Narcolepsy and flu vaccine: drugs may harm us: but Big Pharma takes no responsibility

Narcolepsy is a serious medical condition that causes excessive drowsiness, falling asleep at inappropriate times, and serious disruption to sleep patterns, and lifestyle. At its worst in can become cataplexy, which effects muscle control, and often the total loss of muscle control.

It has hitherto been a rare condition; but it is due to increase as it comes to us as a result of accepting the flu vaccine.

Who says? The government, who in September 2013 admitted that evidence from the Health Protection Agency has confirmed that the Swine Flu vaccine, Pandemrix, can cause the disease. NHS Choices have not come to terms with this yet as when it outlines the causes of Narcolepsy it fails to mention the flu vaccine! And, of course, our Big Pharma compliant media has not bothered to draw attention to the fact either!

This is yet another example of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines causing disease: not illness, not adverse reactions, not side-effects: but actual, long-term disease. What I have called the DIEs, or the Disease Inducing Effects of conventional medicine. So, having given us the disease, what is the NHS going to do about the condition? Not very much, it would seem.

          "There is no specific cure for narcolepsy, but you can manage your symptoms to minimise the impact the condition has on your daily life". NHS Choices.

This is yet another example of the conventional medical establishment 'successfully' causing a disease - but can then do nothing about it!

Now, again unreported by the media, 38 people in Britain have begun a class legal claim against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer of Pandemrix. If successful, the lawyers representing the group believe each of the claimant, if successful, could receive about £1 million in compensation.

Good for patients? Bad for GSK?

Well, no, not really. If GSK lose the case it is the government, through the NHS, that will have to pay up. This is the result of an 'indemnity agreement' between GSK and the Department of Health which means, in effect, that any compensation claims resulting from the vaccine, or any legal costs arising from the court case, must be paid by the government.

So what does this mean for patients, for the taxpayer, and for the conventional medical establishment?

For those patients who now suffer from Narcolepsy in means:

• they were persuaded to accept a vaccine because of a health scare, generated by the conventional medical establishment, that never happened;
• that whereas they were perfectly healthy prior to the vaccine, they are now suffering, probably for the rest of their lives, with a life-changing and debilitating disease;
• that the NHS has no treatment that can help them.

For the taxpayer, it means that:

• we have had to pay for a dangerous vaccine for an epidemic that did not happen;
• we will have to pay for the treatment (however ineffective) of patients who have been given the disease;
• we will have to pay any court costs arising from the class action;
• we will have to pay for any compensation awarded by the courts.

For the drug company, and the conventional medical establishment, it means that:

• they successfully convinced us about an epidemic swine flu crisis that never happened, a crisis that was designed to scare us into accepting the vaccine, on their advice;
• they (GSK) will pocket from the profit made by selling the NHS a vaccine that was not needed, and which has now been admitted caused serious disease;
• they (GSK) will not have to suffer any financial or legal consequences for giving us yet another harmful and dangerous vaccine;
• they will not have to experience any adverse publicity as our mainstream media is unwilling to tell the public about what is happening with conventional drugs and vaccines

The Pharmaceutical business is clearly a good one to be in! It may be causing havoc to our health. But we, as taxpayers, continue to pay for their drugs and vaccines. Governments are prepared to give drug companies immunity for any harm or damage they may cause. And our Media are not prepared to publish any information that suggests the conventional medical establishment is imposing on us a form of medicine that is unsafe, ineffective, hugely expensive - and damaging the health of patients.

BBC assume leading role in promoting new GSK malaria vaccine

There is a new vaccine about to be launched upon us. It is for Malaria. And the BBC are acting to promote it, on behalf of the drug manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

This article appeared on 8th October 2013. UK firm seeks to market world's first Malaria vaccine.

The BBC has been hyping up the benefits of this vaccine now for some years - as always, keen to provide us with 'good' news about drug and vaccine 'breakthroughs'. These are just a few of the BBC articles on the Malaria vaccine during the last two years.

