Feb 18 2013

In my opinon Dr. Mercola: Flacking for Big Pharma it is on record that Cathal Grant has taken bribes from the drug companies $151,474.00 since 2010 to push drugs on people who do not need then at all.

 

Source: Dr. Mercola

By Dr. Mercola

It’s old news that drug companies essentially “bribe” doctors into prescribing their drugs by lavishing them with gifts – branded pens and coffee mugs, free lunches, golf outings, “educational” trips to the Caribbean … all have been regarded as fair game in the past, although now such free goodies are heavily discouraged.

Just how much influence such gifts had on doctors has long been debated (although the research suggests it did have a significant impact … why else would the drug companies put so much money into it?). But regardless, sound medical research published in a reputable medical journal should have much more influence …

A pen with a drugmaker’s name emblazoned on the side couldn’t possibly persuade a physician to prescribe a drug more than clinical data published in a medical journal.

Yet, what many people do not understand is that much of the scientific research published in journals is bought-and-paid-for by the drug industry as well.

A far more covert – and far more influential – practice than showing up at a physician’s office with a free pizza and a duffel bag full of coffee mugs, by controlling medical research itself the drug industry can make it virtually impossible for a well-meaning physician to decipher the truth about the medications he or she is prescribing to you.

Most Medical Journals Depend on Big Pharma Advertising Dollars

In The American Scholar, author Harriet Washington writes:1

“… while we still gravely debate whether physicians’ loyalties can really be bought for a disposable pen or a free lunch, the $310 billion pharmaceutical industry quietly buys something far more influential: the contents of medical journals and, all too often, the trajectory of medical research itself.

… Flimsy plastic pens that scream the virtues of Vioxx and articles published in the pages of The New England Journal of Medicine would seem to mark the two poles of medical influence. Scarcely any doctor admits to being influenced by the former; every doctor boasts of being guided by the latter.

In fact, medical-journal articles are widely embraced as irreproachable bastions of disinterested scientific evaluation and as antidotes to the long fiscal arm of pharmaceutical-industry influence.

And yet, ‘All journals are bought — or at least cleverly used — by the pharmaceutical industry,’ says Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal …”

It starts with advertising dollars, as pharmaceutical ads can make up 97-99 percent of a medical journal’s advertising revenue. As the featured article reported:

“ … medical journals themselves advertise to drugmakers, flooding the pages of pharmaceutical-industry publications such as Medical Marketing and Media to vie for the attentions of Big Pharma. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) bills itself in advertising as ‘a priceless audience at a price you can afford,’ while the Annals boasts: ‘With an audience of more than 90,000 internists (93 percent of whom are actively practicing physicians), Annals has always been a smart buy.’

In 2003, drug companies spent $448 million on advertising in medical journals. The ads promote not only drugs but also subsidized seminars and “training opportunities” that usually take place in tropical locations.

Of course, oftentimes the ads are only agreed upon if there will also be a positive mention of the product in an editorial piece; sometimes the drug maker will even have their own writers generate the content! It has been calculated that the return on investment on medical journal ads is between $2.22 and $6.86 for every dollar spent, with larger and older brands at the higher end.

Long-term returns may be even higher when you consider that one ad viewed by a physician could result in hundreds or even thousands of drug purchases, based on the prescriptions he or she writes.

At least certain medical journals are attempting to regain their unbiased reputations; in 2011 the journal Emergency Medicine Australasia announced it would no longer accept pharmaceutical advertisements, citing growing evidence that the drug industry “distorts research findings and engages in dubious and unethical publishing practices.”

Why Most Medical Research Cannot be Trusted

The sad truth is, there’s no easy way to determine what you can trust when it comes to medical research and official treatment guidelines. So much of it has been tainted by financial conflicts of interests. It’s well known that studies funded by industry or conducted by researchers with industry ties tend to favor corporate interests.

That’s why it probably comes as no surprise that many so-called “experts” are very much on the drug industry’s payroll — but they masquerade as independent medical experts or even state officials during their “day jobs.”

It is, by the way, 100% legal for drug companies to pay medical professionals to promote their products. The drug industry also often pays the expert medical reviewers who evaluate medications or medical devices for the journals. The featured article continues:2

Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJMgave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds.”

The conflict of interest within this practice is obvious, which is why the drug industry often keeps quiet on their actual payments, as do the medical professionals involved. Although many medical, educational and research institutions require faculty members to disclose such potential conflicts of interest, many do not actively monitor employees’ activities.

