Media pushes ‘success’ of experimental GSK malaria vaccine while ignoring deadly side effects

(NaturalNews) The mainstream media is abuzz with excitement over GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) latest offering, a malaria trial vaccine that the company claims can cut the risk of clinical and severe malaria in children by 56 percent and 47 percent, respectively. But what GSK and the media are failing to report are the deadly side effects that may accompany the vaccine. Unveiled at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s recent Malaria Forum conference in Seattle, Wash., the results of the Phase III African study on the malaria vaccine, known as RTS,S, suggest that children who receive three doses of it can derive additional protection against malaria when used in conjunction with other disease control methods. But the findings also show that vaccinated children are at a high risk of serious injury or death as well. A report by EarthTimes explains that the full gamut of long term side effects associated with RTS,S will not be known until at least the end of 2014. It also states that “serious adverse events (very serious side effects) for [RTS,S] are around the same level as in those who were given a control drug” (http://www.earthtimes.org/health/malaria-vaccine-closer-succesful-trial/1527/). But what exactly was the control drug, and what are these “same level” side effects? A quick look at the study results, which have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine , explain that children in the “control” group received a “non-malaria comparator vaccine” (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1102287). Those five to 17 months of age got a rabies vaccine (VeroRab, Sanofi-Pasteur), and younger children six to 12 weeks of age received a meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccine (Menjugate, Novartis). Both of these vaccines carry with them their own list of side effects, which means they really do not qualify as a legitimate study of “controls.” But hardly anyone is paying much attention to this because they are too busy lauding praise on GSK for developing the vaccine and allegedly expecting to make no profit from it. It all sounds so wonderful and humanitarian, but the fact of the matter is that nearly 18 percent of children in the older vaccinated group suffered serious adverse events from the vaccine, while more than 13 percent in the youngest group suffered the same. And more than 150 children from both groups died during the study (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1102287#t=articleResults). And since very little is known about how the vaccine affects fertility, neurological function, bodily organs, immunity, and many other aspects of health and well-being in the long term, it is hardly a time to be celebrating. Sources for this article include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/malaria-vaccine-gsk-idUSL5E7LI4O020111018

Hospital botches operation causing healthy woman to lose both legs

(NaturalNews) Going to hospital these days for even the simplest medical treatments has become a high-risk activity that could result in serious injury or death. A recent story in the New York Daily News tells of Stacey Galette, a 30-year-old woman who lost both her legs due to a surgical error. Galette says she was perfectly healthy when admitted to Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, New York, two years ago, but a day later, her life would change forever. According to reports, Galette’s surgeons punctured her intestines during a simply gynecological surgery, which triggered an infection that spread to her legs. Her blood became poisoned and her legs developed gangrene, which eventually resulted in them having to be amputated. “It’s horrifying,” explained Galette’s lawyer Sanford Rubenstein, to the New York Daily News . “She will be spending the rest of her life with a below-the-knees amputation, all because the doctors didn’t follow accepted medical practice.” Before the surgery, Galette was healthy, married, and worked a full-time job. Today, she is in the process of a divorce, lives with her mother, and remains on disability because she is unable to work. She also permanently lost some of her hearing after being put into an induced coma for three weeks following surgery-induced cardiac arrest. A 1995 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association explained that more than a million people are injured at hospitals every year, and roughly 280,000 die every year from these injuries (http://www.naturalnews.com/023892_hospital_hospitals_health.html). Bacterial “superbugs”, surgical errors, poor care and improper drug and dosage administration, are just a few of the many complications that often arise at hospitals that can cost patients their lives. Currently, there is no way to identify which hospitals have the worst error rates. So patients have no way to compare hospitals and make an informed decision about which one to choose. Sources for this story include: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/11/19/2010-11-19_bklyn_ma_in_endless_pain_after_operation_goes_terribly_wrong_amputee_sues_hosp_o.html

Australian courts rule that Vioxx should never have been approved for sale

(NaturalNews) Australian courts recently ruled that Vioxx, a popular prescription painkiller, should never have been approved and allowed on the market. The case represents the world’s first successful class action lawsuit against a drug company for damage caused by its drugs. Merck, the drug giant that produced Vioxx, was deemed by the courts as negligent for failing to properly inform doctors who were prescribing the drug about the dangers and health risks associated with the drug. As a result, thousands of patients around the world have suffered severe injury or death because of Vioxx. Graeme Peterson, a 59-year-old man represented in the case, was awarded the equivalent of about $266,000 for injuries inflicted upon him by Vioxx. He suffered a heart attack from the drug in 2003 that has left him unable to work since. He took the drug for more than four years, and still keeps a Vioxx tablet with him as a reminder of what almost killed him. Though great for Australians, injured patients in the U.K. have not had the same success. Norman Lamb, a member of the British Parliament, explained that he and others have been trying to convince Merck for years that it should compensate the many British citizens who were injured by the drug. But Merck continues to deny liability and the British government has failed to successfully negotiate a settlement. “Ministers made promising noises then after a meeting between the Government and the company they weakened their position. I believe that the ministers came under pressure from the company and their own civil servants to shut up,” explained Lamb in a U.K. article. Unfortunately, this is typically the case with most drug company lawsuits. The Australian case is a landmark victory that should typify how class action lawsuits against drug companies are handled and hopefully a similar victory will one day be achieved for the many British cases of Vioxx injuries. One such case involves Raymond Eaton, whose wife died from heart problems that were likely caused by Vioxx. Mrs. Eaton, who had been suffering from a severely debilitating form of rheumatoid arthritis, was immediately prescribed Vioxx upon its release. The drug helped her pain, but four years later, she suffered a coronary from which she never recovered. Since she never had any heart problems prior to taking Vioxx, Raymond is convinced that the drug was responsible. Over 80 million people around the world were taking Vioxx prior to its being pulled from the market, and many lawyers from other countries have been awaiting the outcome of the Australian litigation. The success of the case established a precedence for Merck’s liability due to negligence, providing a way for the thousands, if not millions, of injured patients around the world to receive restitution for damages caused by Vioxx. Sources for this story include: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/vioxx-ruling-gives-hope-for-payouts-to-british-lsquovictimsrsquo-1917042.html