doctors to keep them> loyal to the company's products. The letter accompanying a> check for $10,000 explained that the money was for> consulting services that were detailed on an accompanying> "Schedule A," said a doctor who insisted on anonymity. But> when the doctor turned to the attached sheet, he said,> "Schedule A" were the only words printed on an otherwise> blank sheet of paper.> > Dr. Pappas, who in the past has consulted for> Schering-Plough and worked for Roche, said that stories> about the enormous sums that Schering-Plough paid its> consultants were common among liver specialists. "These> were very high-value consulting agreements with selected> opinion leaders that looked like payments of money with no> clear agreements on what was supposed to be executed," Dr.> Pappas said.> > In an interview, Mr. Hassan and other top executives> declined to discuss past marketing practices. Richard> Kogan, the company's previous chairman and chief executive,> declined to be interviewed.> > Schering-Plough's current management says that much has> changed at the company since Mr. Hassan took over. The> company no longer allows sales representatives or marketing> executives to have any say over its clinical trials,> physician education or medical consulting, they said. And> in all clinical trials begun in the last year, they said,> drugs have been provided free to the enrolled patients,> rather than being billed to them or their insurers.> > "The temptation to give clinical grants to high prescribers> and consulting agreements to high prescribers is why we> pulled those decisions out of the hands of the sales> representatives," said Brent Saunders, who was named senior> vice president for compliance and business practices last> year. "Sales representatives had an input into that process> before, which I think is still fairly normal in the> industry."> > In the separate Philadelphia investigation, Schering-Plough> is expected to plead guilty soon to charges that it failed> to provide Medicaid with its lowest drug prices, as is> required by law, and to pay a fine. Investigators are> examining whether Schering-Plough, to gain sales with some> private insurers, offered premiums, such as free patient> consulting arrangements, with its drugs. Prosecutors are> arguing that such incentives had a market value and meant> that Schering-Plough was offering drugs to private payers> at prices well below those offered to Medicaid. Many other> drug companies are the targets of similar inquiries.> > The Boston inquiry into suspected kickbacks and improper> marketing by Schering-Plough could take months more to> resolve, people close to the investigation say.> Schering-Plough may also be charged with obstruction of> justice and document destruction as part of the Boston> inquiry, according to the company's filings with securities> regulators.> > Industry experts say the federal inquiries into> Schering-Plough and the other drug giants have led some> companies to adopt significant changes in the way they> peddle drugs to doctors. Other companies have been slower> to react. "These investigations came out of left field, and> no one saw them coming," said Peter Barton Hutt, a former> F.D.A. general counsel who now advises drug companies. "The> industry has since had to reshape entirely what they are> doing, but it was too late to redo what they'd been doing> for years."> > Tony Farino, leader of the pharmaceutical consulting> service at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that as a result of> the investigations many companies in the drug industry were> hiring executives to police marketing and sales practices.> > "Reputational risk is something they're all trying to> manage," Mr. Farino said, "because the damages from failure> can be significant."> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/business/27DRUG.final.html?ex=1089309139 & e> i=1 & en=97e21a324ed1ff21> Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company> > > > > > > > , saba2r@a... wrote:> > I'm not intending to argue about this, but what bugged me was the> either/or mentality from some posters. All doctors bad - only> alternative medicine good. That is a dangerous opinion and it's scary> to think a person who needs medical attention would turn away from it> because they listened to that.> > > > Nowhere have I stated that I don't understand the dangers of> antibiotics. There is that either/or thing again. One of my points> was that understanding the problems they have caused does not rule> them out in situations where they are warranted. I can tell you this> - the problem is not that doctors are "in bed with" pharmaceutical> companies, as Russ states on his site, or that they wish to keep> people sick so they can make more money. Most physicians are> extremely intelligent. If all they wanted was money, they could make> ten times as much in the corporate world. I do agree that pharm> companies are in it for money - they are businesses. So let's> dispense with the evil doctor horror scenarios.> > > > Why would you feel I wouldn't "admit" ignorance? That is an> obnoxious statement. Many physicians are open to learning more about> alternative treatments. They also must constantly fight off the> ignorant *patients*, who demand medications/treatments they don't need.> > > > Let's keep in mind that a lot of folks here are pushing products> because THEY are attempting to make money and sell stuff. Let's not> be hypocrites.> > > > I'm here because I firmly believe in a return to natural remedies. > (However, thank God for modern medicine in a lot of situations). I> think everyone should share what works for them. I've been a little> dismayed by the "No, that doesn't work", "Yes it worked for me", "My> stuff is the only thing that works", etc etc. A little hard to sort> out. We are supposed to have "Peaceful Minds". > > > > Becca> > > > > > > > In a message dated 8/19/2004 9:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,> "johndson2600" <johndson2600> writes:> > > > > I don't think that anyone here would dispute the value of > > >antibiotics in situations such as septicemia.> > > The truth of the matter is though that antibiotics are given > > >routinely by vast majority of MD's,DO,s,physician assistant,nurse > > >practioneers and the like for the simple reason of ignorance of > > >alternative treatments.> > > I seriously doubt that I will get you to admit there is any > > >ignorance in the allopathic community.> > > Just this past week I saw a 51 yo man die because of misuse of > > >antibiotics and a 22 yo indian woman rendered sterile for the same > > >reason.I am not,at this moment going to explain the pathophysiolgy of > > >either case,but you can bet these cases are just the tip of the > > >iceberg.> > > The root cause of the onset of most sinus problems are allergys.> > > Dr John D. Son NMD.> > > , saba2r@a... wrote:> > >> I believe the root cause of the sinus problems must be found. It's > > >not a simple A B C for everyone. The word "infection" was brought up > > >initially, which is why I posted that antibiotics indeed might be in > > >order in some cases. We could go back and forth all day with > > >stories - antibiotics are "bad", but just as the lady posted about > > >her daughter damaged by vaccines, I can tell you that my husband > > >would be dead if it were not for antibiotics, due to a massive > > >septicemia. I think we should avoid the this is good and that is > > >bad, etc. stuff. Herbs and natural remedies can be "bad" if > > >misused. The word "infection" should not be used to describe all > > >sinus problems. Some people may in fact be suffering from > > >allergies. And so on. Everyone needs to determine what works for > > >their particular problem.> > >> > > >> Becca> > >> > > >> In a message dated 8/15/2004 10:21:41 AM Eastern Daylight > > >Time, "johndson2600" <johndson2600> writes:> > >> > > >> >> > >> > I am an intergrative medical school educated physician who > > >> >specializes in Chelation and other IV therapies.In regard to sinus > > >> >infection the best treatment is that as described in post #10107.> > >> > Of course,methods used to rebuild the immune system-such as IV > > >> >administration of vitamins,minerals and amion acids-as well as PO > > >use > > >> >of herbs- are vitally important to living a long and disease free > > >> >life.Another thing that should be mentioned is gluten > > >intolerance.I > > >> >would estimate that maybe at the most 5-10 % of people who have a > > >> >sensitivity to gluten are aware of it.Avoidance of gluten-which is > > >> >very difficult to do-is sometimes the first and biggest step to > > >> >rebuilding your immune system.Another important step-getting rid > > >of > > >> >parasites-is important.Every dog,cat,and cow in the world has > > >> >parasites.Why would anyone think that humans are different in > > >terms > > >> >of biology.Don't trust your allopath and his lab to diagnose the > > >> >situation either.> > >> > Sincerely,Dr John D. Son NMD> > >> > , gkbmusic@a... wrote:> > >> >> Try an Intergrative MD They are amazing! Find someone who uses > > >IV > > >> >Therapy to > > >> >> rebuild the system with vitamins & supplements .. > > >> >> I am having amazing results!> > >> >> > > >> >> and I have had awful doc experiences my entire life .. I am > > >now > > >> >42 . .> > >> >> wishing love & prayers. .> > >********************************************* WWW.PEACEFULMIND.COM Sponsors Alternative Answers-HEALING NATURALLY- this is the premise of HOLISTIC HEALTH. Preventative and Curative measure to take for many ailments at:http://www.peacefulmind.com/ailments_frame.htm__________-To INVITE A FRIEND to our healing community, copy and paste this address in an email to them:http://www./members_add _________To ADD A LINK, RESOURCE, OR WEBSITE to Alternative Answers please Go to: http://www./links___________Community email addresses: Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner _______Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.

