AUGUST 31, 2004. The elite British Royal College of General Practitioners has come out in the open and stated that drug companies invent or shape disease categories that, by definition, require drug treatment.
In other words, the true masters are the drug companies.
My comments on The UK Telegraph piece below are in caps and brackets.
Drug Firms Accused Of 'Disease Mongering' By Michael Day Health Correspondent The Telegraph - UK 8-28-4 The Royal College of General Practitioners has accused drug companies of "disease-mongering" in order to boost sales. [OF COURSE THIS CHARGE IS SELF-SERVING, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE DOCTORS PRESCRIBE THE DRUGS. NEVERTHELESS, THE CHARGE IS ACCURATE.] The college, whose members include many of Britain's 37,000 GPs, says the pharmaceutical industry is taking the National Health Service to the brink of collapse by encouraging unnecessary prescribing of costly drugs. [LIKE DOCTORS, THE HEALTH SERVICE CAN REJECT MANY DRUGS AS UNNECESSARY.] In evidence to a parliamentary inquiry, the college accuses the companies of over-playing the dangers of conditions such as mild depression or slightly raised blood pressure. [IN OTHER WORDS, DEFINE DISEASE CONDITIONS SO ALMOST ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN SUDDENLY REQUIRES DRUGS.] Dr Maureen Baker, the college's honorary secretary, wants the Commons health inquiry to investigate the companies' practices. "It would be fruitful to look into the increase in disease-mongering by them," she told The Sunday Telegraph. "It is very much in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry to draw a line that includes as large a population as possible within the 'ill' category. The bigger this group is, the more drugs they can sell. If current trends continue, publicly funded health-care systems will be at risk of financial collapse with huge cost to society as a whole." The college lists hypertension, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression as examples of common conditions that, in mild forms, are often inappropriately treated with drugs. Richard Ley, a spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: "It seems odd for this criticism to come from the Royal College of all organisations, because a decision on when and how to treat a patient is the doctor's." [EACH SIDE PASSES THE BUCK TO THE OTHER. THE DRUG INDUSTRY SAYS, “WE CAN LIE ALL WE WANT TO ABOUT WHAT DRUGS ARE NEEDED, BUT IT’S THE DOCTORS’ JOB TO SEE THROUGH OUR LIES.”] Dr Baker, however, questioned the impartiality of treatment guidelines from bodies of specialist doctors that tell GPs when and what to prescribe, saying they were often overly influenced by and financially reliant on drug companies. [“FINANCIALLY RELIANT” IS AN INTERESTING PHRASE. CARE TO SPELL THAT OUT IN GREAT DETAIL? YOU MEAN THESE “BODIES” OF SPECIALISTS ARE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?] Earlier this month, it emerged that three senior members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which recommended the introduction of the new five-in-one jab for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib had received "industrial support" from two pharmaceutical firms, Aventis Pasteur and Merck Sharp & Dome, which are supplying the vaccination. [YOU MEAN THESE MEMBERS WERE ON THE TAKE. BEHOLDEN. PAID OFF. IT WAS BASICALLY QUID PRO QUO.] Some observers are also worried about "hard-sell" methods applied to general practice. Last year, a survey of 1,000 GPs published in the British Medical Journal found that those who saw drugs-company representatives at least once a week were more likely to prescribe drugs that were not needed. [THERE ARE TWO IMPLICATIONS HERE. ONE, THE DOCTORS WHO OFTEN SEE DRUG-COMPANY REPS ARE TOO STUPID TO RESIST SALES PITCHES AND THEY INTERPRET THESE PITCHES AS “SCIENCE.” TWO, MONEY INDUCEMENTS ARE MADE TO THE DOCTORS. LET’S SPELL THESE OUT AND GET IT ALL IN THE OPEN. PAID VACATIONS, PAID JUNKETS TO BEAUTIFUL LOCALES FOR MED CONFERENCES. KICKBACKS ON DRUG SCRIPTS WRITTEN. KICKBACKS ON FREE DRUG SAMPLES SUPPLIED BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND HANDED OUT TO PATIENTS BY DOCTORS.]
End of Telegraph article
The corruption happens on both ends of the deal. Drug companies and doctors. We’re essentially talking about invention of disease conditions. The British National Health Service funds free medical treatment for all. They’re afraid they’ll go broke if doctors keep prescribing all these drugs to the populace. Of course, no word on the TOXICITY of the drugs. Look for a compromise to be reached: British doctors will continue their over-the-top prescribing practices. The drug companies will sell those drugs to the government for less. In fact, that’s what this whole Royal College accusation is really all about: pressure on the drug companies to lower their prices.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
©†ƒ……•™¼‡_Original_Message_¾€š½ž¢«»¬ï°©AUGUST 31, 2004. The elite British Royal College of General Practitioners has come out in the open and stated that drug companies invent or shape disease categories that, by definition, require drug treatment.
