"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." – Albert Einstein

Your honor

We all have been hoodwinked into subjecting ourselves to fallacious allopathic 'research'. Hence this class action suit against the entire cast of characters in the fray.

 
8 Main charges against the prime accused – allopathic drug industry :

They themselves [7, 8] -

1. Fund the study of their own new interventions
2. Design their own test protocols & rig the benchmarks

3. Pick 'suitable' trial participants
4. Analyze and interpret the resulting data

5. Decide which portion of the data to use
6. Draw their own conclusions after massaging the data

7. Choose whether to report it or not; & if yes, then which findings to report
8. Buy or bully all decision-makers in the allopathic scheme. 

 
Some incriminating evidence [1, 2] gathered:
 

1.  They finance the clinical trials of their own new interventions

Two thirds of all medical research is sponsored by the main accused these days [18].

As a pre-condition for providing funds to medical colleges, drug companies insist that they be intimately involved in all aspects of their research [13].

85% of the industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes, as compared to 50% for government-funded trials – a tell-tale sign of selective reporting & result manipulation [6].

 
2.  They design their own test protocols & rig the benchmarks

For example,

1. They select which earlier drugs or procedure to compare the new findings with; if at all [17].
2. By testing against a placebo's instead, they can totally get away from having to prove that their new mode of treatment is better than an existing competitive treatment [13].
3. The new drug may be compared with another drug administered at such a low dose that their drug looks more effective [13].
4. They may manipulate the conditions under which their new intervention is tested.

   For e.g. the control group may be in an advanced stage of the disease while the test group may be having only a mild form of the disease [22].

5. They may space out their poisonous dosages to hide the problematic side effects [22].

 
3.  They pick 'suitable' trial participants as per their own criterion

For e.g. -

• Elder folks are the biggest consumers of pharmaceuticals yet, in a review of medical trials, researchers at the University of Michigan discovered that just one in five included them [23].

  This is because young people are less likely to display the full range & severity of side effects [13] during the limited time-period of an allopathic test.

• The size of test participants is usually not large enough to discover all the harmful effects of a new intervention [19].

 
4.  They either conduct the trials themselves or control it tightly

• Constrained by contractual publication restriction agreements with their sponsoring drug company, researchers have been forced to publish fraudulent reports based on partial data [16].
• If the data obtained by a clinician is not supportive of the drug being investigated, they take their trials elsewhere until satisfactory results are wrung out.
    – Dr Judith Jones, Director of the Division of Drug Experience, FDA.
• The commercial drug-testing firms hired by the drug manufacturers just do the bidding of their paymasters [19]:
  • Dead people were listed as subjects of testing.
  • People reported as subjects of testing were not in the hospital at the time of tests.
  • Patient consent forms bore dates indicating they were signed by the subjects after the subjects died .
  • Patients who died, left the hospital or dropped out of the study were replaced by other patients mid-way through the test, & without updating the records.

"Yet most drugs that people take have been evaluated, for the most part, by the companies that produce them – Dr. Brett Thombs, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research [24].
 
 
5.  They decide which portion of the resulting data to use

• Unfavorable research results are deliberately & systematic suppressed [14, 19].
   
  For e.g. irregular heart beat cost tens of thousands of lives, because early signs of dangerous adverse effects were deliberately kept hidden [11].
• Clinicians are pressured into keeping quiet about them [38].
• "Data fabrication is so widespread", says Dr Braithwaite, "that it is called 'making' in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, 'graphiting' or 'dry labelling' in the United States."
          – Dr John Braithwaite, Trade Practices Commissioner [19].

 
6.  They draw their own conclusions after massaging the data

• "in 40% to 60% of studies, results had either been completely omitted or analyses changed" [11].
• "In this way study results are often presented in a more positive way than is actually the case"
        – Beate Wieseler, Deputy Head of German Institute for Quality and Efficiency (IQWiG) in Health Care's Drug Assessment Department.
• One common way to give a positive spin to a negative result is by shifting the focus from the drug's intended effect to a secondary effect that can highlighted more favorably after cooking the findings [3].
• On the other hand, the risks are systematically underestimated [12].

The difference between many of the drugs that are assumed to be effective and a placebo is too small to be of any clinical significance [13].

7.  They choose whether to report a trial or not; & if yes, then which conclusions to report

• WHO recommends that all human trials must be registered to pre-empt the 'publication bias' of reporting only the favorable ones [4].

  But several independent studies have unearthed that ~50% of these results never make it to any publication – blatantly hiding their unmentionable 'side-effects' [5, 9].

  636 participants died in 22 such unpublished trials [10], in one such incident.

• The reported results are frequently found to differ from officially registered outcomes [5].
• Positive results, if any, are repeatedly published in slightly different forms [14]

This reporting bias has been spotted in all organs of allopathy –

• pharmacological,
• surgical; e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy,
• diagnostic; e.g. ultrasound, and
• preventive interventions; e.g. cancer vaccines [12].

Some of the health conditions where in research has been fudged are –

• depression,
• bipolar disorder,
• schizophrenia,
• anxiety disorder,
• attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,
• Alzheimer's disease,
• pain, migraine,
• cardiovascular disease,
• gastric ulcers,
• irritable bowel syndrome,
• urinary incontinence,
• atopic dermatitis,
• diabetes mellitus type 2,
• hypercholesterolaemia,
• thyroid disorders,
• menopausal symptoms (PMS),
• various types of cancer; for e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma,
• several infections; for e.g. HIV, influenza, Hepatitis B &
• acute trauma [12].

