|
Re: Testimony from a nurse to the Senate who became ill from Lupron.......
From: andrea (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Sun Oct 28 01:04:06 2007
Many new posters have been inquiring about Lupron. Please take the time
to read these outtakes from an official court document, including
testimony from a nurse to the Senate who desperately tried to get Lupron
taken off the market, because it made her so extremely ill. Research
this drug not only for yourself, but so your family is not put through
the pain of watching you become even sicker.
GOD BLESS,
ANDREA
At Tue, 16 Oct 2007, mdustin wrote:
>
>It really is upsetting, isn't it? I mean, when I read all of that, I was
>shocked, which is why I reacted the way I did...in shock. I suppose
>that I shouldn't be so suprised though. It is extremely unfortunate
>that even the information from the testimony never came up in my
>searches on the net. I was given the link to it from a woman on the
>'lupron-victims' yahoo support group. Otherwise, I don't know if I ever
>would have found it.
>
>At Tue, 16 Oct 2007, andrea wrote:
>>
>>These quotes are from the PDF that Maggie found of testimony of a nurse,
>>Lynne Millican, to the Senate, who became ill from Lupron 10 years ago.
>>
>>I also spoke with Emily Page, the woman who started the Lupron petition,
>>and she also believes there is a cover-up going on when it comes to
>>Lupron. She sued TAP, but was given very little money, because her
>>doctor denied her problems were caused by the Lupron. She is still very
>>sick today.
>>
>>Please read these outtakes, and see what you think....falsifying 80% of
>>info in 4 Lupron studies? That sounds like a cover-up to me....
>>
>>pg 54: TAP has been declared a criminal enterprise based upon its scheme
>>with physicians and billing fraud and kickbacks and they just paid the
>>largest fine in history at the time, $875 million.
>>
>>pg 58: The internet posts of women identify the badgering, and coercion,
>>and manipulation, and threats used to convince women into taking Lupron
>>for a variety of indications—many refer to their doctor as trying to
>>‘‘shove it down [their] throat’’.
>>
>>pg 58: I would later learn that the director of this IVF clinic, Dr.
>>Andrew Friedman, had been a lead Lupron investigator, had received
>>numerous grants and funds from Lupron’s manufacturer, Takeda Abbott
>>Pharmaceuticals (TAP), and had published extensively on Lupron. Dr.
>>Friedman was ultimately found guilty of falsifying and fabricating
>>approximately 80 percent of the data in four Lupron studies, two of
>>which had been published and were subsequently retracted. Friedman had
>>‘‘altered and fabricated information in patient medical records,
>>falsified research notes by changing dates and changing and adding
>>text’’, and fabricated notes and fabricated patients for clinical visits
>>that had not taken place.
>>
>>pg 61: The profoundly significant and despicable thefts (‘‘conversion’’,
>>‘‘sharing’’) of women’s ova and embryos by Drs. Ricardo Asch, Sergio
>>Stone and Jose Balmaceda at the University of California at Irvine
>>(Regents; Press; 1995) should be a serious reminder to the utter (and
>>anesthetized) ease with which such menacing maneuvers can be executed.
>>(And Dr. Asch had co-authored studies of Lupron, ‘‘which was kindly
>>provided by Abbott’’ [Guerrero, 1993]). The contemptible violations of
>>stealing women’s eggs and embryos should highlight the profitability of
>>schemes to procure women’s eggs and embryos for use in research and/or
>>covert ‘re-sale’. Dr. Asch reportedly ‘left his office daily with
>>briefcase stuffed with thousands of dollars’. And attention should be
>>directed to the drug protocol(s) used—medications administered
>>‘‘deliberately’’ ‘‘so there would be a surplus of eggs’’ (Challender,
>>1995). Who is exerting any oversight over the field of reproductivity?
>>Who would exert oversight over therapeutic cloning—this same industry?
>>
>>pg 63: Women are told that Lupron will ‘‘shut down their system’’,
>>allowing ‘‘control’’ over their system, and that the side effects are
>>related to menopausal symptoms. But in fact, it was known prior to my
>>‘treatment’ with Lupron (but not disclosed to me) that Lupron causes a
>>‘‘hypophysectomy’’ (Holmes, 1988)—which, by definition, is ‘‘destruction
>>or removal of the pituitary’’; and it was known (but not disclosed to
>>me) that ‘‘sustained treatment with GnRH agonists most likely abolishes
>>pituitary function’’ (Bischof, 1988). I would also later learn that in
>>the original rat studies submitted to the FDA for Lupron’s initial
>>approval of palliative prostate cancer, all rats at all doses developed
>>pituitary adenomas (tumors)—and it was stated that ‘‘there is no obvious
>>reason to suggest that the same process could not occur
>>in humans’’ (NDA 19–010).
>>
>>pg 65: Published medical reports have noted the occurrence of abnormal
>>human pregnancy outcomes associated with the use of Lupron—43.5 percent
>>in one 1996 study (Karande, 1996). Another report, using the ‘long
>>Lupron protocol’, showed a 38 percent abortion rate (Shanis, 1995), and
>>a study of ‘low responders’ using Lupron showed a 66.6 percent
>>spontaneous first trimester abortion rate (Droesch, 1989). In ‘healthy
>>women undergoing ovarian stimulation’ using Lupron in another study, an-
>>other 66.6 percent abortion rate was noted (Minaretzis, 1995). Another
>>study’s title states ‘‘Exposure to [Lupron] in Early Pregnancy is
>>Associated With High Pregnancy Wastage That Could be Related to the
>>Length of Exposure’’ (Sasy, 1997).
>>
>>pg 69: The U.S. investigation of TAP’s billing practices revealed that
>>a computer program given by TAP to many doctors in the country (some
>>10,000 urologists received gifts from TAP), which computated the amount
>>of money per Lupron prescription the doctor could earn, also harbored a
>>‘secret key’—and in the event the secret computer program was in danger
>>of discovery, a secret key was struck and !presto! all incriminating
>>information disappeared.
>>
>>The first long-term follow-up of children who were accidentally exposed
>>to GnRHa's was published in 1999, and revealed that 4 out of the 6
>>children studied had severe neurodevelopmental abnormalities (including
>>seizure disorder). If that figure holds up in larger subsequent
>>follow-up of children ... I would ask - do you think there is a problem
>>here ... and what is the solution?' Archives of Ophthalmology, 2001,
>>carried an article with a telling title:Ocular Anomalies Seen in
>>Children Born After IVF'. On March 7, 2002 a new study was released
>>indicating that the former 2-3% rate of major birth defects from IVF - a
>>percentage always classified as consistent with the general population -
>>was, in fact, in error. This study now found a 9% rate of major birth
>>defects among IVF offspring. Will the percentage of birth defects from
>>IVF continue to climb?
>>
>>http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/complete_hearing-2006-03.pdf
|
|
![[ endo@obgyn.net ]](../../images/endo_at_obgyn.gif)