Suppose you learned that a single source in the US, every year,
like clockwork, kills 225,000 people. That would be 2.25 million
killings per decade.
Wouldn't you think we'd hear about it? Wouldn't public health agencies
make a big, bigger, biggest deal about it? Wouldn't they call it a
pandemic to end all pandemics?
Can you imagine the reaction at every level of society? The insane
panic? The madness in the streets? The attacks against institutions
tasked with preventing such a cataclysm? The collapse of the stock
market and the healthcare system? The predictions of the end of the
world? The churches on roaring business highs?
Well, on July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Dr. Barbara Starfield's review,
"Is US Health Really the Best in the World?"
In it, Starfield, who was a respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, stated that:
* The US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.
* 106,000 deaths per year from FDA-approved medical drugs.
* 119,000 deaths per year from error-ridden treatment in hospitals.
I'm aware that independent research puts those death figures much
higher, but I focus on Dr. Starfield's work because no mainstream
reporter or government official could challenge her credentials or the
credentials of the journal that published her findings.
And yes, there were stories in the press at the time, in 2000. But the coverage wasn't aggressive, and it faded out quickly.
And none of the mainstream coverage did the obvious extrapolations. We
are talking about 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. And over a MILLION
deaths per decade from medicines the FDA has approved as safe and
effective.
The US government is aware. You can search for an FDA page titled,
"Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)?"
It states: "Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly." And "100,000 DEATHS
yearly." (The capital letters are the FDA's, not mine.)
The FDA, of course, is the single federal agency responsible for
certifying all medical drugs safe and effective before they are released
for public use. They readily admit the human death-and- maiming
devastation...but take no responsibility for it.
On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here are excerpts from that interview.
What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?
The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that
more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet
are completely unaware that the US does not have the 'best health in the
world'.
In the medical research community, have your medically-caused
mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted,
albeit with some degree of shame?
The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been
only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot
of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there
is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools
and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).
Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on
ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?
NO.
Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American
people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency
remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000
deaths per year?
Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be
anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being
approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the
pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to
pay the FDA for reviews [of its new drugs]-which puts the FDA into an
untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There
is a large literature on this.
Aren't your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?
They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance
companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the
pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which
contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The
problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of
vested interests. Alas, [it] is a general problem of our
society---which clearly unbalances democracy.
Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?
Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, [there is] a
large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because
the industry-supported media give it no attention.)
Would it be correct to say that, when your JAMA study was published
in 2000, it caused a momentary stir and was thereafter ignored by the
medical community and by pharmaceutical companies?
Are you sure it was a momentary stir? I still get at least one email a
day asking for a reprint---ten years later! The problem is that its
message is obscured by those that do not want any change in the US
health care system.
Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study
was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths
in the US?
No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most
of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.
Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?
It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that 'it would not be interesting to readers'!
Do the 106,000 deaths from medical drugs only involve drugs
prescribed to patients in hospitals, or does this statistic also cover
people prescribed drugs who are not in-patients in hospitals?
I tried to include everything in my estimates. Since the commentary was
written, many more dangerous drugs have been added to the marketplace.
---end of interview excerpt---
No comments:
Post a Comment