Favorable reports, often written by professional ghost-writers but officially “authored” by influential opinion-makers of the allopathic fairy land, are actively planted in medico journals [15].

Thus allopathic companies have misappropriated the making & dissipation of most medical knowledge [21]. What kind of solutions do you expect from them?

 
8.  They buy or bully all decision-makers in the allopathic ecosystem

Some shady practices that have come to light -

• Swamp the drug regulator with large numbers of incomplete, partial, substandard clinical trials. For example, in one study of 111 final applications for approval:
  • 42% lacked adequately randomized trials,
  • 40% had flawed testing of dosages,
  • 39% lacked evidence of clinical efficacy &
  • 49% raised concerns about serious adverse side effects.
            – Donald Light; Sociologist; Professor of comparative health policy at the University of Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey [21].
• If the members of independent scientific & ethical oversight committee do not fall in line [22, 8]
  • the dissenters are intimidated,
  • their career growth is obstructed,
  • their professional competency is publicly slandered by big-pharma's stooges in positions of power,
  • they may be demoted or sacked from their posts,
  • they are shunted away to some other responsibility.

   

"All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. 

Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector."
- Prestigious medical journal 'The Lancet', April 2000.

It takes a lifetime to undergo the full impact of a foreign chemical inserted into a living being. But their annual balance sheet depends upon churning out more & more new drugs every year.
 
"Under this system it is impracticable to do tests extending over a long period to establish the range of usefulness and potential dangers from toxicity.. with a minimum of clinical trial, a drug may be marketed."
- Dr William Bean [20].
 
As per a New England Journal of Medicine study, one in four patients suffered observable side effects from the more than 3.34 billion prescription drugs filled in 2002 [6].

According to an AMA publication, drug related “problems” kill as many as 198,815 people and account for up to 28% of hospital admissions every year [25].

Standard medical pharmacology texts admit that relatively few doctors ever report adverse drug reactions to the FDA [6].

The reasons range from not knowing such a reporting system exists to fear of being sued.

Yet the public depends on this tremendously flawed system of voluntary reporting by doctors to know whether a drug or a medical intervention is harmful.  
 
Allopathic pinocchio's nose keeps growing longer alongwith the money in their hand; they'll continue to destroy health in the name of 'health care'…

  … unless their aficionados start seeing illness & limitation as a fight between friendly & unfriendly microvita entities.
 
 
With that, your honor, I seek your permission to subpoena the 6 felons of the main accused, for your just adjudication.
 
 
Accomplice No. 1 of allopathic field trials, captured live; put on trial.
Accomplice No. 2 of pharmaceutical research, counter-researched.
Accomplice No. 3 & 4 of allopathic treatment studies, countermanded to judicial custody. 
Accomplice No. 5 & 6 of the big pharma – hauled up; their day of judgement.  
 
 
Citations:
 
1. Research accountability and financial conflicts of interest in industry-sponsored clinical research: a review

2. BMJ-British Medical Journal (2009, December 1). Is it right for drug companies to carry out their own clinical trials? Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

3. Some Discrepancies Exist Between Outcomes Indicated In Trial Registration And Later Publications. JAMA and Archives Journals (2009, September 2). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

4. Public Library of Science (2009, February 26). Extensive Publication Bias For Phase I Drug Trials Found. Retrieved June 6, 2011, ScienceDaily.

5. Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation

6. Children’s Hospital Boston (2010, August 3). Drug trials funded by industry are more likely to publish favorable results, researchers find. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

7. University of Leicester (2009, August 20). Detecting Bias In The Reporting Of Clinical Trials Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

8. Science on trial: conflicts of interest jeopardize scientific integrity and public health.

9. Half Of Trials Supporting FDA Applications Go Unpublished. Public Library of Science (2008, September 22). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

10. Useful stroke trials left unpublished. BioMed Central (2010, April 22). Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

11. Medicine’s secret archives Beate Wieseler, Deputy Head of German Institute for Quality and Efficiency (IQWiG) in Health Care’s Drug Assessment Department.

12. Reporting bias in medical research

13. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine : Drug Co & Doctors: A Story of Corruption

14. Alison Bass’s book: ‘Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial’.

15. Flanagin, A; Carey, LA, Fontanarosa, PB,  Phillips, SG,  Pace, BP, Lundberg, GD,  Rennie, D. Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals. JAMA. 1998;280:222-224.

16. Chan, AW, Hróbjartsson, A, Haahr, MT, Gøtzsche, PC, Altman, DG. Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials. JAMA 2004;291:2457-2465

17. Gøtzsche, PC, Hróbjartsson, A, Johansen, HK,  Haahr, MT,  Altman, DG, Chan, AW. Constraints on Publication Rights in Industry-Initiated Clinical Trials. JAMA 2006;295:1645-1646.

18. Egger M, Bartlett C, Juni, P. Are randomised controlled trials in the BMJ different? BMJ. 2001 Nov 24;323(7323):1253-4

19. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. by Dr John Braithwaite

20. William Bean; 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection; Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS, Switzerland, 1989, p. 87.

21. American Sociological Association (2010, August 17). Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing ‘lemons’ and serious harm, analysis finds. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ScienceDaily.

22. Dirty pharmaceutical tactics against dissenting researchers

23. Why so many people suffer side effects from drugs; Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 3, 2011

24. Conflicts-of-Interest Sneaking Back Into Medical Journals, Say Investigators

25. “Reaction” American Medical News. January 15, 1996. Page 11

26. Death by Medicine By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD