![]() |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Re: Testimony from a nurse to the Senate who became ill from Lupron.......From: Loretta (anonymous@obgyn.net)Sun Oct 28 15:05:13 2007
At Sun, 28 Oct 2007, andrea wrote: > >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
-- Thank you Andrea
|
|
Return to ![]()
Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net
Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 04:01:37 2009
Women's Insurance Checklist from Auto Insurance Quote
home | medical professionals | women | industry | forums | international