Toxic drugs are good for you

This January, Glaxo Wellcome announced a merger with SmithKline Beecham.
This will ensure its place as the biggest company in the UK, and one of
the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, controlling approximately
7.4% of the market . Glaxo has exercised considerable power over health
provision in the UK since the company was formed in 1929. But its
behaviour has not always been in the best interests of those consuming its
drugs. Robert Brack of the Myodil Action Group reports below how – for
forty years – Glaxo knowingly sold a toxic drug to tens of thousands of
people.

Between 1946 and 1988 Glaxo made and sold a spinal x-ray contrast medium
called Myodil. Injected into the spinal canal in order to show up problems
on x-rays, the drug was sold in approximately fifty countries including
the UK. But Myodil, an oil-based yellow dye, was far from harmless itself
– once injected into the spine it has been shown to cause a disease called
Adhesive Arachnoiditis .

This causes chronic, intractable pain and is characterised by the
inflammation of one of the three membranes surrounding the brain and
spinal cord. The inflammation results in thickening of the middle
membrane, called the arachnoid, causing it to adhere to structures near
it. Finally the spinal cord nerves clump against the inner membrane and
impair the flow of the spinal fluid. The chronic pain which sufferers have
to endure is caused by inflammation and nerve atrophy. There is no cure
and no treatment. Accounts of the number of people who have developed
Adhesive Arachnoiditis due to Myodil vary between different sources , but
it is likely to be tens of thousands.

Glaxo must have known that Myodil was toxic when it was first released
onto the market in 1946, since the company was under an obligation to
gather reports of adverse reactions to its drugs. By that time many
studies had already been published which showed this.

Glaxo Laboratories Limited was incorporated on 28th May 1929 to deal in
pharmaceutical drugs, with only one director, Alec Nathan. Nathan formed
the company when it was discovered that the dried baby food ‘Glaxo’ was
the cause of rickets in children. The first product Glaxo Laboratories Ltd
produced was therefore Ostelin, a vitamin D concentrate to replace
vitamins that were destroyed in the food drying process.

Glaxo realised that to manufacture a medicinal product is one thing, to
sell the manufactured product profitably was another. It had to have
influence in the local health departments and infirmaries. Glaxo
advertised its products through medical and nursing publications and by
writing directly to a selected group of doctors. Sales of the company's
products grew and Glaxo, previously familiar to only a limited number of
doctors, became more widely known. By targeting the people who prescribed
Glaxo’s products it was able to sell to the Public Health Departments of a
number of cities including Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham. Sales of
Nathan's products steadily increased.

Nathan had another method of influencing the Public Health Authorities –
this was through the appointment to Glaxo of a government chemist called
Harry Jephcott.

This recruitment drive led to other employees from the Public Health
Authorities joining Glaxo's staff: a Mr Hunwicke from the Somerset County
Public Health Laboratory, a Ms Allchorne and a Ms Findlayson from the
government laboratory.

These staff officials naturally had connections and influence in the
Public Health Departments. From this time on Glaxo was able to market its
products from the inside.

The Second World War gave Nathan an opportunity to capitalise on the new
recruits’ contacts and with government backing he set up a drug factory in
Durham. By the end of the war his factories were producing 90% of the UK's
supply of new drugs.

Harry Jephcott became Chairman of Glaxo Laboratories Limited in 1946. He
soon recognised that the new National Health Service, established in 1948,
could be his single most profitable customer. Instead of having to
influence the hundreds of different Public Health Departments scattered
around the country he needed contacts within the new emerging bureaucracy
to ensure that he became prominent in supplying the service with Glaxo's
drugs. He did this by targetting senior civil servants who were to run the
Department of Health and Social Security from Whitehall.

Jephcott's appointment had proven to be a profitable one - soon Health
Service officials were signing major deals with Glaxo. This strategy was
to become an important factor in the significant growth of the company.
Many competitors were taken over by Glaxo Laboratories Limited. The
company now called itself the Glaxo Group and consisted of various
companies that were each individually limited in their liability.

The Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s resulted in the introduction of the
1968 Medicines Act. Previously there had been only a voluntary code of
practice for the pharmaceutical industry to comply with. But the
Thalidomide tragedy exposed the code as inadequate, and measures were
introduced to bring the industry under legislation. The main purpose of
the Licensing Authority was to test the safety, quality and efficacy of
existing drugs on the market and to licence them. Under the new proposals
a body corporate called the Medicines Commission was to be established
with no less than eight members appointed by the Licensing Authority
(Government Ministers) and to include representatives of the
pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Part of the Act provided the
members of the Medicines Commission with powers to establish advisory
committees. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Committee
on the Review of Medicines (CRM) were set up when the Act came into effect
on 1st September 1971.

The new legislation would mean stricter controls on the pharmaceuticals
industry. This was unacceptable to the industry, which fought hard to have
the Medicines Act drafted in such a way that it would benefit its own
interests. Many companies also made sure that they had representatives
present in the different committees. Usually they were heads of the
research laboratories and many of the drugs they were testing for safety,
quality and efficacy were their own company's drugs.