Financial disclosures are also added into medical journals, but the reader will only learn which company may have paid an expert author, not how much or what other ties to industry they may have. Unfortunately, even if you scour the medical literature to determine what the consensus is on any given medical topic, what you’ll find is an overwhelming preponderance of data in favor of the drug approach that in no way, shape or form reflects the reality of the scientific investigation that went into that specific drug.

How Negative Research Gets a Positive Spin

The fact is, there are many ways to turn an otherwise negative study positive, including choosing study participants who are more likely to benefit from the treatment or even hiding, or simply not publishing, negative results; in fact, researchers of industry-funded studies often sign gag orders that forbid them from publishing, discussing or analyzing data without permission of the funder. According to Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): 3

“Any reputable journal is at the mercy of what is submitted to it and must choose from whatever comes over the transom. Many studies never see the light of day because their findings are negative. There is a heavy bias toward positive studies, and this negative bias is a real problem. A company may conduct 1,000 trials; if two are positive, they get FDA approval and are published. The other 998 never see the light of day. In fact, half of all study data is never published.”

In a tongue-in-cheek essay in the British Medical Journal, titled “HARLOT — How to Achieve Positive Results Without Actually Lying to Overcome the Truth,”4 it’s wittily explained exactly how industry insiders can help make their drugs look good:5

  • “Comparing their drug to a placebo. A placebo, such as a sham or ‘sugar’ pill, has no active ingredient, and, although placebos may evoke some poorly understood medical benefits, called the ‘placebo effect,’ they are weak: medications tend to outperform placebos. Placebo studies are not ethical when a treatment already exists for a disorder, because it means that some in the study go untreated. However, if you care only that your new drug shines in print, testing against placebo is the way to go.
  • Comparing their drug to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength. Too low a dose makes the rival drug look ineffective. Too high a dose tends to elicit worrisome side effects.
  • Pairing their drug with one that is known to work well. This can hide the fact that a tested medication is weak or ineffective.
  • Truncating a trial. Drugmakers sometimes end a clinical trial when they have reason to believe that it is about to reveal widespread side effects or a lack of effectiveness — or when they see other clues that the trial is going south.
  • Testing in very small groups. Drug-funded researchers also conduct trials that are too small to show differences between competitor drugs. Or they use multiple endpoints, then selectively publish only those that give favorable results, or they ‘cherry-pick’ positive-sounding results from multicenter trials.”

Did You Know the Drug Industry Also Pays Ghostwriters?

One cross-sectional survey found that more than 20 percent of articles published in six leading medical journals during 2008 were likely written by honorary and/or ghostwriters.6 For medical journals, ghostwriting usually refers to writers sponsored by a drug or medical device company, who make major but uncredited research or writing contributions.

The pharmaceutical company hires a medical education and communications company, which is a company paid almost exclusively by pharmaceutical companies to write articles, reviews, and letters to editors of medical journals in order to cast their products in a favorable light. (Since they pay substantial amounts to have these articles written, it automatically implies that it will be written to their specifications.)

Once the article is written to their satisfaction, the pharmaceutical company then starts “shopping around” for an academic physician or physicians who are well known in the field, encouraging them to put their name on the article.

From there, they “massage” the article past peer review in one of the more prestigious medical journals, preferably one that strongly influences practicing doctors. Once the article is published, the pharmaceutical company then purchases tens of thousands of reprint copies to be distributed to doctors’ offices by their pharmaceutical representatives. The unsuspecting doctor thinks the study is reliable since it clearly appears to be written by a leading name in the field and has been published in a prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal.

Why would medical journals play along with this apparent sham? Perhaps the primary incentive to play it loose is that it’s very lucrative for them, as the reprints purchased by the pharmaceutical companies for distribution are quite expensive. And medical journals are, after all, for-profit businesses. In some cases, some of the leading publishers have even sunk so low as to publish entire sham journals. The featured article stated:7

Elsevier publishes 2,000 scientific journals and 20,000 book-length works, but its Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which looks just like a medical journal, and was described as such, was not a peer-reviewed medical journal but rather a collection of reprinted articles that Merck paid Elsevier to publish. At least some of the articles were ghostwritten, and all lavished unalloyed praise on Merck drugs, such as its troubled painkiller Vioxx. There was no disclosure of Merck’s sponsorship.