In October 2011 the BBC reported that "Malaria vaccine trial results promising". 

On 8th August 2012 the BBC repeated the message, "Malaria vaccine shows early promise in clinical trials".

In January 2013, the BBC reported that there was "a faster path to a possible malaria vaccine".

So, all would appear to be well, then? Well, not really. As usual, this is a piece of BBC News reporting that does little more than parrot the 'good news' press releases of Big Pharma drug companies. The BBC seems content to act as the sales promoter of their vaccines and drugs - without the least attempt at seeking balance in their reporting.

Like everyone else, the BBC is aware that conventional drugs and vaccines have 'side-effects'. What they don't recognise is that the 'side-effects' to which they admit are actually much worse than this phrase suggests. Conventional drugs and vaccines regularly and routinely cause 'disease-inducing-effects', or DIEs.

So what about this new vaccine. Has there been any attempt at balance? Who undertook the study? Has there been any questioning of the validity of the study, or any concern about possible DIEs for the patients who will receive this vaccine? Will this vaccine be any safer, or any more effective for patients than other vaccines have proven to be?

If the 'promising' trial results are analysed there are already indications of early signs of over-hyping, and danger for patients. Heidi Stevenson did such an analysis in June 2013, and commented:

          "Before accepting claims of a vaccine’s efficacy, it’s wise to look at the study and who financed it. A new study for a malaria vaccine is a case in point. It was financed by the manufacturer and the lead researcher is a co-patent holder! It should come as no suprise that there are gaping flaws in the study, as discussed here".

So, the BBC is quite willing to report 'promising' trial results without bothering to tell us that the trials were funded and conducted by the drug company itself. A 72% efficacy rate? Wonderful. No question about it then, as far as the BBC thinks anyway. Perhaps they continue to believe that there are no 'vested interests' in such trials, and that drug companies are entirely honest in the way they conduct and interpret them! But Stevenson found much more to be concerned about, not least that the findings on the safety were 'wildly exaggerated'.

She found that many people who had received the vaccine developed a series of mild adverse reactions, including induration, pain, tenderness, swelling, erythema, hyperpigmentation, hyperemia, fever, and headache. But these were not considered to be a result of the vaccine. Stevenson asks the question - how can this exclusion be justified? A question notably not asked by the BBC.

The more serious adverse reactions identified were upper respiratory track infections, body tinea, rhinitis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and gastrointestinal disease. The study shows that those who received the vaccine experienced more of these conditions than the control group, and this was Stevenson's analysis.

          "Apparently, the researchers didn’t consider this to be significant. However, when you consider the relatively small size of this study compared with the millions who would be vaccinated if (the vaccine)  were approved, the seriousness of these results becomes quite apparent.

          "Let’s say that one million children receive this vaccine. Then, if the adverse effects occur at the same rate, an extra 127,000 children would suffer from upper respiratory tract infections. Since the targeted population is poor, that means many would not be healthy enough to manage it, and some would likely die. Add to that the gastritis case that occurred in the trial, and you’d have more than 25,000 people who’d suffer severe gastritis.

Whether it is appropriate for a drug company, with vested interests in the commercial success of the vaccine, should be allowed to get away with this is one thing.

That a public broadcaster, like the BBC, should allow them to get away with it is quite another. 

The BBC, unlike most parts of the private media industry, does not have a vested interest in GSK, or any other drug company. But it does (or at least it should) have a vested interest in its licence payers, who are patients, and so potential users of this vaccine.

Stevenson's study also looks at the claimed efficacy rate of 72%, and finds that such claims, based on this study, cannot be substantiated. She comes to this conclusion:

"It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the following flaws exist:

• Efficacy, the primary point being hyped, was not the primary end-point of the study.
• The primary end-point, adverse effects, were significant, likely resulting in a very large percentage of subject developing serious health effects. Though the authors of the study toss off a claim that they were not related to the vaccine, looking at the numbers makes that claim appear quite doubtful.
• The section of the trial that that utilized children as test subjects failed to test them for prior exposure to malaria. This seems highly questionable and may be part of the reason that the efficacy results seem so good.
• The other reason for apparently good efficacy results may be that the post-trial study used a control group that was chosen at a different time than the rest of the subjects. Looking at the results would tend to suggest that this is the most significant factor in apparently good efficacy.

