Search This Blog

Tuesday, 17 December 2019

DEATH BY PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS. Equivalant to one Jumbo Jet crashing every day. And that's just in the USA! The failure of Regulation. The failure of politicians and governments to protect the people.

Jon Rappoport's blog has regularly referred to the medical drugs that are killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 per year, or as he says, a million deaths every decade. He takes this figure from an estimate published on 26th July 2000 by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), entitled "Is US health really the best in the world?", written by Barara Starfield at the John Hopkins School of Public Health.

Yet even Starfield's calculation must now be considered to be an under-estimate, given the prodigious number of pharmaceutical drugs being prescribed now as compared to 20 years ago. As Rappoport said in his blog

               "Countries of the world are literally being assaulted by pharmaceutical companies and their foot-soldier doctors. It's chemical warfare".

Yet even with 106,000 people dying from pharmaceutical medicine, 1,000,000 every decade, remains just a statistic, and number. So what exactly does this number represent?

It represents a Jumbo Jet crashing every day, killing nearly 300 people,
plus the distress and grief caused to their families and friends.

So, if a Jumbo Jet did crash every day what action might we expect to be taken by the aviation authorities? They would surely ground all the planes, remove them from the sky, and insist that they do not fly again until they were proven to be safe.

And, of course, this is exactly what has happened following 'a mere' 2 jumbo jets crashing earlier this year, one in Indonesia, the other in Ethiopia, killing many more than 300 people. The planes, Boeing 737 Max airliners, were grounded, removed from the sky, and told they would not fly again until they were proven to be safe.

Yesterday, the USA's Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) announced that the planes would not be allowed to fly again, even after nine months after the two planes had crashed. The FAA has taken decisive action, even though it has been (quite rightly) criticised for allowing a flawed aircraft to fly in the first place!

This is, after all, what people expect from regulators, whether it is planes, drugs, or anything else  - that they take decisive action to protect the public from harm, both before it happens, and after tragedies of this kind.

So what is the US drug regulator, the FDA, doing about the public dying at an equivalent rate on one Jumbo Jet crashing every day?


In fairness, the FDA is not alone in its incompetence and lack of concern. Just as aviation regulators in other countries failed to take action against the Boeing 737 Max airliner, other pharmaceutical drug regulators around the world (the EDA in Europe, the MHRC in Britain, et al) are failing with an equal lack of concern, and displaying an equal lack of competence.
  • Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines continue to be approved, and subsequently given to patients, who are harmed and even killed by them.
  • And when this harm is proven, little action is taken, beyond exhorting doctors to be more careful when prescribing them.
And just as the FAA has been accused of being "too close" to Boeing, and its commercial and financial interests, the FDA is regularly accused of being "too close" to the massively powerful pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, all industrial regulators are too close to the companies they are supposed to be regulating. The reason is usually simple, but essentially corrupt.
  • Usually, regulators and the process of regulation is paid for by the companies they are supposed to be regulating.
  • It is in the financial and commercial interest of companies to 'cosy-up' to regulators, to make it worthwhile for the regulator not to regulate too rigorously. And this is what happens.
  • There is also, often. a 'revolving door', with company employees becoming regulators, and vice versa. The regulated becomes the regulator!
  • Even politicians and governments seem unconcerned, perhaps in the realisation that company investments, and the employment they provide, are good for their political interests.
The only people who lose out are the very people regulators are supposed to be protecting!