August 24, 2004

Alternative medicine is fine--- what I'm saying is

that I've had very similar problems with alternative

docs as I've had with regular MD's. And I'm more

leaning toward figuring this all out for myself- of

course, with an " alternative " perspective.

>Some Doctors are in " cohoots with pharmaceutical

companies " .

And I dont deny that this is possible, but I think the

overwhelming majority of docs do perscribe medicine

because they do believe it will help, not because

they're getting some " kick backs. "

Krissy

--- Sean Bartholomew <breatheptc wrote:

> I am saddened by Krissy's close-minded thinking

> here... (I believe you are

> sadly mistaken sweetie...)

>

> Today, more than ever, people want to use

> alternative help because it makes

> good sense! Some Doctors are in " cohoots with

> pharmaceutical companies " .

>

> Most people today get that a good (properly combined

> organic) diet/regular

> exercise/and rest will bring the body back to it's

> natural state.

> (And that most quick fix pill programs don't

> work)...

>

> Please please please... rethink your stand and as

> you said allow others to

> figure it out for them selves.

>

> Love and Light,

> A friend,

>

> Sean B

>

> krissy_texas [krissy_texas]

> Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:07 AM

>

> Re: Unholy Trinity/

> drs, drug companies,

> insurance companies........

>

> I have to say- I've had MD's fix broken 3 arms,

> stitch a huge gash in

> my leg, help deliver a baby, etc.- that helped.

> One removed my gall

> bladder, which " fixed " the problem though I doubt

> that that extreme

> needed to be taken.

> However, I've never had an alternative doc help

> me. They're insanely

> expensive and they like to ramble on and on and on

> about stuff that

> is completely irrevelant to me. Like I'm trying

> to find a solution

> to the psoriasis I have, went to a well

> recommended alternative doc,

> and he rambled on and on about how he's interested

> in aloe vera pills

> and the concentration and blah, blah, blah.... 60

> bucks later, I have

> no solution because the aloe vera pills are

> prohibitively

> expensive.

> I went through a similar thing with a foster dog

> that has seizures

> that I saw a well recommended alternative vet for.

> Ramble, ramble,

> ramble... lots of misinformation (like it's ok to

> feed a dog cooked

> bones).... a homeopathic solution....$180 bill....

> and his remedies

> didn't help in the slightest.

> I have to agree with Becca that everyone goes on

> and on about just go

> to an alternative doc and everything will be ok.

> Well, I've tried

> both alternative and MD's and as far as I can

> tell, the only real

> solution is to educate yourself and figure things

> out that way. It's

> much cheaper.

> I don't like the perspective regular MD's have-

> the " attack the germ "

> idea. But I respect them and don't believe that

> the majority are in

> cohoots with pharmaceutical companies. They just

> really believe the

> drugs work. And some do. But with side effects.

> And I understand

> why they've gotten where they are. because

> they're tired of beating

> their head against the wall trying to get lazy

> americans to change

> their habits --- americans just want a drug, an

> easy solution. they

> don't want to be told they've got to exercise and

> eat less to lose

> weight- they want a drug. they don't want to be

> told that to get

> sick less, they need to sleep more and eat better-

> they want

> antibiotics, or a flu shot, or whatever. I've had

> some luck with

> MD's just coming out and saying " hey, I'll change

> my habits, but I

> won't fill any Rx that you give me. " And then

> they come up with

> other ideas.

>

> Krissy

>

> ,

> " russnhs " <ccruss@i...>

> wrote:

> >

> > " I can tell you this - the problem is not that

> doctors are " in bed

> > with " pharmaceutical companies, as Russ states

> on his site, or that

> > they wish to keep people sick so they can make

> more money. "

> >

> > Well Becca, I think it's only fare that people

> ask themselves this

> > question. " When was the last time my doctor

> CURED me of anything? "

> I

> > ask my customers this question all the time, and

> the answer is

> always

> > the same, NEVER! I have helped many people

> reverse the effects of

> > many serious systemic infections, some life

> threatening, where drs

> > could do nothing for them.

> > The majority of practitionars are 'mass

> prescription writers' thats

> > what they do, suppress symptoms, destroy immune

> system, and keep

> > people marginally healthy so they keep coming

> back for more useless

> > drugs that don't work. They are not taught

> nutrition in school, and

> > they only know what the drug companies want them

> to know.

> >

> > The 'Unholy Trinity' (drs, drug companies, and

> insurance companies)

> > not in bed together? I think I will let this

> one speak for itself.

> > Russ/CL

> >

> > As Doctors Write Prescriptions, Drug Company

> Writes a Check

> >

> > June 27, 2004

> > By GARDINER HARRIS

> >

> > The check for $10,000 arrived in the mail

> unsolicited. The

> > doctor who received it from the drug maker

> Schering-Plough

> > said it was made out to him personally in

> exchange for an

> > attached " consulting " agreement that required

> nothing other

> > than his commitment to prescribe the company's

> medicines.