It is notable that the BBC failed to pick up any of this, or even sought to do so. The close link between this public broadcaster and Big Pharma companies appears to be more about the views and allegiences of their science and health correspondents, who seem to be willing to proclaim positive, pro-drug, pro-vaccine news; whilst at the same time discounting any negative evidence that these drugs and vaccines are actually doing harm to patients, and causing disease. 

Yet 'rogue employees' are no excuse. The BBC is responsible for the news it broadcasts, and how it is broadcasted. Its editorial guidelines are supposed to be committed to 'balance' and 'impartiality'. However, with regard to most matters relating to health it repeatedly, and consistently shows a disregard for both. It shows absolutely no interest in informing its licence holders of the potential damage conventional drugs and vaccines are known to cause.

The 'new malaria vaccine' is a developing story. Most conventional drugs and vaccines come to the market with similar fanfares about its efficacy and safety - only to be withdrawn and banned a few years later because of the damage they cause to patients. There is no reason to assume that this new vaccine will be any different, or that it will be any more successful in the prevention and treatment of Malaria than current conventional treatments - which have totally failed.

So I will keep a watching brief on this one, and report on the issue as they develops. My prediction?

• The testing has probably been done: it will not be seriously questioned. 
• Approval by the drug regulator will be the next step: and they usually rubber-stamp any new drug or vaccine, controlled as they are by Big Pharma placemen. 
• And then it will be our turn - we will be encouraged to receive the wonderful new vaccine by Government, the NHS and even our doctors. 
• When subsequently there are signs of serious DIEs the conventional medical establishment will deny them, or play them down.
• When the DIEs become undeniable, the vaccine will continue to be prescribed, but restricted in some minor way.
• Eventually, but usually not until there is another (if questionable) replacement drug or vaccine, the vaccine will be withdrawn or banned. But not until thousands, if not millions, are harmed by it.

My advice? As with any conventional drug or vaccine - just say - "No thanks" - and look into what Homeopathy, and other safer and more effective alternative therapies can offer.

POSTSCRIPT 2019
This blog was written in 2013. In the intervening years has anyone noticed any reduction in the incidence of malaria arising from the malaria vaccine, and/or the BBC's promotion of it?

As usual, the promotion of conventional medicine is more positive than its actual performance! 

Paxil. More Big Pharma fraud?

This blog is based on a Health Sciences Institute newsletter, dated 30th October 2012.
Sign up for the HSI Newsletter here. It is well worth it.

Paxil (also known by the trade names Aropax, Pexeva, Seroxat and Sereupin) is a powerful antipsychotic drug that is approved to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) in adults.

Some of the known side effects of Paxil are flatulence, vomiting, gingivitis, dizziness, insomnia, nervousness, confusion, sleep abnormalities, anxiety, depersonalization, depression, lack of emotion, hallucinations, hostility, hysteria, manic-depressive reaction, psychotic depression, and psychosis. Mania has been reported in up to 2 per cent of bipolar patients.

How do these people live with themselves?

If you look at that long list of disturbing side effects, and DIEs, then the mind boggles as to why anyone would even consider giving this drug to children. Then again, I suppose when we're talking about Big Pharma, anything goes, especially when money is involved. As you and I both know, as soon as a drug has the potential to rake in millions, patient safety is the last thing on Big Pharma's mind.

Big profits were no doubt the motivation behind GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) blatant bribery of doctors to prescribe Paxil to children. In fact, the drug giant went so far as to fly psychiatrists and their partners to five-star hotels on all-expenses-paid trips, where speakers (who were paid up to $2,500 to attend) gave presentations on the drug.