The contacts within Whitehall established so many years previously enabled
Glaxo's drugs to be granted concessions that other companies’ drugs were
denied. Myodil was one such drug that was not licensed through the proper
procedures. All drugs on the market were given a one-year statutory period
in which to register with the Medicines Commission: once registered each
company’s drugs would be granted a non-transferable Product Licence of
Right (PLR). The first PLR granted for Myodil was on the 19th November
1973 - one full year after its registration period had ended.

The files containing the licensing history of Myodil have been ‘mislaid’
by the Medicines Control Agency . After pressure from the Myodil Action
Group, which fought for an investigation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman
recommended a release of the documents. However, the Permanent Secretary
to the Health Department refused to release the major part of the Myodil
licensing documents.

On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that
Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they
wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product
was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured
and sold overseas - it has found new markets in countries that are
vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies.

Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive
arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in
1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on
average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive
Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what
many of them felt to be Glaxo's solicitors’ bullying tactics. Settling out
of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further
litigation in the UK.

Glaxo was certainly aware from an early stage that Myodil was an irritant.
Equipped with that knowledge it could have investigated further given the
nature of Myodil's use. It did not. If it had, it would have concluded
that Myodil was toxic and should be withdrawn. It was not withdrawn until
1988, and then only for ‘commercial’ reasons.

The Board of Glaxo sits in its plush Head Office in Berkley Square
planning the future of the company. The fact that one of their products
has caused suffering to so many people around the world, and that many
more are still being injected with this highly toxic drug, does not appear
to be ranking high on the list of priorities.

Contact: Myodil Action Group Tel: 01905 357 374

Toxic Drugs are Good for the Medical Indu$try!

So true.

Dissident position confirmed by new study: -

Cocaine May Compromise Immune System, Increase Risk of Infection Learn
About Hepatitis C

Research Summary
by Patrick Zickler
NIDA NOTES Staff Writer

Cocaine abusers are more likely than nonusers to suffer from HIV,
hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, and other infections. Most of
this increased incidence is the result of conditions and behaviors -- for
example, injecting drugs, poor nutrition, and unsafe sex -- that often are
associated with drug abuse. Now, NIDA-supported investigators at the
McLean Hospital Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Center in Belmont,
Massachusetts, have found that cocaine itself has a direct biological
effect that may decrease an abuser's ability to fight off infections.

Dr. John H. Halpern, along with colleagues at McLean Hospital and Harvard
Medical School, found that a key immune system component, a protein called
interleukin-6 (IL-6), responded less robustly to an immunological
challenge in male and female abusers injected with cocaine than in those
who received placebo. "When your body detects a foreign object, IL-6 helps
trigger the release of a cascade of other immune system components that
isolate and neutralize the threat," explains Dr. Halpern. "If the balance
of this response is disrupted, your body cannot fight infection as
effectively as it should."

The study involved 30 participants (16 women, 14 men, ages 21-35) with a
history of cocaine abuse, including at least one drug administration
within the past month. The investigators placed an intravenous catheter in
one arm of each participant and measured IL-6 levels. The catheter is
detected as foreign by the body's immune system and triggers an immune
response. After 30 minutes, the researchers injected cocaine or saline
solution (0.4 mg/kg) into each participant's other arm; 4 hours later,
they measured IL-6 levels again. In participants given saline, IL-6 levels
had more than quintupled in response to the presence of the catheter,
increasing from an average of less than 2 trillionths of a gram
(picograms, or pg) per milliliter of blood to an average of more than 11
pg/ml. In men and women who received cocaine, however, IL-6 levels barely
doubled--from less than 2 pg/ml to an average of 3.8 pg/ml.

"The findings in this study show that in people with a history of cocaine
abuse, exposure to the drug establishes conditions that can lead to
immediate harm," Dr. Halpern says. "In such subjects, we found that
cocaine impairs the body's defense system for at least 4 hours. We can't
rule out the possibility that IL-6 response returns to normal shortly
after that time. But even if the blunted immune response lasts only a few
hours, it makes it more likely that an infection like HIV or just a common
cold can take hold," Dr. Halpern says.

"This research suggests a link between cocaine use and compromised immune
response and could help explain the high incidence of infectious disease
among drug abusers," observes Dr. Steven Grant of NIDA's Division of
Treatment Research and Development. "It reminds us that the health
consequences of drug abuse reach far beyond disruption of the brain
systems involved in abuse and addiction."

The findings also have significance in another context, Dr. Grant adds.
"The IL-6 findings are a small but possibly significant part of a much
larger study designed to gather a wide range of information on the acute
and chronic effects of abused drugs on the brain, endocrine system, and
immune function. This kind of discovery-based research can yield
unexpected, sometimes important, insights."

SOURCE: Halpern, J.H., et al. Diminished interleukin-6 response to
proinflammatory challenge in men and women after intravenous cocaine
administration. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
88(3):1188-1193, 2003.

On Sat, 01 May 2004 04:53:03 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

Which position? That HCV hasn't been proven to exist? The article
doesn't say that!

It doesn't say cocaine CAUSES anything. However, it DOES say that it
fucks up the immune system (increased IL6) and in turn increases
susceptibility to infections. Duh. Like that's news.