> > Two other physicians said in separate interviews

> that they,

> > too, received checks unbidden from

> Schering-Plough, one of

> > the world's biggest drug companies.

> >

> > " I threw mine away, " said the first doctor, who

> spoke on

> > the condition of anonymity because of concern

> about being

> > drawn into a federal inquiry into the matter.

> >

> > Those checks and others, some of them said to be

> for

> > six-figure sums, are under investigation by

> federal

> > prosecutors in Boston as part of a broad

> government

> > crackdown on the drug industry's marketing

> tactics. Just

> > about every big global drug company - including

> Johnson &

> > Johnson, Wyeth and Bristol-Myers Squibb - has

> disclosed in

> > securities filings that it has received a

> federal subpoena,

> > and most are juggling subpoenas stemming from

> several

> > investigations.

> >

> > The details of the Schering-Plough tactics,

> gleaned from

> > interviews with 20 doctors, as well as industry

> executives

> > and people close to the investigation, shed

> light on the

> > shadowy system of financial lures that

> pharmaceutical

> > companies have used to persuade physicians to

> favor their

> > drugs.

> >

> > Schering-Plough's tactics, these people said,

> included

> > paying doctors large sums to prescribe its drug

> for

> > hepatitis C and to take part in

> company-sponsored clinical

> > trials that were little more than thinly

> disguised

> > marketing efforts that required little effort on

> the

> > doctors' part. Doctors who demonstrated

> disloyalty by

> > testing other company's drugs, or even talking

> favorably

> > about them, risked being barred from the

> Schering-Plough

> > money stream.

> >

> > Schering-Plough says that the activities under

> > investigation occurred before its new chief

> executive, Fred

> > Hassan, arrived in April 2003, and that it has

> overhauled

> > its marketing to eliminate inducements.

> >

> > At the heart of the various investigations into

> drug

> > industry marketing is the question of whether

> drug

> > companies are persuading doctors - often through

> payoffs -

> > to prescribe drugs that patients do not need or

> should not

> > use or for which there may be cheaper

> alternatives.

> > Investigators are also seeking to determine

> whether the

> > companies are manipulating prices to cheat the

> federal

> > Medicaid and Medicare health programs. Most of

> the big drug

> > companies, meanwhile, are also grappling with a

> welter of

> > suits filed by state attorneys general, industry

> > whistle-blowers and patient-rights groups over

> similar

> > accusations.

> >

> > In many ways, the investigations are a response

> to the

> > evolution of the pharmaceutical business, which

> has grown

> > in the last quarter-century from a small group

> of companies

> > peddling a few antibiotics and antianxiety

> remedies to a

> > $400 billion bemoth that is among the most

> profitable

> > industries on earth.

> >

> > Offering treatments for almost any affliction

> and facing

> > competition in which each percentage point of

> market share

> > can represent tens of millions of dollars, most

> drug makers

> > now spend twice as much marketing medicines as

> they do

> > researching them. Their sales teams have changed

> from a

> > scattering of semiretired pharmacists to armies

> of young

> > women and men who shower physicians with

> attention, food

> > and - until the drug industry recently agreed to

> end the

> > practice - expensive gifts, just to get two to

> three

> > minutes to pitch their wares. A code of conduct

> adopted in

> > 1990 by the American Medical Association

> suggests that

> > doctors should not accept any gift worth more

> than $100,

> > but the guidelines are widely ignored.

> >

> > A quarter-century ago, the Food and Drug

> Administration was

> > the lone cop on the drug industry beat. But the

> F.D.A.'s

> > enforcement powers over drug marketing have been

> severely

> > curbed since 1976 by a series of court rulings

> based mainly

> > on the companies' free-speech rights. That left

> a vacuum

> > that many companies decided to exploit, said

> William Vodra,

> > a former F.D.A. lawyer.

> >

> > " A lot of people decided there was no check on

> what they

> > were allowed to do, " Mr. Vodra said. Using

> fraud, kickback

> > and antitrust statutes, federal prosecutors,

> state

> > attorneys general and plaintiffs lawyers stepped

> into the

> > void, asserting that the companies' sales

> pitches have cost

> > the government billions of dollars in payments

> for drug

> > benefits.

> >

> > This legal scrutiny can be expected to

> intensify. Once the

> > new Medicare drug benefit takes full effect in

> 2006, the

> > government will pay for almost half of all

> medicines sold

> > in the nation. So the marketing programs will

> cost the

> > government even more money and, if they are

> uncovered and

> > determined to be illegal, will probably result

> in even

> > larger fines.

> >

> > Last month, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million

> and pleaded

> > guilty to criminal charges involving the

> marketing of the

> > pain drug Nuerontin by the company's

> Warner-Lambert unit.

> > AstraZeneca paid $355 million last year and TAP

> > Pharmaceuticals paid $875 million in 2001; each

> pleaded

> > guilty to criminal charges of fraud for inducing

> physicians

> > to bill the government for some drugs that the

> company gave

> > the doctors free.

> > Over the last two years, Schering-Plough, which

> had sales

> > of $8.33 billion last year, has set aside a

> total of $500

> > million to cover its legal problems - mainly for

> expected

> > fines from the Boston investigation and from a

> separate

> > inquiry by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia

> who are

> > investigating whether Schering-Plough

> overcharged Medicaid.

> >

> > Besides looking into whether Schering-Plough

> paid doctors

> > large sums to prescribe the company's drug for

> hepatitis C,

> > prosecutors are investigating whether many

> > company-sponsored clinical trials for the drug

> were simply

> > another way to funnel money to doctors.

> >

> > Dr. Chris Pappas, director of clinical research

> for St.

> > Luke's Texas Liver Institute in Houston, said

> that

> > Schering-Plough " flooded the market with

> pseudo-trials. "

> >

> > Dr. Pappas and eight other liver specialists who

> were

> > interviewed say the system worked like this:

> > Schering-Plough paid physicians $1,000 to $1,500

> per

> > patient for prescribing Intron A, the company's

> hepatitis C

> > treatment. In conventional clinical trials,

> participants

> > are given drugs free, but the doctors said that

> in these

> > cases the patients or insurers paid for their

> medication.

> > Because patients usually undergo Intron A

> treatment for

> > nearly a year and the therapy costs thousands of

> dollars,

> > Schering-Plough's payments to physicians left

> plenty of

> > room for the company to profit handsomely, the

> doctors

> > said.

> >

> > In return for the fees, physicians were supposed

> to collect

> > data on their patients' progress and pass it

> along to

> > Schering-Plough, the doctors said. But many

> physicians were

> > not diligent about their recordkeeping, and the

> company did

> > little to insist on accurate data, according to

> Dr. Pappas

> > and the others.

> >

> > One of the nation's most prominent liver disease

> > specialists, who spoke on condition of anonymity

> for fear

> > of angering big drug makers, called the trials

> " purely

> > marketing gimmicks. "

> >

> > " Science and marketing should not be mixed like

> that, " the

> > doctor said.

> >

> > Schering-Plough did more than encourage

> physicians to place

> > patients on Intron A, many of the physicians

> said. They

> > said the company would remove any doctor from

> its clinical

> > program - and shut off the money spigot - if he

> or she

> > wrote prescriptions for competing drugs,

> participated in

> > clinical trials of alternatives to Intron A or

> even spoke

> > favorably about treatments besides Intron A.

> >

> > The main competitor to Intron A, which

> Schering-Plough now

> > sells as Peg-Intron, is Roche's comparably

> priced drug

> > Pegasys.

> >

> > Dr. Donald Jensen, the hepatology director at

> Rush

> > University Medical Center in Chicago, said he

> wanted to

> > perform clinical trials using drugs from both

> > Schering-Plough and Roche. " I was told by

> Schering-Plough

> > that I couldn't do both - that I had to sign an

> exclusive

> > agreement with them, " Dr. Jensen said. " That was

> the

> > juncture when Schering and I parted ways. "

> >

> > Six specialists in liver disease said

> Schering-Plough also

> > paid what it called consulting fees to doctors

> to keep them

> > loyal to the company's products. The letter

> accompanying a

> > check for $10,000 explained that the money was

> for

> > consulting services that were detailed on an

> accompanying

> > " Schedule A, " said a doctor who insisted on

> anonymity. But

> > when the doctor turned to the attached sheet, he

> said,

> > " Schedule A " were the only words printed on an

> otherwise

> > blank sheet of paper.

> >

> > Dr. Pappas, who in the past has consulted for

> > Schering-Plough and worked for Roche, said that

> stories

> > about the enormous sums that Schering-Plough

> paid its

> > consultants were common among liver specialists.

> " These

> > were very high-value consulting agreements with

> selected

> > opinion leaders that looked like payments of

> money with no

> > clear agreements on what was supposed to be

> executed, " Dr.

> > Pappas said.

> >

> > In an interview, Mr. Hassan and other top

> executives

> > declined to discuss past marketing practices.

> Richard

> > Kogan, the company's previous chairman and chief

> executive,

> > declined to be interviewed.

> >

> > Schering-Plough's current management says that

> much has

> > changed at the company since Mr. Hassan took

> over. The

> > company no longer allows sales representatives

> or marketing

> > executives to have any say over its clinical

> trials,

> > physician education or medical consulting, they

> said. And

> > in all clinical trials begun in the last year,

> they said,

> > drugs have been provided free to the enrolled

> patients,

> > rather than being billed to them or their

> insurers.

> >

> > " The temptation to give clinical grants to high

> prescribers

> > and consulting agreements to high prescribers is

> why we

> > pulled those decisions out of the hands of the

> sales

> > representatives, " said Brent Saunders, who was

> named senior

> > vice president for compliance and business

> practices last

> > year. " Sales representatives had an input into

> that process

> > before, which I think is still fairly normal in

> the

> > industry. "

> >

> > In the separate Philadelphia investigation,

> Schering-Plough

> > is expected to plead guilty soon to charges that

> it failed

> > to provide Medicaid with its lowest drug prices,

> as is

> > required by law, and to pay a fine.

> Investigators are

> > examining whether Schering-Plough, to gain sales

> with some

> > private insurers, offered premiums, such as free

> patient

> > consulting arrangements, with its drugs.

> Prosecutors are

> > arguing that such incentives had a market value

> and meant

> > that Schering-Plough was offering drugs to

> private payers

> > at prices well below those offered to Medicaid.

> Many other

> > drug companies are the targets of similar

> inquiries.

> >

> > The Boston inquiry into suspected kickbacks and

> improper

> > marketing by Schering-Plough could take months

> more to

> > resolve, people close to the investigation say.

> > Schering-Plough may also be charged with

> obstruction of

> > justice and document destruction as part of the

> Boston

> > inquiry, according to the company's filings with

> securities

> > regulators.

> >

> > Industry experts say the federal inquiries into

> > Schering-Plough and the other drug giants have

> led some

> > companies to adopt significant changes in the

> way they

> > peddle drugs to doctors. Other companies have

> been slower

> > to react. " These investigations came out of left

> field, and

> > no one saw them coming, " said Peter Barton Hutt,

> a former

> > F.D.A. general counsel who now advises drug

> companies. " The

> > industry has since had to reshape entirely what

> they are

> > doing, but it was too late to redo what they'd

> been doing

> > for years. "

> >

> > Tony Farino, leader of the pharmaceutical

> consulting

> > service at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that as

> a result of

> > the investigations many companies in the drug

> industry were

> > hiring executives to police marketing and sales

> practices.

> >

> > " Reputational risk is something they're all

> trying to

> > manage, " Mr. Farino said, " because the damages

> from failure

> > can be significant. "

> >

>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/business/27DRUG.final.html?

> ex=1089309139 & e

> > i=1 & en=97e21a324ed1ff21

> >

> > ,

> saba2r@a... wrote:

> > > I'm not intending to argue about this, but

> what bugged me was the

> > either/or mentality from some posters. All

> doctors bad - only

> > alternative medicine good. That is a dangerous

> opinion and it's

> scary

> > to think a person who needs medical attention

> would turn away from

> it

> > because they listened to that.

> > >

> > > Nowhere have I stated that I don't understand

> the dangers of

> > antibiotics. There is that either/or thing

> again. One of my points

> > was that understanding the problems they have

> caused does not rule

> > them out in situations where they are warranted.

> I can tell you

> this

> > - the problem is not that doctors are " in bed

> with " pharmaceutical

> > companies, as Russ states on his site, or that

> they wish to keep

> > people sick so they can make more money. Most

> physicians are

> > extremely intelligent. If all they wanted was

> money, they could

> make

> > ten times as much in the corporate world. I do

> agree that pharm

> > companies are in it for money - they are

> businesses. So let's

> > dispense with the evil doctor horror scenarios.

> > >

> > > Why would you feel I wouldn't " admit "

> ignorance? That is an

> > obnoxious statement. Many physicians are open

> to learning more

> about

> > alternative treatments. They also must

> constantly fight off the

> > ignorant *patients*, who demand

> medications/treatments they don't

> need.

> > >

> > > Let's keep in mind that a lot of folks here

> are pushing products

> > because THEY are attempting to make money and

> sell stuff. Let's not

> > be hypocrites.

> > >

> > > I'm here because I firmly believe in a return

> to natural

> remedies.

> > (However, thank God for modern medicine in a lot

> of situations). I

> > think everyone should share what works for them.

> I've been a little

> > dismayed by the " No, that doesn't work " , " Yes it

> worked for me " , " My

> > stuff is the only thing that works " , etc etc. A

> little hard to sort

> > out. We are supposed to have " Peaceful Minds " .

>

> > >

> > > Becca

> > >

> > > In a message dated 8/19/2004 9:06:18 PM

> Eastern Daylight Time,

> > " johndson2600 " <johndson2600> writes:

> > >

> > > > I don't think that anyone here would dispute

> the value of

> > > >antibiotics in situations such as septicemia.

> > > > The truth of the matter is though that

> antibiotics are given

> > > >routinely by vast majority of

> MD's,DO,s,physician

> assistant,nurse

> > > >practioneers and the like for the simple

> reason of ignorance of

> > > >alternative treatments.

> > > > I seriously doubt that I will get you to

> admit there is any

> > > >ignorance in the allopathic community.

> > > > Just this past week I saw a 51 yo man die

> because of misuse of

> > > >antibiotics and a 22 yo indian woman rendered

> sterile for the

> same

> > > >reason.I am not,at this moment going to

> explain the

> pathophysiolgy of

> > > >either case,but you can bet these cases are

> just the tip of the

> > > >iceberg.

> > > > The root cause of the onset of most sinus

> problems are allergys.

> > > > Dr John D. Son NMD.

> > > > ,

> saba2r@a... wrote:

> > > >> I believe the root cause of the sinus

> problems must be found.

> It's

> > > >not a simple A B C for everyone. The word

> " infection " was

> brought up

> > > >initially, which is why I posted that

> antibiotics indeed might

> be in

> > > >order in some cases. We could go back and

> forth all day with

> > > >stories - antibiotics are " bad " , but just as

> the lady posted

> about

> > > >her daughter damaged by vaccines, I can tell

> you that my husband

> > > >would be dead if it were not for antibiotics,

> due to a massive

> > > >septicemia. I think we should avoid the this

> is good and that

> is

> > > >bad, etc. stuff. Herbs and natural remedies

> can be " bad " if

> > > >misused. The word " infection " should not be

> used to describe

> all

> > > >sinus problems. Some people may in fact be

> suffering from

> > > >allergies. And so on. Everyone needs to

> determine what works

> for

> > > >their particular problem.

> > > >>

> > > >> Becca

> > > >>

> > > >> In a message dated 8/15/2004 10:21:41 AM

> Eastern Daylight

> > > >Time, " johndson2600 " <johndson2600>

> writes:

> > > >>

> > > >> >

> > > >> > I am an intergrative medical school

> educated physician who

> > > >> >specializes in Chelation and other IV

> therapies.In regard to

> sinus

> > > >> >infection the best treatment is that as

> described in post

> #10107.

> > > >> > Of course,methods used to rebuild the

> immune system-such as

> IV

> > > >> >administration of vitamins,minerals and

> amion acids-as well

> as PO

> > > >use

> > > >> >of herbs- are vitally important to living

> a long and disease

> free

> > > >> >life.Another thing that should be

> mentioned is gluten

> > > >intolerance.I

> > > >> >would estimate that maybe at the most 5-10

> % of people who

> have a

> > > >> >sensitivity to gluten are aware of

> it.Avoidance of gluten-

> which is

> > > >> >very difficult to do-is sometimes the

> first and biggest step

> to

> > > >> >rebuilding your immune system.Another

> important step-getting

> rid

> > > >of

> > > >> >parasites-is important.Every dog,cat,and

> cow in the world has

> > > >> >parasites.Why would anyone think that

> humans are different in

> > > >terms

> > > >> >of biology.Don't trust your allopath and

> his lab to diagnose

> the

> > > >> >situation either.

> > > >> > Sincerely,Dr John D. Son NMD

> > > >> > ,

> gkbmusic@a...

> wrote:

> > > >> >> Try an Intergrative MD They are amazing!

> Find someone who

> uses

> > > >IV

> > > >> >Therapy to

> > > >> >> rebuild the system with vitamins &

> supplements ..

> > > >> >> I am having amazing results!

> > > >> >>

> > > >> >> and I have had awful doc experiences my

> entire life .. I

> am

> > > >now

> > > >> >42 . .

> > > >> >> wishing love & prayers. .

> > > >

>

> *********************************************

> WWW.PEACEFULMIND.COM Sponsors Alternative Answers-

>

> HEALING NATURALLY- this is the premise of HOLISTIC

> HEALTH. Preventative

> and Curative measure to take for many ailments at:

> http://www.peacefulmind.com/ailments_frame.htm

> __________

>

> -To INVITE A FRIEND to our healing community, copy

> and paste this address

> in an email to them:

>

http://www./members_add

>

> _________

> To ADD A LINK, RESOURCE, OR WEBSITE to Alternative

> Answers please Go to:

>

http://www./links

>

> ___________

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe:

> -

> Un:

> -

> List owner:

> -owner

> _______

> Shortcut URL to this page:

>

> http://www.

>

August 25, 2004

Your exactly right Sean. Unfortunately there are millions of people

who are brain washed with the 'dr/drug' mindset, and CHANGE is the

only thing that will help them. When they get sick and tired of being

sick and tired, then and only then will they CHANGE.

Russ/CL

, " Sean Bartholomew "

<breatheptc@b...> wrote:

> I am saddened by Krissy's close-minded thinking here... (I believe

you are

> sadly mistaken sweetie...)

>

> Today, more than ever, people want to use alternative help because

it makes

> good sense! Some Doctors are in " cohoots with pharmaceutical companies " .

>

> Most people today get that a good (properly combined organic)

diet/regular

> exercise/and rest will bring the body back to it's natural state.

> (And that most quick fix pill programs don't work)...

>

> Please please please... rethink your stand and as you said allow

others to

> figure it out for them selves.

>

> Love and Light,

> A friend,

>

> Sean B

>

> krissy_texas [krissy_texas]

> Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:07 AM

>

> Re: Unholy Trinity/ drs, drug companies,

> insurance companies........

>

> I have to say- I've had MD's fix broken 3 arms, stitch a huge gash in

> my leg, help deliver a baby, etc.- that helped. One removed my gall

> bladder, which " fixed " the problem though I doubt that that extreme

> needed to be taken.

> However, I've never had an alternative doc help me. They're insanely

> expensive and they like to ramble on and on and on about stuff that

> is completely irrevelant to me. Like I'm trying to find a solution

> to the psoriasis I have, went to a well recommended alternative doc,

> and he rambled on and on about how he's interested in aloe vera pills

> and the concentration and blah, blah, blah.... 60 bucks later, I have

> no solution because the aloe vera pills are prohibitively

> expensive.