Doctors who attended these 'scientific meetings' were given $750, free board and lodging and access to activities including snorkelling, golf, deep-sea fishing, rafting, glass-bottomed boat rides, hot-air balloon rides and, on one trip, a tour of the Bacardi rum distillery... and those who agreed to write extra prescriptions enjoyed further kickbacks including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.

That's despicable! But wait, there's more...

GSK even went so far as to publish an article in a medical journal that alluded to Paxil's safety for children, despite the journal asking several times for the misleading wording to be changed. Even though GSK knew that three trials had failed to prove the drugs' effectiveness in children, they still went ahead and published a report entitled "Positioning Paxil in the adolescent depression market – getting a head start"... Copies of the misleading article were given to sales representatives to pass on to doctors, in the hope that it would secure more business.

The more the merrier

An investigation found that GSK also paid $275,000 to Dr. Drew Pinsky, who hosted a popular radio show in the US, to promote another of their 'adults only' antidepressants, Wellbutrin, on his programme. GSK also claimed it could treat weight gain, sexual dysfunction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bulimia... and those are exactly the unapproved uses Dr. Pinsky promoted on his radio show.

As if that wasn't enough, GSK launched their bestselling asthma drug, Advair, to sales representatives in Las Vegas using images of slot machines, emphasising the bonuses they could make through sales. At the event, the then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said: "What is the number one reason why you should love to be a GSK sales rep? Advair's bonus plan. Yeah!"

GSK pushed the drug as the ultimate answer for tackling asthma, saying it should be the drug of choice for treating all cases. However, it had been approved only for treating severe cases, as other drugs were more suitable for mild asthma. GSK published material calling mild asthma a "myth" in an attempt to boost sales.

What's even more shameful is the fact that after GSK admitted corporate misconduct over all three drugs, they walked away with nothing but a slap on the wrist in the form of a $3bn fine... which is nothing compared to the profits GSK made from Paxil ($11.6bn), and Wellbutrin ($5.9bn) in 2000-2001 — the years covered by the settlement.

I am truly at a loss for words... 

Some additional comments on Paxil and the behaviour of drug companies
The Big Pharma drug companies are very big corporations, whose main priority are their shareholders, and the making of profit. It would appear that the making of profit (and not only from this blog, but many others) is very much more important than patient safety, and that our health is very much a secondary consideration for these companies.

Okay. I can understand that (and understanding it means that I want nothing to do with their drugs and vaccines). But always more puzzling is the fact that the Government, the Department of Health, our National Health Service (NHS), and our doctors and GP's are quite willing to continue with their role - as distributors of Big Pharma drugs. Moreover, as distributors of Big Pharma drugs, they are quite willing that we are not made aware of the dangers of these drugs.

Even more alarming, in some ways, is that our Media is also not willing to tell us what is happening, and how our health is placed in danger by all Big Pharma drugs, not just Paxil / Seroxat. Okay, most of the mass media is owned and managed by the same vested financial interests as Big Pharma. Remember, James Murdoch not only ran News International, he was also on the board of GSK!

But even this does not explain the position of BBC News! They are funded by the licence fee we all pay - and still they do not see fit to warn us about the disease-inducing effects (DIEs) of Big Pharma drugs.

Clearly, the Government, the NHS, our doctors, the Media (even the BBC) are quite willing to hide this information from people.

I wonder? How many young children will be put on Paxil today? And how many of them, or indeed their parents, will recognise or understand the dangers that are involved in doing so?

There is serious legal culpability here. Consuming something when we know it is dangerous is one thing. But when people, who should be telling us about the dangers, are clearly refusing to do so. Surely that is a crime!

BBC News. A sudden conversion to honesty?

The BBC Today programme this morning featured a piece on GlaxoSmithKline's recent $3 billion fine for fraud in the USA.  


So is this a sudden (and welcome) conversion to honesty for the BBC when reporting on health matters? Or was this news just too big for them to ignore, and brush under the carpet? (which is what the BBC normally does when it deal with the Big Pharma industry).

