DEATH BY MEDICINE Part 2

[Guest guest]

DEATH BY MEDICINE Part 2

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Never before have the complete statistics on the

multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one

paper. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of

papers annually - each one a tiny fragment of the

whole picture. To look at only one piece and try to

understand the benefits and risks is to stand one inch

away from an elephant and describe everything about

it. You have to pull back to reveal the complete

picture, such as we have done here. Each specialty,

each division of medicine, keeps their own records and

data on morbidity and mortality like pieces of a

puzzle. But the numbers and statistics were always

hiding in plain sight. We have now completed the

painstaking work of reviewing thousands and thousands

of studies. Finally putting the puzzle together we

came up with some disturbing answers.

 

Is American Medicine Working?

 

At 14% of the Gross National Product, healthcare

spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003.15 Considering

this enormous expenditure, we should have the best

medicine in the world. We should be reversing disease,

preventing disease, and doing minimal harm. However,

careful and objective review shows the opposite.

Because of the extraordinary narrow context of medical

technology through which contemporary medicine

examines the human condition, we are completely

missing the full picture. Medicine is not taking into

consideration the following monumentally important

aspects of a healthy human organism: (a) stress and

how it adversely affects the immune system and life

processes; (b) insufficient exercise; © excessive

caloric intake; (d) highly-processed and denatured

foods grown in denatured and chemically-damaged soil;

and (e) exposure to tens of thousands of environmental

toxins. Instead of minimizing these disease-causing

factors, we actually cause more illness through

medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of

medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of

pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this

therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or

money being appropriated for preventing disease.

 

Under-reporting of Iatrogenic Events

 

As few as 5% and only up to 20% of iatrogenic acts are

ever reported.16,24,25,33,34 This implies that if

medical errors were completely and accurately

reported, we would have a much higher annual

iatrogenic death rate than 783,936. Dr. Leape, in

1994, said his figure of 180,000 medical mistakes

annually was equivalent to three jumbo-jet crashes

every two days.16 Our report shows that 6 jumbo jets

are falling out of the sky each and every day.

 

Correcting a Compromised System

 

What we must deduce from this report is that medicine

is in need of complete and total reform: from the

curriculum in medical schools to protecting patients

from excessive medical intervention. It is quite

obvious that we can’t change anything if we are not

honest about what needs to be changed. This report

simply shows the degree to which change is required.

We are fully aware that what stands in the way of

change are powerful pharmaceutical companies, medical

technology companies, and special interest groups with

enormous vested interests in the business of medicine.

They fund medical research, support medical schools

and hospitals, and advertise in medical journals. With

deep pockets they entice scientists and academics to

support their efforts. Such funding can sway the

balance of opinion from professional caution to

uncritical acceptance of a new therapy or drug. You

only have to look at the number of invested people on

hospital, medical, and government health advisory

boards to see conflict of interest. The public is

mostly unaware of these interlocking interests. For

example, a 2003 study found that nearly half of

medical school faculty, who serve on Institutional

Review Boards (IRB) to advise on clinical trial

research, also serve as consultants to the

pharmaceutical industry.17 The authors were concerned

that such representation could cause potential

conflicts of interest. A news release by Dr. Erik

Campbell, the lead author, said, " Our previous

research with faculty has shown us that ties to

industry can affect scientific behavior, leading to

such things as trade secrecy and delays in publishing

research. It's possible that similar relationships

with companies could affect IRB members' activities

and attitudes. " 18

 

Medical Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Scientific

Medicine

 

Jonathan Quick, Director of Essential Drugs and

Medicines Policy for the World Health Organization

wrote in a recent WHO Bulletin: " If clinical trials

become a commercial venture in which self-interest

overrules public interest and desire overrules

science, then the social contract which allows

research on human subjects in return for medical

advances is broken. " 19

 

Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine

(NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell, struggled to bring the

attention of the world to the problem of

commercializing scientific research in her outgoing

editorial titled " Is Academic Medicine for Sale? " 20

Angell called for stronger restrictions on

pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial

incentives for researchers. She said that growing

conflicts of interest are tainting science. She warned

that, " When the boundaries between industry and

academic medicine become as blurred as they are now,

the business goals of industry influence the mission

of medical schools in multiple ways. " She did not

discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian

bargain now existed between medical schools and the

pharmaceutical industry.

 

Angell left the NEMJ in June, 2000. Two years later,

in June, 2002, the NEJM announced that it will now

accept biased journalists (those who accept money from

drug companies) because it is too difficult to find

ones that have no ties. Another former editor of the

journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was just not

the case, that there are plenty of researchers who

don’t work for drug companies.21 The ABC report said

that one measurable tie between pharmaceutical

companies and doctors amounts to over $2 billion a

year spent for over 314,000 events that doctors

attend.

 

The ABC report also noted that a survey of clinical

trials revealed that when a drug company funds a

study, there is a 90% chance that the drug will be

perceived as effective whereas a non-drug

company-funded study will show favorable results 50%

of the time. It appears that money can’t buy you love

but it can buy you any " scientific " result you want.

The only safeguard to reporting these studies was if

the journal writers remained unbiased. That is no

longer the case.

 

Cynthia Crossen, writer for the Wall Street Journal in

1996, published Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of

Fact in America, a book about the widespread practice

of lying with statistics.22 Commenting on the state of

scientific research she said that, " The road to hell

was paved with the flood of corporate research dollars

that eagerly filled gaps left by slashed government

research funding. " Her data on financial involvement

showed that in l981 the drug industry " gave " $292

million to colleges and universities for research. In

l991 it " gave " $2.1 billion.