In other words, the true masters are the drug companies.
My comments on The UK Telegraph piece below are in caps and brackets.
Drug Firms Accused Of 'Disease Mongering' By Michael Day Health Correspondent The Telegraph - UK 8-28-4 The Royal College of General Practitioners has accused drug companies of "disease-mongering" in order to boost sales. [OF COURSE THIS CHARGE IS SELF-SERVING, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE DOCTORS PRESCRIBE THE DRUGS. NEVERTHELESS, THE CHARGE IS ACCURATE.] The college, whose members include many of Britain's 37,000 GPs, says the pharmaceutical industry is taking the National Health Service to the brink of collapse by encouraging unnecessary prescribing of costly drugs. [LIKE DOCTORS, THE HEALTH SERVICE CAN REJECT MANY DRUGS AS UNNECESSARY.] In evidence to a parliamentary inquiry, the college accuses the companies of over-playing the dangers of conditions such as mild depression or slightly raised blood pressure. [IN OTHER WORDS, DEFINE DISEASE CONDITIONS SO ALMOST ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN SUDDENLY REQUIRES DRUGS.] Dr Maureen Baker, the college's honorary secretary, wants the Commons health inquiry to investigate the companies' practices. "It would be fruitful to look into the increase in disease-mongering by them," she told The Sunday Telegraph. "It is very much in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry to draw a line that includes as large a population as possible within the 'ill' category. The bigger this group is, the more drugs they can sell. If current trends continue, publicly funded health-care systems will be at risk of financial collapse with huge cost to society as a whole." The college lists hypertension, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression as examples of common conditions that, in mild forms, are often inappropriately treated with drugs. Richard Ley, a spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: "It seems odd for this criticism to come from the Royal College of all organisations, because a decision on when and how to treat a patient is the doctor's." [EACH SIDE PASSES THE BUCK TO THE OTHER. THE DRUG INDUSTRY SAYS, “WE CAN LIE ALL WE WANT TO ABOUT WHAT DRUGS ARE NEEDED, BUT IT’S THE DOCTORS’ JOB TO SEE THROUGH OUR LIES.”] Dr Baker, however, questioned the impartiality of treatment guidelines from bodies of specialist doctors that tell GPs when and what to prescribe, saying they were often overly influenced by and financially reliant on drug companies. [“FINANCIALLY RELIANT” IS AN INTERESTING PHRASE. CARE TO SPELL THAT OUT IN GREAT DETAIL? YOU MEAN THESE “BODIES” OF SPECIALISTS ARE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?] Earlier this month, it emerged that three senior members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which recommended the introduction of the new five-in-one jab for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib had received "industrial support" from two pharmaceutical firms, Aventis Pasteur and Merck Sharp & Dome, which are supplying the vaccination. [YOU MEAN THESE MEMBERS WERE ON THE TAKE. BEHOLDEN. PAID OFF. IT WAS BASICALLY QUID PRO QUO.] Some observers are also worried about "hard-sell" methods applied to general practice. Last year, a survey of 1,000 GPs published in the British Medical Journal found that those who saw drugs-company representatives at least once a week were more likely to prescribe drugs that were not needed. [THERE ARE TWO IMPLICATIONS HERE. ONE, THE DOCTORS WHO OFTEN SEE DRUG-COMPANY REPS ARE TOO STUPID TO RESIST SALES PITCHES AND THEY INTERPRET THESE PITCHES AS “SCIENCE.” TWO, MONEY INDUCEMENTS ARE MADE TO THE DOCTORS. LET’S SPELL THESE OUT AND GET IT ALL IN THE OPEN. PAID VACATIONS, PAID JUNKETS TO BEAUTIFUL LOCALES FOR MED CONFERENCES. KICKBACKS ON DRUG SCRIPTS WRITTEN. KICKBACKS ON FREE DRUG SAMPLES SUPPLIED BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND HANDED OUT TO PATIENTS BY DOCTORS.]
End of Telegraph article
The corruption happens on both ends of the deal. Drug companies and doctors. We’re essentially talking about invention of disease conditions. The British National Health Service funds free medical treatment for all. They’re afraid they’ll go broke if doctors keep prescribing all these drugs to the populace. Of course, no word on the TOXICITY of the drugs. Look for a compromise to be reached: British doctors will continue their over-the-top prescribing practices. The drug companies will sell those drugs to the government for less. In fact, that’s what this whole Royal College accusation is really all about: pressure on the drug companies to lower their prices.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com