Librarian and analyst Jonathan Rochkind found five similar mock journals, also paid for by Merck and touted as genuine. The ersatz journals are still being printed and circulated, according to Rochkind, and 50 more Elsevier journals appear to be Big Pharma advertisements passed off as medical publications. Rochkind’s forensic librarianship has exposed the all-but-inaccessible queen of medical publishing as a high-priced call girl.”

How Can You Make Educated Health-Care Decisions?

When your physician prescribes you a medication, even if he or she has reviewed the relevant published data, there is virtually no way to know whether that drug is truly safe or effective. The well from which that data has been drawn has been “poisoned” so that it’s nearly impossible to decipher what is real and what is a fabrication.

Since it is very well established that most prescribed drugs do absolutely nothing to treat the cause of disease, it would be prudent to exercise the precautionary principle when evaluating ANY drug claim, as it will more than likely be seriously flawed, biased, or worse … and, of course, I always advise taking control of your health, which you can easily do by reviewing my comprehensive nutritional plan that summarizes my 30 years of clinical experience and treating 25,000 patients. I put this together so you can stay well and avoid falling into the dangerous, deceitful traps discussed in this article.

Source: CCHR

IMPORTANT FACTS

1. Studies in numerous countries reveal that between 10% and 25% of psychiatrists and psychologists admit to sexually abusing their patients.

2. Germany reported that 50% of registered psychologists and psychotherapists are unacceptable as practitioners because they have more problems than their patients.

3. The so-called ethics system used by psychiatrists has been universally attacked as soft and inadequate.

4. A 1997 Canadian study of psychiatrists revealed that 10% admitted to sexually abusing theirs patients; 80% of those are repeat offenders.

IMPORTANT FACTS

1. Studies in numerous countries reveal that between 10% and 25% of psychiatrists and psychologists admit to sexually abusing their patients.

2. Germany reported that 50% of registered psychologists and psychotherapists are unacceptable as practitioners because they have more problems than their patients.

3. The so-called ethics system used by psychiatrists has been universally attacked as soft and inadequate.

4. A 1997 Canadian study of psychiatrists revealed that 10% admitted to sexually abusing theirs patients; 80% of those are repeat offenders.

The real truth about the money paid to Cathal Grant by the drug Companies

 

 

Notice Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is paid by Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Cephalon, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer to push their drug in our opinion it is clear what Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is doing, prescribing drug if you need them or not.

 

Doctors Paid Big By Drug Companies?

One patient statement about Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas:

“We found out that he gets paid to speak for almost every drug company out there, even if the drugs are competitors. He is out to make the money and it is apparent the way patients are herded through the practice with no regard for the patient’s needs. Beware if he tries to prescribe you a “new” drug on the market, it probably means they are paying him now. “

 

In our experience Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not tell you one big fact that you the patient has and that is Informed Consent, Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not discuss this or wants you to know about this, in our experience so he can get you hooked on psychotropic medications so you can do nothing but feed you greed for money, and you do not care at all what you do to the patient’s life.

This video proves what we are saying in our opinion about Cathal Grant’s medical practice, it also shows how Cathal Grant does not want you to have informed consent in your visit with him, and he does not tell you the truth, as the video below shows:

 

 

 

 

 

Did you like this? Share it:

No responses yet

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

*

  • Archives Calendar

    June 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Archives

  • RSS In my Opinon Free Speech

    • In My Opinion Free Speech site was attacked I guess they do not like the truth to be told
      It seems like that when you supply the truth as  In my opinion free speech does, and you start exposing the drugs, drug companies, and the people responsible for hurting so many innocent people who among many actions, break up marriages and basically ruinin people’s lives and careers by their actions and drugs they use wrongly, and abusively, that when Related posts: In my opinion the drug Cathal Grant is paid by Eli Lilly to push on you if you need it or not, has major issues as told in the article “Suicide and Cymbalta” In my opinion: What’s really behind the school shootings. In tha case of Cathal Grant his patient have attacked members of thier won family, even though the famly members warned his what what going on, all Cathal Grant wants to do is keep people hooked on the drug hie is supplying if they need the drigs or not. In my opinion the truth about the drugs Cathal Grant Prescribes and the facts he does not want you to know: Mental Health Watchdog Launches Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Database—Search All Drug Regulatory Agency Warnings, Studies & Adverse Reactions Reports
    • In my Opinion the payment still being made to Cathal Grant to give you medication you may not need
      Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, is still accepting money from the drug companies , our experience to push the drugs if you need them or not. Payments: At a Glance 566 payments $210,057 payment total Rank: 8 out of 1,268 doctors in this specialty and state Drugs & Devices Totals listed below account Related posts: In my opinion a release Eli Lilly: Lying is the Best Defense The drug company who pays Cathal Grant (Cathal Grant’s total payment $151,474.00 since 2010 by all drug companies) to give you medication you may not need In my opinion a report: Psychology Professor: Grief and anxiety are not mental illnesses; People need help & understanding not labels & medication, but Cathal Grant will label you and give you drugs if you need them or not, all he wants is the money for office visits, and credit with the drug companies for the drug he has perscribed and hooked you on they have paid him $151,474.00 since 2010. In my opinion asks the question: Why Must Everything Be a Medical Condition? ADHD prescriptions soar 50% in six years, In Cathal Grant’s case he getd patients hooked on these drugs for nothing more than he own personal gains and his payment by the drug companies to increse thier profits by prescribing these drug if you need them or not.
    • In my opinion Cathal Grant the doctor and drugs in Medicare Part D a real tale of over prescribing for money
      Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, is still accepting money from the drug companies which brings his total to $151,474.00 since 2010, our experience to push the drugs if you need them or not.   Source: Pro Publica   Cathal Grant keeps in our opinion  increasing his wrongful prescribing of drug these patients do Related posts: In My Opinion SSRI Tragedy a Real Risk, and Cathal Grant does not care what the drugs he prescribes to you does, all he is interested in is the money he collects for the 2 to 5 minute office visits and what the drug companies pay him to push their drugs In my opinion News: Media Ignores Real Story in Conn School Shooting, and Cathal Grant keeps prescribing the same class of drug that has caused these incidents, caring for nothing but his office visit fees In my Opoinon Report on Cathal Grant Prescriber Checkup The Doctors and Drugs in Medicare Part D, the time Cathal Grant spends with his patient 2 to 5 minutes is not enough time to do a proper diganosis, just to push drugs on unsupecting Medicare and other patients, like the drug companies pay him to do if they need the drug or not in our experience Cathal Grant a true legal drug pusher
    • In my opinion: A Psychiatrist’s Perspective on Using Drugs . Cathal Grant does not practice like this he gets you hooked on these drug for his own profit and the proffit of the drug companies who pay him to hook you on their drugs
      Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, is still accepting money from the drug companies which brings his total to $151,474.00 since 2010, our experience to push the drugs if you need them or not.   In our experience the facts below prove Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, is doing what he paid Related posts: In my opinion: When it comes to Anti-depressants, it appears profit, not benefits, outweigh the risks and Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas practice is for nothing but profit his profit , he spends only 2 to 5 minutes with each patient so he can make the most profit by seeing the maxium number of patients each day and it is the patients who gets hooked on these drug in his practice when they do not need these drug at all. In my opinion a Documentary: The Drugging of Our Children, and Cathal Grant will drug you children, not because they need it only so he can get them hook on the drugs for more profit for him and the drug companies who pay him to push their drugs In my Opinion: Top psychiatrist: ‘We are turning childhood into a disease’ all for the prifit of Cathal Grand and the drug companies who pay him to get prople hooked on these drugs
    • In my Opinon: Danish Doctor Offers Ten Myths About Psychotropic Drugs, these are facts that Cathal Grant does not want you to read, he wants you not to know these facts so he can push drugs on you and get you hooked on them.
      Danish Doctor Offers Ten Myths About Psychotropic Drugs Design & Trend – January 23, 2014 By Pete Calautti Source: Design & Trend & CCHR Dr. Peter Gotzsche has created a controversy and sparked criticism over what he sees as a damaging over-prescription of drugs by psychiatrists. Gotzsche recently compiled a list of ten common myths held Related posts: In my Opinon Dr. Mercola Explains that Psychotropic Drug Use Associated with Increased Risk for Car Crashes, But Cathal Grant is a pro profit not for patient doctor who wants to get you hooked on these drugs reguardless of how you life is affected by these drugs In my opinion a Report: Mental Disorders: The Facts Behind the Marketing Campaign and Cathal Grant knows if you read this information you will come to the conclusion he is only in the business of pushing drugs you do not need using false diganostic methods and theories no longer accepted by the medical community. In my opinon the facts exposed: Psycho-Pharma Front Groups The Campaign to “Stop the Stigma” of “Mental Illness” was launched by…. the Pharmaceutical Industry, the same drug companies who pay Cathal Grant to get you hooked on their drugs of you need them or not.