The questioning in two interviews by John Humphrys would have appeared to be direct, and indeed quite critical - for anyone who was not aware of 'the health debate', but as this series of articles explains, journalist's like Humphrys are not really conversant with this debate. Certainly, the interviews he conducted made it clear that he believed, or wanted to believe, this was a 'one-off' situation, and he seemed relatively happy to accept the re-assurances that 'this situation was all in the past'. The interviews certainly failed to to bring out the full seriousness of the fraud that GSK has now admitted too.

Nor did it highlight the several other important court cases in the USA, involving several Big Pharma companies, in recent years. These have all been studiously ignored by our mainstream Media, just as they were this morning by BBC News.

* Eli Lilly, in January 2009, fined $1.42 billion for mis-selling its drug Zyprexa.
* Pfizer, in September 2009, fined $2.3 billion for defrauding and misleading promotion of its painkilling drug, Bextra (which was later withdrawn from the market for safety reasons).
* Astra Zeneca, in April 2010, fined $520 million for illegally promoting the anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel.
* Merck, in November 2011, fined $950 million for illegally promoting its painkiller, Vioxx, another drug that had to be withdrawn from the market for safety reasons.
* Abbott, in May 2012, fined $1.5 billion for its illegal promotion of its anti-psychotic drug, Depakote.

So the GSK incident is only the latest of a number of scandals - all ignored by the BBC, and other Media sources. And these stories are, of course, only the tip of an iceberg of fraud and corruption that have been perpetrated by Big Pharma companies on patients over the last 50-60 years.

Conventional drugs have created disease, in epidemic proportion. And they have caused death, and has done for decades, on an unprecedented scale.

This article, by Child Health Safety, states that Big Pharma drugs are now the 4th biggest killer in the USA (if the British media were honest enough to report these issues, perhaps we would know how it was ranked in the UK). But it should not be the task of small, internet based organisations like this one to inform the public, and patients in particular, about the dangers of Conventional Medicine. Patients should not have to turn to the internet to learn the truth about Big Pharma's drugs.

BBC News, in its public service broadcasting role, should be at the forefront of investigating the dangers of Conventional Medicine. It is not there yet.

But at least this morning's brief flirtation with honesty on the Today Programme might just be a start for BBC News, and if so, it is a welcome, if long-overdue conversion to open reporting on health matters.

We are currently in a time when the morality of large multinational companies is being brought into serious question. The Murdoch press has plumbed the very depths of corruption. The Banking industry is under very serious review. But do Media organisations, or Banks, really cause the same amount of pain, suffering and death to the general public as Big Pharma companies?

* Is phone-hacking worse than causing disease through drug 'side-effects'?
* Does financial impropriety, however corrupt or serious, kill more people that pharmaceutical drugs?

Unlikely! And this is what makes it even more important that BBC News, and other mainstream media organisations, to begin reporting honestly to us about health news issues.

Avandia - still on sale!

Avandia is a drug for diabetes which causes heart attacks! GlaxoSmithKline has had to pay $2.4b in compensation to patients it has harmed. According to this report from the mainstream media, the primary concern is the profitability of GSK, now and in the future - and not our health!

This is typical of media reporting; the drugs industry is of paramount concern, the health of patients a secondary matter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E11220100715

There is strong evidence that GSK covered up the risks involved in patients taking this drug, as has been found in other drugs, like Vioxx and several others.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E11220100715

The FDA is the drug regulatory body in the USA tasked with ensuring that patients are protected from dangerous drugs. What is its response? The drug can continue to be sold!

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=3700&end=3720&view=yes&id=4988#newspost

Well, that's all okay then. Patients win lawsuits against Avandia. Our media is concerned about the profitability of GSK. And the FDA allows a dangerous drug to continue being given to patients!

Does this fill you with confidence about the Conventional Medical Establishment?

You may well ask - who protects us?