> I went through a similar thing with a foster dog that has seizures

> that I saw a well recommended alternative vet for. Ramble, ramble,

> ramble... lots of misinformation (like it's ok to feed a dog cooked

> bones).... a homeopathic solution....$180 bill.... and his remedies

> didn't help in the slightest.

> I have to agree with Becca that everyone goes on and on about just go

> to an alternative doc and everything will be ok. Well, I've tried

> both alternative and MD's and as far as I can tell, the only real

> solution is to educate yourself and figure things out that way. It's

> much cheaper.

> I don't like the perspective regular MD's have- the " attack the germ "

> idea. But I respect them and don't believe that the majority are in

> cohoots with pharmaceutical companies. They just really believe the

> drugs work. And some do. But with side effects. And I understand

> why they've gotten where they are. because they're tired of beating

> their head against the wall trying to get lazy americans to change

> their habits --- americans just want a drug, an easy solution. they

> don't want to be told they've got to exercise and eat less to lose

> weight- they want a drug. they don't want to be told that to get

> sick less, they need to sleep more and eat better- they want

> antibiotics, or a flu shot, or whatever. I've had some luck with

> MD's just coming out and saying " hey, I'll change my habits, but I

> won't fill any Rx that you give me. " And then they come up with

> other ideas.

>

> Krissy

>

> , " russnhs " <ccruss@i...>

> wrote:

> >

> > " I can tell you this - the problem is not that doctors are " in bed

> > with " pharmaceutical companies, as Russ states on his site, or that

> > they wish to keep people sick so they can make more money. "

> >

> > Well Becca, I think it's only fare that people ask themselves this

> > question. " When was the last time my doctor CURED me of anything? "

> I

> > ask my customers this question all the time, and the answer is

> always

> > the same, NEVER! I have helped many people reverse the effects of

> > many serious systemic infections, some life threatening, where drs

> > could do nothing for them.

> > The majority of practitionars are 'mass prescription writers' thats

> > what they do, suppress symptoms, destroy immune system, and keep

> > people marginally healthy so they keep coming back for more useless

> > drugs that don't work. They are not taught nutrition in school, and

> > they only know what the drug companies want them to know.

> >

> > The 'Unholy Trinity' (drs, drug companies, and insurance companies)

> > not in bed together? I think I will let this one speak for itself.

> > Russ/CL

> >

> > As Doctors Write Prescriptions, Drug Company Writes a Check

> >

> > June 27, 2004

> > By GARDINER HARRIS

> >

> > The check for $10,000 arrived in the mail unsolicited. The

> > doctor who received it from the drug maker Schering-Plough

> > said it was made out to him personally in exchange for an

> > attached " consulting " agreement that required nothing other

> > than his commitment to prescribe the company's medicines.

> > Two other physicians said in separate interviews that they,

> > too, received checks unbidden from Schering-Plough, one of

> > the world's biggest drug companies.

> >

> > " I threw mine away, " said the first doctor, who spoke on

> > the condition of anonymity because of concern about being

> > drawn into a federal inquiry into the matter.

> >

> > Those checks and others, some of them said to be for

> > six-figure sums, are under investigation by federal

> > prosecutors in Boston as part of a broad government

> > crackdown on the drug industry's marketing tactics. Just

> > about every big global drug company - including Johnson &

> > Johnson, Wyeth and Bristol-Myers Squibb - has disclosed in

> > securities filings that it has received a federal subpoena,

> > and most are juggling subpoenas stemming from several

> > investigations.

> >

> > The details of the Schering-Plough tactics, gleaned from

> > interviews with 20 doctors, as well as industry executives

> > and people close to the investigation, shed light on the

> > shadowy system of financial lures that pharmaceutical

> > companies have used to persuade physicians to favor their

> > drugs.

> >

> > Schering-Plough's tactics, these people said, included

> > paying doctors large sums to prescribe its drug for

> > hepatitis C and to take part in company-sponsored clinical

> > trials that were little more than thinly disguised

> > marketing efforts that required little effort on the

> > doctors' part. Doctors who demonstrated disloyalty by

> > testing other company's drugs, or even talking favorably

> > about them, risked being barred from the Schering-Plough

> > money stream.

> >

> > Schering-Plough says that the activities under

> > investigation occurred before its new chief executive, Fred

> > Hassan, arrived in April 2003, and that it has overhauled

> > its marketing to eliminate inducements.

> >

> > At the heart of the various investigations into drug

> > industry marketing is the question of whether drug

> > companies are persuading doctors - often through payoffs -

> > to prescribe drugs that patients do not need or should not

> > use or for which there may be cheaper alternatives.

> > Investigators are also seeking to determine whether the

> > companies are manipulating prices to cheat the federal

> > Medicaid and Medicare health programs. Most of the big drug

> > companies, meanwhile, are also grappling with a welter of

> > suits filed by state attorneys general, industry

> > whistle-blowers and patient-rights groups over similar

> > accusations.

> >

> > In many ways, the investigations are a response to the

> > evolution of the pharmaceutical business, which has grown

> > in the last quarter-century from a small group of companies

> > peddling a few antibiotics and antianxiety remedies to a

> > $400 billion bemoth that is among the most profitable

> > industries on earth.

> >

> > Offering treatments for almost any affliction and facing

> > competition in which each percentage point of market share

> > can represent tens of millions of dollars, most drug makers

> > now spend twice as much marketing medicines as they do

> > researching them. Their sales teams have changed from a

> > scattering of semiretired pharmacists to armies of young

> > women and men who shower physicians with attention, food

> > and - until the drug industry recently agreed to end the

> > practice - expensive gifts, just to get two to three

> > minutes to pitch their wares. A code of conduct adopted in

> > 1990 by the American Medical Association suggests that

> > doctors should not accept any gift worth more than $100,

> > but the guidelines are widely ignored.

> >

> > A quarter-century ago, the Food and Drug Administration was

> > the lone cop on the drug industry beat. But the F.D.A.'s

> > enforcement powers over drug marketing have been severely

> > curbed since 1976 by a series of court rulings based mainly

> > on the companies' free-speech rights. That left a vacuum

> > that many companies decided to exploit, said William Vodra,

> > a former F.D.A. lawyer.

> >

> > " A lot of people decided there was no check on what they

> > were allowed to do, " Mr. Vodra said. Using fraud, kickback

> > and antitrust statutes, federal prosecutors, state

> > attorneys general and plaintiffs lawyers stepped into the

> > void, asserting that the companies' sales pitches have cost

> > the government billions of dollars in payments for drug

> > benefits.

> >

> > This legal scrutiny can be expected to intensify. Once the

> > new Medicare drug benefit takes full effect in 2006, the

> > government will pay for almost half of all medicines sold

> > in the nation. So the marketing programs will cost the

> > government even more money and, if they are uncovered and

> > determined to be illegal, will probably result in even

> > larger fines.

> >

> > Last month, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million and pleaded

> > guilty to criminal charges involving the marketing of the

> > pain drug Nuerontin by the company's Warner-Lambert unit.

> > AstraZeneca paid $355 million last year and TAP

> > Pharmaceuticals paid $875 million in 2001; each pleaded

> > guilty to criminal charges of fraud for inducing physicians

> > to bill the government for some drugs that the company gave

> > the doctors free.

> > Over the last two years, Schering-Plough, which had sales

> > of $8.33 billion last year, has set aside a total of $500

> > million to cover its legal problems - mainly for expected

> > fines from the Boston investigation and from a separate

> > inquiry by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia who are

> > investigating whether Schering-Plough overcharged Medicaid.

> >

> > Besides looking into whether Schering-Plough paid doctors

> > large sums to prescribe the company's drug for hepatitis C,

> > prosecutors are investigating whether many

> > company-sponsored clinical trials for the drug were simply

> > another way to funnel money to doctors.

> >

> > Dr. Chris Pappas, director of clinical research for St.

> > Luke's Texas Liver Institute in Houston, said that

> > Schering-Plough " flooded the market with pseudo-trials. "

> >

> > Dr. Pappas and eight other liver specialists who were

> > interviewed say the system worked like this:

> > Schering-Plough paid physicians $1,000 to $1,500 per

> > patient for prescribing Intron A, the company's hepatitis C

> > treatment. In conventional clinical trials, participants

> > are given drugs free, but the doctors said that in these

> > cases the patients or insurers paid for their medication.

> > Because patients usually undergo Intron A treatment for

> > nearly a year and the therapy costs thousands of dollars,

> > Schering-Plough's payments to physicians left plenty of

> > room for the company to profit handsomely, the doctors

> > said.

> >

> > In return for the fees, physicians were supposed to collect

> > data on their patients' progress and pass it along to

> > Schering-Plough, the doctors said. But many physicians were

> > not diligent about their recordkeeping, and the company did

> > little to insist on accurate data, according to Dr. Pappas

> > and the others.

> >

> > One of the nation's most prominent liver disease

> > specialists, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear

> > of angering big drug makers, called the trials " purely

> > marketing gimmicks. "

> >

> > " Science and marketing should not be mixed like that, " the

> > doctor said.

> >

> > Schering-Plough did more than encourage physicians to place

> > patients on Intron A, many of the physicians said. They

> > said the company would remove any doctor from its clinical

> > program - and shut off the money spigot - if he or she

> > wrote prescriptions for competing drugs, participated in

> > clinical trials of alternatives to Intron A or even spoke

> > favorably about treatments besides Intron A.

> >

> > The main competitor to Intron A, which Schering-Plough now

> > sells as Peg-Intron, is Roche's comparably priced drug

> > Pegasys.

> >

> > Dr. Donald Jensen, the hepatology director at Rush

> > University Medical Center in Chicago, said he wanted to

> > perform clinical trials using drugs from both

> > Schering-Plough and Roche. " I was told by Schering-Plough

> > that I couldn't do both - that I had to sign an exclusive

> > agreement with them, " Dr. Jensen said. " That was the

> > juncture when Schering and I parted ways. "

> >

> > Six specialists in liver disease said Schering-Plough also

> > paid what it called consulting fees to doctors to keep them

> > loyal to the company's products. The letter accompanying a

> > check for $10,000 explained that the money was for

> > consulting services that were detailed on an accompanying

> > " Schedule A, " said a doctor who insisted on anonymity. But

> > when the doctor turned to the attached sheet, he said,

> > " Schedule A " were the only words printed on an otherwise

> > blank sheet of paper.

> >

> > Dr. Pappas, who in the past has consulted for

> > Schering-Plough and worked for Roche, said that stories

> > about the enormous sums that Schering-Plough paid its

> > consultants were common among liver specialists. " These

> > were very high-value consulting agreements with selected

> > opinion leaders that looked like payments of money with no

> > clear agreements on what was supposed to be executed, " Dr.

> > Pappas said.

> >

> > In an interview, Mr. Hassan and other top executives

> > declined to discuss past marketing practices. Richard

> > Kogan, the company's previous chairman and chief executive,

> > declined to be interviewed.

> >

> > Schering-Plough's current management says that much has

> > changed at the company since Mr. Hassan took over. The

> > company no longer allows sales representatives or marketing

> > executives to have any say over its clinical trials,

> > physician education or medical consulting, they said. And

> > in all clinical trials begun in the last year, they said,

> > drugs have been provided free to the enrolled patients,

> > rather than being billed to them or their insurers.

> >

> > " The temptation to give clinical grants to high prescribers

> > and consulting agreements to high prescribers is why we

> > pulled those decisions out of the hands of the sales

> > representatives, " said Brent Saunders, who was named senior

> > vice president for compliance and business practices last

> > year. " Sales representatives had an input into that process

> > before, which I think is still fairly normal in the

> > industry. "

> >

> > In the separate Philadelphia investigation, Schering-Plough

> > is expected to plead guilty soon to charges that it failed

> > to provide Medicaid with its lowest drug prices, as is

> > required by law, and to pay a fine. Investigators are

> > examining whether Schering-Plough, to gain sales with some

> > private insurers, offered premiums, such as free patient

> > consulting arrangements, with its drugs. Prosecutors are

> > arguing that such incentives had a market value and meant

> > that Schering-Plough was offering drugs to private payers

> > at prices well below those offered to Medicaid. Many other

> > drug companies are the targets of similar inquiries.

> >

> > The Boston inquiry into suspected kickbacks and improper

> > marketing by Schering-Plough could take months more to

> > resolve, people close to the investigation say.

> > Schering-Plough may also be charged with obstruction of

> > justice and document destruction as part of the Boston

> > inquiry, according to the company's filings with securities

> > regulators.

> >

> > Industry experts say the federal inquiries into

> > Schering-Plough and the other drug giants have led some

> > companies to adopt significant changes in the way they

> > peddle drugs to doctors. Other companies have been slower

> > to react. " These investigations came out of left field, and

> > no one saw them coming, " said Peter Barton Hutt, a former

> > F.D.A. general counsel who now advises drug companies. " The

> > industry has since had to reshape entirely what they are

> > doing, but it was too late to redo what they'd been doing

> > for years. "

> >

> > Tony Farino, leader of the pharmaceutical consulting

> > service at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that as a result of

> > the investigations many companies in the drug industry were

> > hiring executives to police marketing and sales practices.

> >

> > " Reputational risk is something they're all trying to

> > manage, " Mr. Farino said, " because the damages from failure

> > can be significant. "

> >

> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/business/27DRUG.final.html?

> ex=1089309139 & e

> > i=1 & en=97e21a324ed1ff21

> >

> > , saba2r@a... wrote:

> > > I'm not intending to argue about this, but what bugged me was the

> > either/or mentality from some posters. All doctors bad - only

> > alternative medicine good. That is a dangerous opinion and it's

> scary

> > to think a person who needs medical attention would turn away from

> it

> > because they listened to that.

> > >

> > > Nowhere have I stated that I don't understand the dangers of

> > antibiotics. There is that either/or thing again. One of my points

> > was that understanding the problems they have caused does not rule

> > them out in situations where they are warranted. I can tell you

> this

> > - the problem is not that doctors are " in bed with " pharmaceutical

> > companies, as Russ states on his site, or that they wish to keep

> > people sick so they can make more money. Most physicians are

> > extremely intelligent. If all they wanted was money, they could

> make

> > ten times as much in the corporate world. I do agree that pharm

> > companies are in it for money - they are businesses. So let's

> > dispense with the evil doctor horror scenarios.

> > >

> > > Why would you feel I wouldn't " admit " ignorance? That is an

> > obnoxious statement. Many physicians are open to learning more

> about

> > alternative treatments. They also must constantly fight off the

> > ignorant *patients*, who demand medications/treatments they don't

> need.

> > >

> > > Let's keep in mind that a lot of folks here are pushing products

> > because THEY are attempting to make money and sell stuff. Let's not

> > be hypocrites.

> > >

> > > I'm here because I firmly believe in a return to natural

> remedies.

> > (However, thank God for modern medicine in a lot of situations). I

> > think everyone should share what works for them. I've been a little

> > dismayed by the " No, that doesn't work " , " Yes it worked for me " , " My

> > stuff is the only thing that works " , etc etc. A little hard to sort

> > out. We are supposed to have " Peaceful Minds " .

> > >

> > > Becca

> > >

> > > In a message dated 8/19/2004 9:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> > " johndson2600 " <johndson2600> writes:

> > >

> > > > I don't think that anyone here would dispute the value of

> > > >antibiotics in situations such as septicemia.

> > > > The truth of the matter is though that antibiotics are given

> > > >routinely by vast majority of MD's,DO,s,physician

> assistant,nurse

> > > >practioneers and the like for the simple reason of ignorance of

> > > >alternative treatments.

> > > > I seriously doubt that I will get you to admit there is any

> > > >ignorance in the allopathic community.

> > > > Just this past week I saw a 51 yo man die because of misuse of

> > > >antibiotics and a 22 yo indian woman rendered sterile for the

> same

> > > >reason.I am not,at this moment going to explain the

> pathophysiolgy of

> > > >either case,but you can bet these cases are just the tip of the

> > > >iceberg.

> > > > The root cause of the onset of most sinus problems are allergys.

> > > > Dr John D. Son NMD.

> > > > , saba2r@a... wrote:

> > > >> I believe the root cause of the sinus problems must be found.

> It's

> > > >not a simple A B C for everyone. The word " infection " was

> brought up

> > > >initially, which is why I posted that antibiotics indeed might

> be in

> > > >order in some cases. We could go back and forth all day with

> > > >stories - antibiotics are " bad " , but just as the lady posted

> about

> > > >her daughter damaged by vaccines, I can tell you that my husband

> > > >would be dead if it were not for antibiotics, due to a massive

> > > >septicemia. I think we should avoid the this is good and that

> is

> > > >bad, etc. stuff. Herbs and natural remedies can be " bad " if

> > > >misused. The word " infection " should not be used to describe

> all

> > > >sinus problems. Some people may in fact be suffering from

> > > >allergies. And so on. Everyone needs to determine what works

> for

> > > >their particular problem.

> > > >>

> > > >> Becca

> > > >>

> > > >> In a message dated 8/15/2004 10:21:41 AM Eastern Daylight

> > > >Time, " johndson2600 " <johndson2600> writes:

> > > >>

> > > >> >

> > > >> > I am an intergrative medical school educated physician who

> > > >> >specializes in Chelation and other IV therapies.In regard to

> sinus

> > > >> >infection the best treatment is that as described in post

> #10107.

> > > >> > Of course,methods used to rebuild the immune system-such as

> IV

> > > >> >administration of vitamins,minerals and amion acids-as well

> as PO

> > > >use

> > > >> >of herbs- are vitally important to living a long and disease

> free

> > > >> >life.Another thing that should be mentioned is gluten

> > > >intolerance.I

> > > >> >would estimate that maybe at the most 5-10 % of people who

> have a

> > > >> >sensitivity to gluten are aware of it.Avoidance of gluten-

> which is

> > > >> >very difficult to do-is sometimes the first and biggest step

> to

> > > >> >rebuilding your immune system.Another important step-getting

> rid

> > > >of

> > > >> >parasites-is important.Every dog,cat,and cow in the world has

> > > >> >parasites.Why would anyone think that humans are different in

> > > >terms

> > > >> >of biology.Don't trust your allopath and his lab to diagnose

> the

> > > >> >situation either.

> > > >> > Sincerely,Dr John D. Son NMD

> > > >> > , gkbmusic@a...

> wrote:

> > > >> >> Try an Intergrative MD They are amazing! Find someone who

> uses

> > > >IV

> > > >> >Therapy to

> > > >> >> rebuild the system with vitamins & supplements ..

> > > >> >> I am having amazing results!

> > > >> >>

> > > >> >> and I have had awful doc experiences my entire life .. I

> am

> > > >now

> > > >> >42 . .

> > > >> >> wishing love & prayers. .

> > > >

>

> *********************************************

> WWW.PEACEFULMIND.COM Sponsors Alternative Answers-

>

> HEALING NATURALLY- this is the premise of HOLISTIC HEALTH.

Preventative

> and Curative measure to take for many ailments at:

> http://www.peacefulmind.com/ailments_frame.htm

> __________

>

> -To INVITE A FRIEND to our healing community, copy and paste this

address

> in an email to them:

> http://www./members_add

>

> _________

> To ADD A LINK, RESOURCE, OR WEBSITE to Alternative Answers please

Go to:

>

> http://www./links

>

> ___________

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

> _______

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> http://www.

>

Sign In

Unholy Trinity/ drs, drug companies, insurance companies........

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads