Article: "Former Shill for Big Pharma Tells The Truth About Drug Testing"
http://www.naturalnews.com/023127.html
The November 2004 AARP Bulletin published this article titled, "The Insiders."
In July/August 2007 AARP Bulletin published this article titled, "Is the FDA Doing Its Job?"
Both of these articles should be easily accessed on the AARP website.
good post.. its all about hard cash. and tough luck patients...
Boney
[QUOTE=watchingwolf]The November 2004 AARP Bulletin published this article titled, "The Insiders."
In July/August 2007 AARP Bulletin published this article titled, "Is the FDA Doing Its Job?"
Both of these articles should be easily accessed on the AARP website.
[/QUOTE]
Is it the exact same article, like word for word? I found this posted as new today on trustedmd and pharmagossip, tracked it back to the source I posted, where it was new on 4/29/08. Odd they would all pick up such an old article, isn't it?
Odd indeed. However, I do know that AARP published these articles on the dates given because I clipped the articles and saved them to place in a reference file.
So AARP ran the same article twice with different titles?
Nope. They are two different articles. "The Insiders" gives the most in-depth and concise info.
I don't like being a beta tester for medicine.
Did natural news identify its source of information? If they didn't it is indeed plagerism.
From the most recent article:
"The studies he'd found consisted of 74 clinical trials, with 51%
showing results that were better than placebo and 49% with negative or
mixed results. In other words, about half the trials, though they'd
been produced for drug corporations and most likely were attempting to
produce the desired results of showing benefits, did nothing of the
sort."
This makes my skin crawl. And guess what? I think we see a ghost talker. Why the @#$% else would he be sent to Taiwan to give a @#$%^&* speech? Maybe he gave that up. He was complaining of not making any money the last time we saw him.
[QUOTE=watchingwolf]Did natural news identify its source of information? If they didn't it is indeed plagerism.
[/QUOTE]
There is a link for other articles by the author.
Maybe the doctor in the article is "hot" (newsworthy) again since the JAMA report about ghost talkers, etc. This is a new article with him telling the same story.
If the AARP ran two articles about the same thing, I could see this being a new article about it.
Suzanne: In "The Insiders" article Peter Rost, M.D. was the vice president of marketing for the endocrinology division of the giant drugmaker Pfizer. He was the first senior executive to break rank with Big Pharma's party line.
Arthur Kuebel after thirteen years of promoting drugs to physicians quit because basically the entire focus is about creating a dominant share for drug companies. He also states, on quote, " doctors were paid 0 to ,500 to promote Vioxx and other drugs at "roundtable" discussions or larger dinner meetings."
Kurt Furst states, "All the money is ging into marketing because that's where the money is."
______________________________________________________________________
In the article, "Is the FDA Doing Its Job?', it was Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa who started asking the tough questions.
Also, in this article: Yet the FDA devotes far more more of its limited resources to approving new drugs than monitoring safety after they're on the market, according to two scathing reports from Government Accounting Office(GAO) and the Institute of Medicine in 2006.
Both articles were authored by Patricia Barry.
*Somewhere in my files there is also information as to how many employees of the FDA are paid by the large pharmaceutical companies. It's something like 1/3 of FDA employees. "Methinks this is like putting the fox in the hen house to guard the chickens!"
Nowhere in the articles did I come across the name of Dr. Erick Turner.
Then why continuously complain about something, if one doesn't feel there is any hope for positive change? If you believe something is wrong, shouldn't you act on that knowledge? This is a democracy, but if citizens don't speak out, then the interests of corporate America will prevail at the expense of the public. There's an old saying from the '60's, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
I'm complaining because it makes me feel better. But I also vote. A lot. (Ah, not more than legal LOL). I vote because I don't think people who just complain should be allowed to continued to complain unless they vote.