But does cocaine use cause AIDS? No. Or liver disease even? No. Nasty
drug...can make a person psychotic in high enough doses or in forms
like crack.

Indeed, I'll bet alcohol does similar things. There are other
important cytokine dysregulations involved in the immune dysregulation
that excessive use of some substances can result in....however,
nowhere is there evidence that these result in persistently declining
CD4 counts, even when the drug is stopped. What they do is establish a
fertile ground for infections like HCV and HIV to take hold.

George M. Carter

snip

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<jhu690pbudpvgs9ffm5qjce439980jq7bu@4ax.com>. ..

YOu do know what AIDS stands for don't you? The name does not in
itself imply that "AIDS" is caused by HIV or in fact anything.
I hope you can see you just contradicted yourself.

On 2 May 2004 19:36:09 -0700, abinkum@yahoo.com wrote:

Now you're just playing a stupid semantic game.

Actually, I call AIDS the Acquired Immune Dysregulation Syndrome since
aspects of immune function are put into overdrive in HIV disease.

By the name alone, then you are accurate but remain incorrect. That
is, yes, MANY different agents can cause some kind of deficiency in
immune function. So it would be accurate to say alcohol causes AIDS by
a strict definition of each term in the word, but it would be
incorrect as there is an established clinical definition of AIDS that
includes a depletion of CD4+ lymphocytes. This deterioration in
cell-mediated immunity results in increased susceptibility to
infections. This is caused by HIV.

Not alcohol. Not cocaine. Not heroin. Not MDMA. Not AZT. Not
antibiotics. Not malnutrition. Not cancer chemotherapy. Not poppers.

NONE of those things causes AIDS by the clinical definition. Some may
alter immune function--but only temporarily and restoration of
function occurs when a drug is stopped, nutrition is provided.

Wow. If this is the kind of childish argumentativeness that you have
to stoop to in order to present an argument...well, the term "troll"
leaps to mind!

Best of luck!

George M. Carter

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<t77c901pk4gudveh1mo05aoc02gms2a5ol@4ax.com>. ..

So you call definitions a "semantic game". Shows how much you know
about science.
As usual you make a whole lot of sweeping claims without backing them
up with any references. Why should anyone believe you, except that you
do a reasonable job of looking as if you know what you are talking
about to the layman. I doubt any other impartial reader would give you
credibility.

On 3 May 2004 07:55:37 -0700, abinkum@yahoo.com wrote:

snip

Not in the slightest. Definitions ARE important. In your case, you
were about to play a stupid semantic game that failed to distinguish
between the term and its clinical reference. Perhaps that points to a
poverty of imagination in those that came up with "AIDS" per se, but
it does not obviate a diagnosis.

LOL! Look at my other posts. I give plenty of references. And I
actually read the ones denialists post and so far, they are mostly
lame, old, confused and wrong.

Take care, dear.

George M. Carter

weed is very good for you could you get me some?

Toxic drugs are good for you
This January, Glaxo Wellcome announced a merger with SmithKline Beecham.
This will ensure its place as the biggest company in the UK, and one of
the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, controlling approximately
7.4% of the market . Glaxo has exercised considerable power over health
provision in the UK since the company was formed in 1929. But its
behaviour has not always been in the best interests of those consuming its
drugs. Robert Brack of the Myodil Action Group reports below how – for
forty years – Glaxo knowingly sold a toxic drug to tens of thousands of
people.
Between 1946 and 1988 Glaxo made and sold a spinal x-ray contrast medium
called Myodil. Injected into the spinal canal in order to show up problems
on x-rays, the drug was sold in approximately fifty countries including
the UK. But Myodil, an oil-based yellow dye, was far from harmless itself
– once injected into the spine it has been shown to cause a disease called
Adhesive Arachnoiditis .
This causes chronic, intractable pain and is characterised by the
inflammation of one of the three membranes surrounding the brain and
spinal cord.
The inflammation results in thickening of the middle membrane, called the
arachnoid, causing it to adhere to structures near it. Finally the spinal
cord nerves clump against the inner membrane and impair the flow of the
spinal fluid.
The chronic pain which sufferers have to endure is caused by inflammation
and nerve atrophy. There is no cure and no treatment. Accounts of the
number of people who have developed Adhesive Arachnoiditis due to Myodil
vary between different sources , but it is likely to be tens of
thousands.
Glaxo must have known that Myodil was toxic when it was first released
onto the market in 1946, since the company was under an obligation to
gather reports of adverse reactions to its drugs. By that time many
studies had already been published which showed this.
Glaxo Laboratories Limited was incorporated on 28th May 1929 to deal in
pharmaceutical drugs, with only one director, Alec Nathan. Nathan formed
the company when it was discovered that the dried baby food ‘Glaxo’ was
the cause of rickets in children. The first product Glaxo Laboratories Ltd
produced was therefore Ostelin, a vitamin D concentrate to replace
vitamins that were destroyed in the food drying process.
Glaxo realised that to manufacture a medicinal product is one thing, to
sell the manufactured product profitably was another. It had to have
influence in the local health departments and infirmaries. Glaxo
advertised its products through medical and nursing publications and by
writing directly to a selected group of doctors.
Sales of the company's products grew and Glaxo, previously familiar to
only a limited number of doctors, became more widely known. By targeting
the people who prescribed Glaxo’s products it was able to sell to the
Public Health Departments of a number of cities including Sheffield,
Manchester and Birmingham. Sales of Nathan's products steadily increased.
Nathan had another method of influencing the Public Health Authorities –
this was through the appointment to Glaxo of a government chemist called
Harry Jephcott.
This recruitment drive led to other employees from the Public Health
Authorities joining Glaxo's staff: a Mr Hunwicke from the Somerset County
Public Health Laboratory, a Ms Allchorne and a Ms Findlayson from the
government laboratory.
These staff officials naturally had connections and influence in the
Public Health Departments. From this time on Glaxo was able to market its
products from the inside.
The Second World War gave Nathan an opportunity to capitalise on the new
recruits’ contacts and with government backing he set up a drug factory in
Durham. By the end of the war his factories were producing 90% of the UK's
supply of new drugs.
Harry Jephcott became Chairman of Glaxo Laboratories Limited in 1946. He
soon recognised that the new National Health Service, established in 1948,
could be his single most profitable customer. Instead of having to
influence the hundreds of different Public Health Departments scattered
around the country he needed contacts within the new emerging bureaucracy
to ensure that he became prominent in supplying the service with Glaxo's
drugs. He did this by targetting senior civil servants who were to run the
Department of Health and Social Security from Whitehall.
Jephcott's appointment had proven to be a profitable one - soon Health
Service officials were signing major deals with Glaxo. This strategy was
to become an important factor in the significant growth of the company.
Many competitors were taken over by Glaxo Laboratories Limited. The
company now called itself the Glaxo Group and consisted of various
companies that were each individually limited in their liability.
The Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s resulted in the introduction of the
1968 Medicines Act. Previously there had been only a voluntary code of
practice for the pharmaceutical industry to comply with. But the
Thalidomide tragedy exposed the code as inadequate, and measures were
introduced to bring the industry under legislation. The main purpose of
the Licensing Authority was to test the safety, quality and efficacy of
existing drugs on the market and to licence them. Under the new proposals
a body corporate called the Medicines Commission was to be established
with no less than eight members appointed by the Licensing Authority
(Government Ministers) and to include representatives of the
pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Part of the Act provided the
members of the Medicines Commission with powers to establish advisory
committees. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Committee
on the Review of Medicines (CRM) were set up when the Act came into effect
on 1st September 1971.
The new legislation would mean stricter controls on the pharmaceuticals
industry. This was unacceptable to the industry, which fought hard to have
the Medicines Act drafted in such a way that it would benefit its own
interests. Many companies also made sure that they had representatives
present in the different committees. Usually they were heads of the
research laboratories and many of the drugs they were testing for safety,
quality and efficacy were their own company's drugs.
The contacts within Whitehall established so many years previously enabled
Glaxo's drugs to be granted concessions that other companies’ drugs were
denied. Myodil was one such drug that was not licensed through the proper
procedures. All drugs on the market were given a one-year statutory period
in which to register with the Medicines Commission: once registered each
company’s drugs would be granted a non-transferable Product Licence of
Right (PLR). The first PLR granted for Myodil was on the 19th November
1973 - one full year after its registration period had ended.
The files containing the licensing history of Myodil have been ‘mislaid’
by the Medicines Control Agency . After pressure from the Myodil Action
Group, which fought for an investigation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman
recommended a release of the documents. However, the Permanent Secretary
to the Health Department refused to release the major part of the Myodil
licensing documents.
On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that
Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they
wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product
was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured
and sold overseas - it has found new markets in countries that are
vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies.
Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive
arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in
1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on
average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive
Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what
many of them felt to be Glaxo's solicitors’ bullying tactics. Settling out
of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further
litigation in the UK.
Glaxo was certainly aware from an early stage that Myodil was an irritant.
Equipped with that knowledge it could have investigated further given the
nature of Myodil's use. It did not. If it had, it would have concluded
that Myodil was toxic and should be withdrawn. It was not withdrawn until
1988, and then only for ‘commercial’ reasons.
The Board of Glaxo sits in its plush Head Office in Berkley Square
planning the future of the company. The fact that one of their products
has caused suffering to so many people around the world, and that many
more are still being injected with this highly toxic drug, does not appear
to be ranking high on the list of priorities.
Contact: Myodil Action Group Tel: 01905 357 374

Toxic drugs are good for you
This January, Glaxo Wellcome announced a merger with SmithKline Beecham.
This will ensure its place as the biggest company in the UK, and one of
the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, controlling approximately
7.4% of the market . Glaxo has exercised considerable power over health
provision in the UK since the company was formed in 1929. But its
behaviour has not always been in the best interests of those consuming its
drugs. Robert Brack of the Myodil Action Group reports below how – for
forty years – Glaxo knowingly sold a toxic drug to tens of thousands of
people.
Between 1946 and 1988 Glaxo made and sold a spinal x-ray contrast medium
called Myodil. Injected into the spinal canal in order to show up problems
on x-rays, the drug was sold in approximately fifty countries including
the UK. But Myodil, an oil-based yellow dye, was far from harmless itself
– once injected into the spine it has been shown to cause a disease called
Adhesive Arachnoiditis .
This causes chronic, intractable pain and is characterised by the
inflammation of one of the three membranes surrounding the brain and
spinal cord.
The inflammation results in thickening of the middle membrane, called the
arachnoid, causing it to adhere to structures near it. Finally the spinal
cord nerves clump against the inner membrane and impair the flow of the
spinal fluid.
The chronic pain which sufferers have to endure is caused by inflammation
and nerve atrophy. There is no cure and no treatment. Accounts of the
number of people who have developed Adhesive Arachnoiditis due to Myodil
vary between different sources , but it is likely to be tens of
thousands.
Glaxo must have known that Myodil was toxic when it was first released
onto the market in 1946, since the company was under an obligation to
gather reports of adverse reactions to its drugs. By that time many
studies had already been published which showed this.
Glaxo Laboratories Limited was incorporated on 28th May 1929 to deal in
pharmaceutical drugs, with only one director, Alec Nathan. Nathan formed
the company when it was discovered that the dried baby food ‘Glaxo’ was
the cause of rickets in children. The first product Glaxo Laboratories Ltd
produced was therefore Ostelin, a vitamin D concentrate to replace
vitamins that were destroyed in the food drying process.
Glaxo realised that to manufacture a medicinal product is one thing, to
sell the manufactured product profitably was another. It had to have
influence in the local health departments and infirmaries. Glaxo
advertised its products through medical and nursing publications and by
writing directly to a selected group of doctors.
Sales of the company's products grew and Glaxo, previously familiar to
only a limited number of doctors, became more widely known. By targeting
the people who prescribed Glaxo’s products it was able to sell to the
Public Health Departments of a number of cities including Sheffield,
Manchester and Birmingham. Sales of Nathan's products steadily increased.
Nathan had another method of influencing the Public Health Authorities –
this was through the appointment to Glaxo of a government chemist called
Harry Jephcott.
This recruitment drive led to other employees from the Public Health
Authorities joining Glaxo's staff: a Mr Hunwicke from the Somerset County
Public Health Laboratory, a Ms Allchorne and a Ms Findlayson from the
government laboratory.
These staff officials naturally had connections and influence in the
Public Health Departments. From this time on Glaxo was able to market its
products from the inside.
The Second World War gave Nathan an opportunity to capitalise on the new
recruits’ contacts and with government backing he set up a drug factory in
Durham. By the end of the war his factories were producing 90% of the UK's
supply of new drugs.
Harry Jephcott became Chairman of Glaxo Laboratories Limited in 1946. He
soon recognised that the new National Health Service, established in 1948,
could be his single most profitable customer. Instead of having to
influence the hundreds of different Public Health Departments scattered
around the country he needed contacts within the new emerging bureaucracy
to ensure that he became prominent in supplying the service with Glaxo's
drugs. He did this by targetting senior civil servants who were to run the
Department of Health and Social Security from Whitehall.
Jephcott's appointment had proven to be a profitable one - soon Health
Service officials were signing major deals with Glaxo. This strategy was
to become an important factor in the significant growth of the company.
Many competitors were taken over by Glaxo Laboratories Limited. The
company now called itself the Glaxo Group and consisted of various
companies that were each individually limited in their liability.
The Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s resulted in the introduction of the
1968 Medicines Act. Previously there had been only a voluntary code of
practice for the pharmaceutical industry to comply with. But the
Thalidomide tragedy exposed the code as inadequate, and measures were
introduced to bring the industry under legislation. The main purpose of
the Licensing Authority was to test the safety, quality and efficacy of
existing drugs on the market and to licence them. Under the new proposals
a body corporate called the Medicines Commission was to be established
with no less than eight members appointed by the Licensing Authority
(Government Ministers) and to include representatives of the
pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Part of the Act provided the
members of the Medicines Commission with powers to establish advisory
committees. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Committee
on the Review of Medicines (CRM) were set up when the Act came into effect
on 1st September 1971.
The new legislation would mean stricter controls on the pharmaceuticals
industry. This was unacceptable to the industry, which fought hard to have
the Medicines Act drafted in such a way that it would benefit its own
interests. Many companies also made sure that they had representatives
present in the different committees. Usually they were heads of the
research laboratories and many of the drugs they were testing for safety,
quality and efficacy were their own company's drugs.
The contacts within Whitehall established so many years previously enabled
Glaxo's drugs to be granted concessions that other companies’ drugs were
denied. Myodil was one such drug that was not licensed through the proper
procedures. All drugs on the market were given a one-year statutory period
in which to register with the Medicines Commission: once registered each
company’s drugs would be granted a non-transferable Product Licence of
Right (PLR). The first PLR granted for Myodil was on the 19th November
1973 - one full year after its registration period had ended.
The files containing the licensing history of Myodil have been ‘mislaid’
by the Medicines Control Agency . After pressure from the Myodil Action
Group, which fought for an investigation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman
recommended a release of the documents. However, the Permanent Secretary
to the Health Department refused to release the major part of the Myodil
licensing documents.
On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that
Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they
wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product
was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured
and sold overseas - it has found new markets in countries that are
vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies.
Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive
arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in
1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on
average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive
Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what
many of them felt to be Glaxo's solicitors’ bullying tactics. Settling out
of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further
litigation in the UK.
Glaxo was certainly aware from an early stage that Myodil was an irritant.
Equipped with that knowledge it could have investigated further given the
nature of Myodil's use. It did not. If it had, it would have concluded
that Myodil was toxic and should be withdrawn. It was not withdrawn until
1988, and then only for ‘commercial’ reasons.
The Board of Glaxo sits in its plush Head Office in Berkley Square
planning the future of the company. The fact that one of their products
has caused suffering to so many people around the world, and that many
more are still being injected with this highly toxic drug, does not appear
to be ranking high on the list of priorities.
Contact: Myodil Action Group Tel: 01905 357 374

On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:47:37 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

This is just stupid.

ANYTHING can be toxic. Oxygen is exceedingly toxic. Try living without
it. Water can kill--overconsumption can wipe out electrolytes and
cause brain swelling and death.

All drugs are toxic. It's the dose that counts.

Does the toxicity of the drug result in a GREATER trouble for an
infection or cancer, say, than it does for the body? This is the
crucial balance and the art of medicine.

George M. Carter

"Oxygen is exceedingly toxic. Try living without
it."


So says Mr. Carter. Clearly he gets ALL his concepts back to front.

Being toxic is related to dying with something NOT dying without it.

He makes the same mistake with so called 'AIDS' drugs. He thinks you die
without them while in fact the reverse is true.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:51:03 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

It's both. Wow. You're really stupid. I mean, it's not like everyone
will know this necessarily, but you post all these messages as if you
have a clue what they're about. This just further underscores that you
have about as much sense and brains as George W. Bush.

Not enough, oxygen, you suffocate. But too much oxygen will kill you.

George M. Carter

Toxic drugs are good for you
This January, Glaxo Wellcome announced a merger with SmithKline Beecham.
This will ensure its place as the biggest company in the UK, and one of
the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, controlling approximately
7.4% of the market . Glaxo has exercised considerable power over health
provision in the UK since the company was formed in 1929. But its
behaviour has not always been in the best interests of those consuming
its
drugs. Robert Brack of the Myodil Action Group reports below how – for
forty years – Glaxo knowingly sold a toxic drug to tens of thousands of
people.
Between 1946 and 1988 Glaxo made and sold a spinal x-ray contrast medium
called Myodil. Injected into the spinal canal in order to show up
problems
on x-rays, the drug was sold in approximately fifty countries including
the UK. But Myodil, an oil-based yellow dye, was far from harmless itself
– once injected into the spine it has been shown to cause a disease
called
Adhesive Arachnoiditis .
This causes chronic, intractable pain and is characterised by the
inflammation of one of the three membranes surrounding the brain and
spinal cord.
The inflammation results in thickening of the middle membrane, called the
arachnoid, causing it to adhere to structures near it. Finally the spinal
cord nerves clump against the inner membrane and impair the flow of the
spinal fluid.
The chronic pain which sufferers have to endure is caused by inflammation
and nerve atrophy. There is no cure and no treatment. Accounts of the
number of people who have developed Adhesive Arachnoiditis due to Myodil
vary between different sources , but it is likely to be tens of
thousands.
Glaxo must have known that Myodil was toxic when it was first released
onto the market in 1946, since the company was under an obligation to
gather reports of adverse reactions to its drugs. By that time many
studies had already been published which showed this.
Glaxo Laboratories Limited was incorporated on 28th May 1929 to deal in
pharmaceutical drugs, with only one director, Alec Nathan. Nathan formed
the company when it was discovered that the dried baby food ‘Glaxo’ was
the cause of rickets in children. The first product Glaxo Laboratories
Ltd
produced was therefore Ostelin, a vitamin D concentrate to replace
vitamins that were destroyed in the food drying process.
Glaxo realised that to manufacture a medicinal product is one thing, to
sell the manufactured product profitably was another. It had to have
influence in the local health departments and infirmaries. Glaxo
advertised its products through medical and nursing publications and by
writing directly to a selected group of doctors.
Sales of the company's products grew and Glaxo, previously familiar to
only a limited number of doctors, became more widely known. By targeting
the people who prescribed Glaxo’s products it was able to sell to the
Public Health Departments of a number of cities including Sheffield,
Manchester and Birmingham. Sales of Nathan's products steadily increased.
Nathan had another method of influencing the Public Health Authorities –
this was through the appointment to Glaxo of a government chemist called
Harry Jephcott.
This recruitment drive led to other employees from the Public Health
Authorities joining Glaxo's staff: a Mr Hunwicke from the Somerset County
Public Health Laboratory, a Ms Allchorne and a Ms Findlayson from the
government laboratory.
These staff officials naturally had connections and influence in the
Public Health Departments. From this time on Glaxo was able to market its
products from the inside.
The Second World War gave Nathan an opportunity to capitalise on the new
recruits’ contacts and with government backing he set up a drug factory
in
Durham. By the end of the war his factories were producing 90% of the
UK's
supply of new drugs.
Harry Jephcott became Chairman of Glaxo Laboratories Limited in 1946. He
soon recognised that the new National Health Service, established in
1948,
could be his single most profitable customer. Instead of having to
influence the hundreds of different Public Health Departments scattered
around the country he needed contacts within the new emerging bureaucracy
to ensure that he became prominent in supplying the service with Glaxo's
drugs. He did this by targetting senior civil servants who were to run
the
Department of Health and Social Security from Whitehall.
Jephcott's appointment had proven to be a profitable one - soon Health
Service officials were signing major deals with Glaxo. This strategy was
to become an important factor in the significant growth of the company.
Many competitors were taken over by Glaxo Laboratories Limited. The
company now called itself the Glaxo Group and consisted of various
companies that were each individually limited in their liability.
The Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s resulted in the introduction of the
1968 Medicines Act. Previously there had been only a voluntary code of
practice for the pharmaceutical industry to comply with. But the
Thalidomide tragedy exposed the code as inadequate, and measures were
introduced to bring the industry under legislation. The main purpose of
the Licensing Authority was to test the safety, quality and efficacy of
existing drugs on the market and to licence them. Under the new proposals
a body corporate called the Medicines Commission was to be established
with no less than eight members appointed by the Licensing Authority
(Government Ministers) and to include representatives of the
pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Part of the Act provided the
members of the Medicines Commission with powers to establish advisory
committees. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Committee
on the Review of Medicines (CRM) were set up when the Act came into
effect
on 1st September 1971.
The new legislation would mean stricter controls on the pharmaceuticals
industry. This was unacceptable to the industry, which fought hard to
have
the Medicines Act drafted in such a way that it would benefit its own
interests. Many companies also made sure that they had representatives
present in the different committees. Usually they were heads of the
research laboratories and many of the drugs they were testing for safety,
quality and efficacy were their own company's drugs.
The contacts within Whitehall established so many years previously
enabled
Glaxo's drugs to be granted concessions that other companies’ drugs were
denied. Myodil was one such drug that was not licensed through the proper
procedures. All drugs on the market were given a one-year statutory
period
in which to register with the Medicines Commission: once registered each
company’s drugs would be granted a non-transferable Product Licence of
Right (PLR). The first PLR granted for Myodil was on the 19th November
1973 - one full year after its registration period had ended.
The files containing the licensing history of Myodil have been ‘mislaid’
by the Medicines Control Agency . After pressure from the Myodil Action
Group, which fought for an investigation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman
recommended a release of the documents. However, the Permanent Secretary
to the Health Department refused to release the major part of the Myodil
licensing documents.
On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that
Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they
wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product
was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured
and sold overseas - it has found new markets in countries that are
vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies.
Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive
arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in
1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on
average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive
Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what
many of them felt to be Glaxo's solicitors’ bullying tactics. Settling
out
of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further
litigation in the UK.
Glaxo was certainly aware from an early stage that Myodil was an
irritant.
Equipped with that knowledge it could have investigated further given the
nature of Myodil's use. It did not. If it had, it would have concluded
that Myodil was toxic and should be withdrawn. It was not withdrawn until
1988, and then only for ‘commercial’ reasons.
The Board of Glaxo sits in its plush Head Office in Berkley Square
planning the future of the company. The fact that one of their products
has caused suffering to so many people around the world, and that many
more are still being injected with this highly toxic drug, does not
appear
to be ranking high on the list of priorities.
Contact: Myodil Action Group Tel: 01905 357 374

Toxic drugs are good for you

This January, Glaxo Wellcome announced a merger with SmithKline Beecham.

This will ensure its place as the biggest company in the UK, and one of
the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, controlling approximately
7.4% of the market . Glaxo has exercised considerable power over health
provision in the UK since the company was formed in 1929. But its
behaviour has not always been in the best interests of those consuming
its
drugs. Robert Brack of the Myodil Action Group reports below how – for
forty years – Glaxo knowingly sold a toxic drug to tens of thousands of
people.

Between 1946 and 1988 Glaxo made and sold a spinal x-ray contrast medium
called Myodil. Injected into the spinal canal in order to show up
problems
on x-rays, the drug was sold in approximately fifty countries including
the UK. But Myodil, an oil-based yellow dye, was far from harmless itself
– once injected into the spine it has been shown to cause a disease
called
Adhesive Arachnoiditis .

This causes chronic, intractable pain and is characterised by the
inflammation of one of the three membranes surrounding the brain and
spinal cord.
The inflammation results in thickening of the middle membrane, called the
arachnoid, causing it to adhere to structures near it. Finally the spinal
cord nerves clump against the inner membrane and impair the flow of the
spinal fluid.

The chronic pain which sufferers have to endure is caused by inflammation
and nerve atrophy. There is no cure and no treatment. Accounts of the
number of people who have developed Adhesive Arachnoiditis due to Myodil
vary between different sources , but it is likely to be tens of
thousands.
Glaxo must have known that Myodil was toxic when it was first released
onto the market in 1946, since the company was under an obligation to
gather reports of adverse reactions to its drugs.

By that time many
studies had already been published which showed this.
Glaxo Laboratories Limited was incorporated on 28th May 1929 to deal in
pharmaceutical drugs, with only one director, Alec Nathan. Nathan formed
the company when it was discovered that the dried baby food ‘Glaxo’ was
the cause of rickets in children. The first product Glaxo Laboratories
Ltd
produced was therefore Ostelin, a vitamin D concentrate to replace
vitamins that were destroyed in the food drying process.
Glaxo realised that to manufacture a medicinal product is one thing, to
sell the manufactured product profitably was another. It had to have
influence in the local health departments and infirmaries. Glaxo
advertised its products through medical and nursing publications and by
writing directly to a selected group of doctors.
Sales of the company's products grew and Glaxo, previously familiar to
only a limited number of doctors, became more widely known. By targeting
the people who prescribed Glaxo’s products it was able to sell to the
Public Health Departments of a number of cities including Sheffield,
Manchester and Birmingham. Sales of Nathan's products steadily increased.
Nathan had another method of influencing the Public Health Authorities –
this was through the appointment to Glaxo of a government chemist called
Harry Jephcott.
This recruitment drive led to other employees from the Public Health
Authorities joining Glaxo's staff: a Mr Hunwicke from the Somerset County
Public Health Laboratory, a Ms Allchorne and a Ms Findlayson from the
government laboratory.
These staff officials naturally had connections and influence in the
Public Health Departments. From this time on Glaxo was able to market its
products from the inside.
The Second World War gave Nathan an opportunity to capitalise on the new
recruits’ contacts and with government backing he set up a drug factory
in
Durham. By the end of the war his factories were producing 90% of the
UK's
supply of new drugs.
Harry Jephcott became Chairman of Glaxo Laboratories Limited in 1946. He
soon recognised that the new National Health Service, established in
1948,
could be his single most profitable customer. Instead of having to
influence the hundreds of different Public Health Departments scattered
around the country he needed contacts within the new emerging bureaucracy
to ensure that he became prominent in supplying the service with Glaxo's
drugs. He did this by targetting senior civil servants who were to run
the
Department of Health and Social Security from Whitehall.
Jephcott's appointment had proven to be a profitable one - soon Health
Service officials were signing major deals with Glaxo. This strategy was
to become an important factor in the significant growth of the company.
Many competitors were taken over by Glaxo Laboratories Limited. The
company now called itself the Glaxo Group and consisted of various
companies that were each individually limited in their liability.
The Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s resulted in the introduction of the
1968 Medicines Act. Previously there had been only a voluntary code of
practice for the pharmaceutical industry to comply with. But the
Thalidomide tragedy exposed the code as inadequate, and measures were
introduced to bring the industry under legislation. The main purpose of
the Licensing Authority was to test the safety, quality and efficacy of
existing drugs on the market and to licence them. Under the new proposals
a body corporate called the Medicines Commission was to be established
with no less than eight members appointed by the Licensing Authority
(Government Ministers) and to include representatives of the
pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Part of the Act provided the
members of the Medicines Commission with powers to establish advisory
committees. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Committee
on the Review of Medicines (CRM) were set up when the Act came into
effect
on 1st September 1971.
The new legislation would mean stricter controls on the pharmaceuticals
industry. This was unacceptable to the industry, which fought hard to
have
the Medicines Act drafted in such a way that it would benefit its own
interests. Many companies also made sure that they had representatives
present in the different committees. Usually they were heads of the
research laboratories and many of the drugs they were testing for safety,
quality and efficacy were their own company's drugs.
The contacts within Whitehall established so many years previously
enabled
Glaxo's drugs to be granted concessions that other companies’ drugs were
denied. Myodil was one such drug that was not licensed through the proper
procedures. All drugs on the market were given a one-year statutory
period
in which to register with the Medicines Commission: once registered each
company’s drugs would be granted a non-transferable Product Licence of
Right (PLR). The first PLR granted for Myodil was on the 19th November
1973 - one full year after its registration period had ended.
The files containing the licensing history of Myodil have been ‘mislaid’
by the Medicines Control Agency . After pressure from the Myodil Action
Group, which fought for an investigation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman
recommended a release of the documents. However, the Permanent Secretary
to the Health Department refused to release the major part of the Myodil
licensing documents.
On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that
Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they
wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product
was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured
and sold overseas - it has found new markets in countries that are
vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies.
Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive
arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in
1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on
average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive
Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what
many of them felt to be Glaxo's solicitors’ bullying tactics. Settling
out
of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further
litigation in the UK.
Glaxo was certainly aware from an early stage that Myodil was an
irritant.
Equipped with that knowledge it could have investigated further given the
nature of Myodil's use. It did not. If it had, it would have concluded
that Myodil was toxic and should be withdrawn. It was not withdrawn until
1988, and then only for ‘commercial’ reasons.
The Board of Glaxo sits in its plush Head Office in Berkley Square
planning the future of the company. The fact that one of their products
has caused suffering to so many people around the world, and that many
more are still being injected with this highly toxic drug, does not
appear
to be ranking high on the list of priorities.
Contact: Myodil Action Group Tel: 01905 357 374