CL psych's timely reminder about bipolar diagnosis and a SOLUTION

Bipolar Overawareness Week Starts on Monday

It appears that the massive bipolar awareness campaigns from NAMI and various drug companies have paid off big time. The conclusions of a new study by Mark Zimmerman and colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry state, in part:

However, our results suggest that overdiagnosis of bipolar disorder is as much, if not more, of a problem than underdiagnosis.

Say what? Well, if you've been following the mental health world, you may have noted that bipolar disorder is the new plague -- it is apparently spreading like wildfire. David Healy wrote an excellent article in PLoS Medicine in 2006 which has been validated by Zimmerman et al.'s latest study. Healy wrote in part:

One of the most famous direct-to-consumer television adverts for a drug begins with a vibrant woman dancing late into the night. A background voice says, “Your doctor probably never sees you when you feel like this.” The advert cuts to a shrunken and glum figure, and the voiceover now says, “This is who your doctor usually sees.” Cutting again to the woman, in active shopping mode, clutching bags with the latest brand names, we hear: “That's why so many people with bipolar disorder are being treated for depression and not getting any better—because depression is only half the story.” We see the woman again depressed, looking at bills that have arrived in the post before switching to seeing her again energetically painting her apartment. “That fast- talking, energetic, quick tempered, overdoing it, up-all-night you,” says the voiceover, “probably never shows up at the doctor's office, right?”

No drugs are mentioned. But viewers are encouraged to log onto www.bipolarawareness.com, which takes them to a Web site called “Bipolar Help Center,” sponsored by Lilly Pharmaceuticals, the makers of olanzapine (Zyprexa). The Web site contains a “mood disorder questionnaire” (http:/​/​www.bipolarhelpcenter.com/​resources/​mdq.jsp). In the television advert, we see our heroine logging onto www.bipolarawareness.com and finding this questionnaire. The voice encourages the viewer to follow her example: “Take the test you can take to your doctor, it can change your life….getting a correct diagnosis is the first step in treating bipolar disorder. Help your doctor to help you.”

This advert markets bipolar disorder. The advert can be read as a genuine attempt to alert people who may be suffering from one of the most debilitating and serious psychiatric diseases—manic-depressive illness. Alternatively, the advert can be read as an example of what has been termed disease mongering. Whichever it is, it will reach beyond those suffering from a mood disorder to others who will as a consequence be more likely to see aspects of their personal experiences in a new way that will lead to medical consultations and in a way that will shape the outcome of those consultations. Adverts that encourage “mood watching” risk transforming variations from an emotional even keel into potential indicators of latent or actual bipolar disorder. This advert appeared in 2002 shortly after Lilly's antipsychotic olanzapine had received a license for treating mania. The company was also running trials aimed at establishing olanzapine as a “mood stabilizer,” one of which was recently published.

Here's part of an Abilify for bipolar ad...




Back to the Zimmerman study. The researchers interviewed 700 patients with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Keep in mind that the SCID is not a conservative measure. When patients receive an unstructured interview, they tend to receive fewer diagnoses than when they are interviewed with the SCID, which makes sense because the SCID sticks to asking detailed questions about DSM-IV symptoms, whereas most interviews ask questions about a variety of topics, and don't go into nearly as much depth regarding one's DSM-specific symptoms.

These 700 patients were also asked if they had been diagnosed as bipolar by a healthcare professional. 145 of the 700 patients included in the study indicated they had been diagnosed as bipolar. Then it gets interesting...

Of the 145 patients diagnosed as bipolar prior to being interviewed for the present study, only 63 (43.4%) were labeled as having bipolar disorder according to the SCID. Remember, the SCID tends to generate more diagnoses than a typical clinical interview, so it's not like the SCID is generally insensitive to picking up on DSM-IV disorders. The researchers even took the liberty of diagnosing many patients who did not officially meet bipolar I or bipolar II diagnostic standards as having bipolar NOS (not otherwise specified); about 25% of those diagnosed with bipolar according to the SCID were labeled as having bipolar NOS. In other words, the authors of the study went out of their way to be quite inclusive, to label some cases that did not quite meet DSM-IV criteria for bipolar as bipolar NOS. So one cannot reasonably state that they were being too restrictive with how they made their bipolar diagnoses.

To put it straight: Over half of the patients coming into the study with a bipolar diagnosis were not labeled as bipolar in the present study when given a thorough diagnostic interview.

Naysayers. Of course, the "bipolar spectrum" club will unite to say that this article is junky. I read an email from a psychiatrist who stated that the study was flawed because the DSM-IV model of diagnosing bipolar is wrong; it is too restrictive. But since the current researchers went past official DSM-IV criteria to make some of their bipolar diagnoses, I'm not sure that is a very valid concern. But similar points will be raised over and over again. Those in favor of expanding the boundaries of bipolar disorder will insist that all this study showed was that the DSM needs change; it needs to broaden its definition of bipolar disorder. Those who were diagnosed as having bipolar disorder but were not labeled as such according to a thorough interview based on the DSM -- those people had "subthreshold" bipolar disorder, which will be labeled as an "underdiagnosed and undertreated" condition that needs to be remedied through more Awareness Days and the like. Doubt me? A group of researchers recently stated that "subthreshold bipolar disorder" was not receiving the treatment it needed, a claim they later retracted when it was pointed out that there was not a single shred of evidence to suggest that such a "condition" received any benefit from treatment with mood stabilizers or antipsychotics.

Why did bipolar become so hip? Mark Zimmerman, lead author of the present study is no pharma hater. By that, I'm not suggesting that he's in bed with pharma either; I'm just saying that he has no axe to grind. So how did he interpret his team's findings?

The impact of marketing efforts and publicity probably also plays a role. Direct-to-consumer advertisements that refer individuals to screening questionnaires can result in patients suggesting to their treaters that they have bipolar disorder. We have seen evidence of this in our practice...

We hypothesize that the increased availability of medications that have been approved for the treatment of bipolar disorder might be influencing clinicians who are unsure whether or not a patient has bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder to err on the side of diagnosing the disorder that is medication responsive. The bias is reinforced by the marketing message of pharmaceutical companies to physicians that has emphasized the literature on the delayed recognition and underrecognition of bipolar disorder, and may be sensitizing clinicians to avoid missing the diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The campaign against underrecognition, which is also illustrated in the titles of published articles in peer-reviewed journals, has probably resulted in some anxious, agitated, and/or irritable depressed patients who complain of insomnia and "racing thoughts" being misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.

News flash, folks. Remember, documents seem to indicate that Lilly was pushing Zyprexa in primary care to treat watered down cases of... bipolar disorder. Cases that would not pass DSM-IV muster, but, if you stretched the diagnostic boundaries quite a bit, BAM, you've got bipolar disorder.

The Last Psychiatrist has also been duly keeping tabs on the bipolar epidemic (1, 2, 3) and I recommend reading his posts on the topic. To quote from one of them:

Yes, but even though the world agrees the symptoms are the same, the consequences of each label is very different, right? The epidemiology, the prognosis-- the meds?

But the real difference is the societal implications. Getting a diagnosis changes the way you relate to the world, and the world relates to you. The label changes your identity and how you think.

Don't agree? Try killing someone and using "pervasive ADHD" as a defense. Get it?

We pretend that psychiatry is an emerging science, and hide behind a feigned ignorance ("we don't know everything, but we're making progress!") And so no one has to take responsibility, or even admit, that psychiatry is changing the evolution of humanity, right in front of our eyes, with nothing more than words.

Right. We relabel conditions and act as if we just figured out the laws of relativity. It's not ADHD or conduct disorder or borderline personality or anger management issues or just, life sucks for you right now and you're having a difficult time adjusting to life's difficulties -- it's... bipolar disorder! Look at the progress we've made! But where is the data showing that these people who are being newly christened as bipolar are actually doing any better due to their new label and their new course of treatment? Doesn't giving someone a bipolar label impact that person? I'd probably feel differently about life if a medical authority labeled me as bipolar.

So I propose that we start a Bipolar Overawareness Week, complete with a website linking to a questionnaire that makes statements like:

• Do you know that your symptoms are probably not indicative of bipolar disorder?
• Ask your doctor if you've been misdiagnosed with bipolar.
• Find out if you are unnecessarily taking Zyprexa today.
  

Let's see if we can get the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill on board. Surely they want to make sure that patients receive the proper diagnosis. Surely drug companies, with their interest in good science and good medical practice, want to help out as well, since they want to make sure that their drugs are prescribed properly.

Daniel Goldberg said...

Good post. The jargon term for "disease mongering" is medicalization, which is such a large and influential area of study that it has even become a subdiscipline ("medicalization studies").

Peter Conrad, a sociologist at Brandeis, studied under Irving Zola, who was a pioneer in medicalization studies, and has a new book out on medicalization. Interestingly, he emphasizes that chalking medicalization up to so-called "medical imperialism" is short-sighted, because often times patients and advocates are at the forefront of urging medicalization (alcoholism and adult ADHD being two of the most prominent examples).
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:33:00 AM
by: PM, SN said...

This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my older friends, a tradesman (jack-of-all) who lives on a boat in the river in my hometown. I forget the conversation that lead up to this, but he mentioned to me that for months out of the year he would feel depressed, and then for months he would feel happy. Sure, I thought, cyclic dysthymia! What I told him, though, was that his experience wasn't at all unusual, and that it's only the degree to which this experience interferes with his ability to live and work that makes the difference between a pathology and just the way we feel. He understands his own pattern, what kinds of things make him feel good and bad, and how to deal with the extremes of his existance gracefully. Some people need a little extra help with this and that's ok, but I think the emphasis on "preventative care" definately leads to overmedication and overdiagnosis.

I left my comments, which you may perhaps be able to read when/if they get posted.

There is so much SEXISM and refusal to understand TRAUMA it boggles my mind.

After 50 years of PTSD, they are STILL trying to label me bipolar and get me on addictive medications!!

I am the patient from HELL for these yuppie, uncaring
30-somethings who are still drinking
and think they can shove these pills on me!

Sure, I am not the easiest person to "deal with"
Tough.
But I'm not having anyone rot my brain!
I've paid dearly to keep it.

Eli Lilly pays Alaska hush funds (well, basically)

Eli Lilly Settles Alaska Suit Over Zyprexa

Eli Lilly has agreed to pay $15 million to the state of Alaska to settle a lawsuit claiming that the company’s schizophrenia drug Zyprexa caused patients to develop diabetes, Lilly and the state said Wednesday morning.

The settlement is something of a surprise, coming three weeks into a trial over the state’s claims in Anchorage. The state sued to recoup medical bills it said were generated by Medicaid patients who developed diabetes while taking Zyprexa. The case had not yet reached the jury, although closing arguments were expected this week.

Because Alaska is such a small state, with only 670,000 residents, the $15 million figure is a relatively large payment by Lilly. Many other states have sued Lilly with similar claims or are participating in settlement talks led by federal prosecutors in Pennsylvania.

There is no way of knowing whether the $15 million payment to Alaska will represent a benchmark for the broader talks, but if it does, Lilly might need to pay billions of dollars to resolve the bigger cases. Lilly and the prosecutors have already discussed an overall settlement of the state and federal investigations and suits that would require Lilly to pay $1 billion to $2 billion in fines and restitution, according to people who have been briefed on the talks.

In addition, Lilly has already paid $1.2 billion to settle 30,000 individual lawsuits from people who say they developed diabetes after taking Zyprexa.

Alaska and Lilly discussed a settlement before the trial began, and mediation efforts resumed last week, according to the statement announcing the settlement.

State court judge Mark Rindner, who was overseeing the case, may have put new pressure on Lilly to settle last week, when he flatly rejected Lilly’s arguments that he should dismiss the case because the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating drug makers. Judge Rindner said the F.D.A. had done an inadequate job of overseeing the industry.

Zyprexa helps calm the hallucinations and delusions associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The drug is widely used, with sales of $4.8 billion last year, about half in the United States. More than 23 million people have taken Zyprexa since it was approved in 1996.

Zyprexa also can cause severe weight gain, blood sugar changes and cholesterol problems, and it has been linked to diabetes by the American Diabetes Association.

Internal Lilly documents show that Lilly played down Zyprexa’s risks to doctors and was concerned that any link between Zyprexa and diabetes would hurt the drug’s sales.

Documents also indicate that after Zyprexa’s approval the company encouraged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa to people who did not have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Drug companies are allowed to promote their medicines only for uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration, although doctors can prescribe drugs for any use.

In the statement Wednesday morning announcing the settlement, Lilly did not admit wrongdoing. The company said it believed the agreement would be in the best interests of the state, the company and patients.

“A settlement helps us get back to what we want to focus on as a company - developing important new medications through research and partnerships with doctors and patients,” Robert A. Armitage, Lilly’s general counsel, said in the statement.

In mid-afternoon stock trading Wednesday, Lilly shares were down 9 cents each, to $50.08.

The Great HPV, Gardasil HOAX: Mike Adams

This video exposes the truth about Gardasil and HPV vaccinations: They don't work and may actually be dangerous to women. The FDA knew HPV did not cause cervical cancer in 2003.


Also see:

Video from www.nvic.org highlighting the lack of research and information about the new controversial vaccine supposed to guard against the papilloma virus.

"There are twice as many children collapsing and four times as many children experiencing tingling, numbness and loss of sensation after getting a GARDASIL vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccination. There have been reports of facial paralysis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. And doctors who give GARDASIL in combination with other vaccines are basically conducting an experiment on their young patients because Merck has not published any safety data for simultaneous vaccination with any vaccine except hepatitis B vaccine."(Barbara Loe Fisher)



The same tactic is used over and over again on the trusting public, because we don't learn from history or even yesterday apparently.

FEAR.
Problem-Reaction-Solution.
Create a Problem yourself, wait for the Reaction, which is typically ,"Please help us solve this problem, or protect us from that threat, menace or danger."
THEN, offer the very SOLUTION that you had planned for them to BEG YOU FOR, to begin with.

Over and over this strategy is used. It is time for everyone to see it for what it is. Thugs and bullies. Just as the old time gangsters would push people around, burn down their houses and buildings, kill their livestock and relatives and other horrible fear tactics, and then offer them protection, as if they were the good guys.

This short 10 minute audio/video concerning the *push* of the HPV vaccine "Gardasil", attempting to scare us into submitting our LITTLE GIRLS to this new vaccine, which even when viewed at face value as a protection from cancer, clearly can't be justified as a MANDATED LAW considering how new it is. There have been NO CLINICAL TESTS proving it to be safe over long or short term periods, because it is brand NEW.

No, there are no justifications for a law making it mandatory - thus the word MANDATE. You WILL have to go through litigation and trouble in order to EXCUSE your girl FROM taking this vaccine, and "opt-out".

Again, fear tactics... and there are PLENTY of examples of fear-mongering videos, of supposed girls telling "their story" of how it could have saved them if they'd only have known in time. These are COMMERCIALS, Google Video and YouTube Video officially have higher RATINGS than TV. That is why Time magazine claimed person of the year this year to be YOU! The videos you see on here PROMOTING the vaccine "Gardasil" are indeed commercials.

Why though?

Money is the clear and obvious reason, but is it the ONLY reason? Hmmn, give YOUNG FEMALES unproven vaccines... hmmmn...

Zyprexa update!!

Time to revisit what is often a topic on this blog: lawsuits against Eli Lilly. And the best place to get that information is from Lawyers and Settlements. LOOK what is transpiring these days, as the Canadian case is still not being pursued in court . .YET.

And here is the wonderful Evelyn Pringle with the latest ..
and think about it; there are STILL people taking this POISON!!

Lilly Faces Mounting Legal Battles Over Zyprexa - Part I

November 8, 2007. By Evelyn Pringle

Washington, DC: Since August 2006, as part of an on-going, multistate investigative effort by approximately 30 states, Eli Lilly has received civil investigative demands or subpoenas seeking a broad range of documents relating to the company's marketing and promotion of the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa, and more states are expected to join the effort.

In addition, a total of ten states are now suing Lilly for Medicaid fraud to recover the cost of Zyprexa purchases for persons covered by the program, along with the past and future costs of treating Zyprexa-related illnesses. Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah and West Virginia have filed cases thus far.

Zyprexa belongs to a new generation of antipsychotic drugs known as "atypicals" which arrived on the US market in 1994, beginning with Risperdal, marketed by Johnson and Johnson subsidiary Janssen. Other drugs in this class include Seroquel, sold by AstraZeneca; Geodon, by Pfizer; Abilify, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Clozaril, marketed by Novartis.

For the first four years that Zyprexa was on the market in the US, it was only approved to treat adults with schizophrenia, and it was not until 2000 that the FDA approved the drug for adults in the manic phase of bipolar disorder.

However, in a matter of a few short years, Lilly turned Zyprexa into its best-selling product, despite the drug's extremely limited approved uses, by influencing doctors to prescribe the drug off-label.

In addition to prescribing a drug for unapproved uses, off-label can mean treating an approved condition for a longer duration of time, or prescribing a drug in combination with other drugs, or at a different dosage, or to a different patient population such children or the elderly, other than those specified on the FDA-approved label.

According to Lilly's SEC filings, the Office of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has also advised Lilly that it has commenced a civil investigation related to the company's marketing and promotion of Zyprexa, and a "number of State Medicaid Fraud Control Units are coordinating with the EDPA in its investigation of any Medicaid-related claims relating to Lilly's marketing and promotion of Zyprexa."

Lilly has also received subpoenas from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and the Florida Office of the Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, asking for documents relating to sales, marketing and promotion of Zyprexa.

Lilly's SEC filings also report that the company has received requests for information related to the company's marketing and promotion of Zyprexa from the offices of Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

Collectively, the Medicaid fraud lawsuits allege that Lilly illegally influenced doctors to prescribe Zyprexa off-label to patients, including children, for conditions such as behavior and mood disorders, eating disorders, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, PMS, Alzheimer's, Tourette's syndrome, dementia and other unapproved indications.

The lawsuits also allege that Lilly concealed the adverse effects associated with Zyprexa, including drastic weight gain, high blood sugar levels, diabetes and pancreatitis.

Other serious adverse effects known to be associated with Zyprexa include Parkinson-like symptoms, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, dystonia, hypotension, constipation, tachycardia, seizures, liver abnormalities, white blood cell disorders and death.

The Mississippi lawsuit alleges that about 10% of Zyprexa patients have developed diabetes, some of whom are children, even though Zyprexa "has never been approved for, nor found to be effective, in the treatment of children."

An estimated 1,500 Utah Medicaid patients who took Zyprexa have developed diabetes, according to the lawsuit filed on May 29, 2007, by state attorney general David Stallard.

Utah is seeking damages including $5,000-$10,000 for each prescription that was "not medically necessary."

Lilly recently attempted to get the Utah case dismissed, in part by arguing that the allegations of off-label promotion and failure to warn were preempted by FDA regulations under a new rule put in place by the Bush Administration, largely viewed as a gift to the pharmaceutical industry.

In 2006, the FDA published a preamble to new prescription drug labeling rules in which it asserted that its approval of the labeling would prevent the filing of lawsuits in state courts premised on a theory that a drug company should have provided additional warnings on a drug's label.

However, the Utah court ruled against Lilly on this issue and stated, in part: "In fields traditionally occupied by the states, such as health and safety regulation, there is a strong presumption against federal preemption," and Lilly "has not overcome this strong presumption."

Pennsylvania alleges that the state spent millions of dollars "for non-medically accepted indications and non-medically necessary uses of Zyprexa," as well as "significant sums of money for the care and treatment" of patients injured by the drug.

Montana's complaint charges that, "Lilly management participated, encouraged and authorized the unlawful payment of illegal kickbacks to physicians in order to continue generating sales of Zyprexa."

The Montana lawsuit is asking for reimbursement on behalf of all citizens who purchased Zyprexa, and not only patients covered by public health care programs, because under the law in that state, the attorney general can request treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of all consumers.

There are also several RICO class actions filed against Lilly on behalf of union insurance plans, pension funds, and other private health insurers, which accuse Lilly of violating racketeering laws and allege the drug maker engaged in illegal marketing schemes to promote the sale of Zyprexa for off-label uses and seek to recover the cost of purchasing the drug, as well as treble damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2007, Lilly lost a motion for a summary judgment dismissal of the RICO claims, based on the preemption argument, when District Court Judge Jack Weinstein for the Eastern District of New York ruled against the company, In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 1851161.

In a written ruling rejecting Lilly's argument that state law failure-to-warn claims are preempted, Judge Weinstein wrote that "the regulation of public health is an area traditionally occupied by the states, supporting a presumption against preemption."

"Under the present organization of the pharmaceutical industry, the official federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the plaintiffs' bar," he stated, "the courts are arguably in the strongest position to effectively enforce appropriate standards protecting the public from fraudulent merchandising of drugs."

The Judge also noted that Congress had not stated an intent to preempt these claims. "The FDA cannot be allowed to usher in such a sweeping change in substantive law through the back door," he wrote.

The Medicaid fraud lawsuits allege that many children have been turned into customers for the off-label prescribing of Zyprexa. A recent October 7, 2007, report from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration entitled, "The Use of Antipsychotic Medications with Children," found that pediatric use of antipsychotics increased in the late 1990's and early 2000's, largely due to the arrival of the atypicals on the market.

The report noted that one study documented a 75% increase with commercially insured children aged 0 to 17 from 1997 to 2001, and another study of the managed care population from 1996 to 2001 found a 127% increase among children aged 0 to 18.

The study also reported that antipsychotic use in the Medicaid populations was three to four times higher than commercial populations in the late 1990's, and in one program in the Midwest, the rate of prescriptions grew 304% between 1996 and 2001.

The authors said the analysis showed that the drugs are being used to treat a broad spectrum of disorders, and some of the disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and major depression, "clearly do not call for antipsychotic treatment."

In the 0 to 5 age group, the study found that more than 53% of the drugs were prescribed for ADHD, even though antipsychotic use with children under 6 "should be considered only in very rare circumstances."

A report in the May 10, 2007, New York Times revealed some of the known adverse events that occurred in children who were prescribed antipychotics in 2006 alone. The FDA received reports of 29 children dying, and at least 165 other serious side effects in children, where an antipsychotic was listed as the primary suspect, according to the Times.

The FDA acknowledges that its reporting system only picks up between one and ten percent of the adverse events that take place, which means the number of deaths and injuries above must be multiplied many times over to obtain an accurate estimation of how many children have been harmed by the drugs.

Zyprexa Legal Help

If you have or a loved on has taken Zyprexa and suffered from diabetes or hyperglycemia, please contact a lawyer involved in a possible [Zyprexa Lawsuit] who will review your case at no cost or obligation.

Score another one for Big Pharma.

Shit.

http://www.taintedblood.info/timeline.php?mode=latest&launch=true

THESTAR.com

Accused in tainted blood trial exonerated

Victims are shocked Superior Court judge found no one to blame

Oct 02, 2007 04:30 AM

Peter Small
Tracy Huffman
Staff Reporters

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/262563

After more than two decades, a 20-month trial and 1,000 exhibits, a judge exonerated four doctors and a U.S. pharmaceutical company of criminal charges in one of Canada's worst public health disasters.

While more than 1,000 Canadians became infected with HIV and another 20,000 contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood products in the mid-1980s, yesterday's acquittals mean no one has been found criminally responsible in the tragedy.

Superior Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto ruled yesterday that New Jersey-based Armour Pharmaceutical Co. and the four doctors, including a former top Canadian Red Cross official, behaved responsibly in distributing HT Factorate.

"There was no conduct that showed wanton and reckless disregard. There was no marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person," she told a packed University Ave. courtroom. "On the contrary, the conduct examined in detail for over 1 1/2years confirms reasonable, responsible and professional actions and responses during a difficult time.

"The allegations of criminal conduct on the part of these men and this corporation were not only unsupported by the evidence, they were disproved," she said. "The events here were tragic. However, to assign blame where none exists is to compound the tragedy."

All four doctors and Armour were charged with criminal negligence and endangering the public for allegedly allowing Armour's blood-clotting product, infected with HIV, to be given to hemophilia patients, thus putting the public at risk of contracting the deadly virus.

The Red Cross and Dr. Roger Perrault, 71, its former director of blood transfusion, were also charged with not screening donors for contaminated blood. As well, Armour was charged with failing to notify the federal Health Department of problems or suspected problems with its blood product.

Acquitted were Perrault, 71; Dr. Donald Wark Boucher, 66; Dr. John Furesz, 79, who worked for Health Canada's bureau of biologics; Armour Pharmaceutical, which manufactured HT Factorate; and one of its former vice-presidents, Dr. Michael Rodell, 75, of Pennsylvania, who was responsible for the company's blood products.

The trial focused on four hemophiliacs – three who have died – and about 60 others allegedly exposed to the HIV-virus. The victims of common nuisance represented people living in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta.

While the doctors showed little outward reaction to their acquittal, some tainted-blood victims and their families in the courtroom shook their heads or wept quietly.

John Plater, of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, who contracted HIV and hepatitis C through tainted blood in the 1980s, said he can't understand how the judge could say they did a good job.

"What has been suggested here today is that the behaviour of the gentlemen involved and the company involved shouldhow be lauded, that they were doing a wonderful job," Plater said. "Well, no one in the history of examining what happened here has ever suggested that they did a good job."

James Kreppner, a hemophiliac infected with HIV and hepatitis C in the 1980s, sat through much of the trial. He said he was disappointed that a defence "dream team" had secured such complete vindication.

"I'm not out for revenge, but I want the truth told."

In the trial, Crown counsel Michael Bernstein alleged the defendants sacrificed the health of Canadians. As many as 3,0000 Canadians are estimated to have died from receiving tainted blood.

But defence lawyers argued officials acted reasonably, based on scientific knowledge of HIV in the 1980s.Yesterday, Eddie Greenspan, lawyer for Perrault, said they had expected this verdict.

"When you read this judgment, there are enormous comments about his innocence, about his due diligence, about the care and consideration that he took."

This isn't the end of criminal proceedings in the tainted blood tragedy. Perrault also faces six counts of common nuisance in endangering the public for allegedly failing to properly screen donors, implement testing for blood-borne viruses and warning the public of danger regarding both hepatitis C and HIV.

That trial is to begin this year in Hamilton, where victims have voiced frustration with the slow pace of justice and expressed fears Perrault may be acquitted.

In his 1997 report on the country's tainted blood scandal, Justice Horace Krever strongly criticized Canada's reaction to the AIDS crisis. Krever said the decision by Red Cross officials to exhaust their supply of untreated blood products before switching fully to safe heat-treated concentrates in 1985 was especially careless. In the wake of Krever's report, responsibility for Canada's blood supply for all provinces, except Quebec, was transferred to Canadian Blood Services.

High court appeal urged

OTTAWA–An acquittal in yesterday's tainted-blood trial should be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to test the laws that protect Canada's blood supply and to ensure the adequacy of federal reforms made in the wake of the public health scandal, a former federal health minister says.

Why did the battle take so long?

It's not surprising the biggest public health disaster in Canadian history would also spawn one of the longest legal battles for account- ability, a fight that isn't over.

Even though former Canadian Red Cross director Roger Perrault and four co-accused were acquitted yesterday by a Toronto judge, Perrault still faces a criminal trial in Hamilton. The Crown could also appeal yesterday's verdict.

But criminal prosecutions are just one component of a quest for justice by tainted blood victims that began approximately 17 years ago.

Before the RCMP laid criminal charges in 2002, there was a public inquiry headed by retired justice Horace Krever and a series of class action lawsuits, which were delayed by legal challenges.

Here are some of the reasons the process has taken so long:

Bureaucratic delays: These slowed the development of a safe blood supply and the search for what went wrong. A program for testing donated blood for HIV, for example, was approved for use in Canada in April 1985, but not implemented for seven months, in part because the provinces couldn't agree on how to pay for it.

As more reports surfaced of infected Canadians, Ottawa, as late as 1992, balked at an inquiry. Even some victims opposed an inquiry or criminal probe, saying they just wanted adequate compensation.

Civil proceedings: The Krever commission took from 1993-97, a process delayed by legal challenges to his authority to make findings of misconduct. The RCMP held off on a criminal probe until three class action suits were resolved in 2001.

Criminal process: Before the criminal trial began in February 2006, Perrault, who has a long history of heart problems, applied to have the charges stayed. The trial itself involved scientifically complex evidence, which took time to explain, said Mike McCarthy, past vice-president of the Canadian Hemophilia Society.

And then there were the lawyers. McCarthy feels the Crown was outmatched by the defence. "The Crown sent foot soldiers ... but the defence sent in their generals."

---

Tracey Tyler

Victims call verdict `slap in the face'

One man who was robbed of his health says yesterday's ruling robbed him of chance to heal

Oct 02, 2007 04:30 AM

Theresa Boyle
and Robyn Doolittle
Staff Reporters

They bowed their heads. They sobbed. They looked at each other in disbelief.

For the five rows of victims and family members, the acquittal verdicts delivered in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice yesterday were the latest blows in lives consumed by illness, endless medical appointments, and the care of ailing loved ones.

"After hearing five acquittals, I broke down. I just couldn't deal with it," said Jamie Hill, 33.

At age 12, Hill learned he was infected with a tainted blood product used to treat his hemophelia. He contracted HIV and hepatitis C.

None of the four B.C. complainants who launched this case were in court yesterday. Three of them are now dead. But Hill and some 25 other victims and family members affected by the tainted-blood tragedy showed up to hear the decision, searching for answers in their ongoing battles.

"I believe in healing and reconciliation. I didn't necessarily want a harsh sentence imposed on the gentlemen. But in order to have reconciliation you need to have repentance," he said.

After yesterday's ruling, the Kitchener man said he has not only been robbed of his health, but of a chance to heal.

"You need to acknowledge the injustice and then you can start to heal as a community. I don't feel that today," he said yesterday.

Hill just wants someone to take responsibility for the struggles that have consumed the last 21 years of his life. Every day it is a challenge just to muster the energy to get out of bed, he said.

"Physically, I'm drained. I have no energy. It's like I have constant, constant flu," he added.

He takes up to 20 pills a day, many with side effects. He has at least one doctor's appointment a week. It's a lonely existence, he said, breaking into tears.

"It's hard emotionally, too, because a lot of people don't have the interest or ability to be emotionally intimate and to walk that road of deep grief with you. It's very difficult," he cried.

While Hill has three degrees, he can't work because he's too sick.

"My life doesn't seem to be important, all of the things I've gone through," he said, reflecting on the verdict.

Hill was one of several survivors who shared their tragic stories outside the University Ave. courthouse yesterday.

Mina Shah and her mother clasped arms and avoided the cameras, officials and media scrums. Shah had been the first to breakdown in the courtroom. Her black eyeliner was smudged around her large, puffy eyes.

"The family are victims, too. It's hard on the caregivers. We watched my brother slowly die. I wish he was here to speak for himself, but he's not," said Shah, 44, of Toronto. "Certainly there was political pressure (on the judge). These are drug companies. They have all the money to hire the best lawyers."

Shah's younger brother Karttik – a hemophiliac – was given tainted blood at age 8. In his teens, Karttik complained of feeling tired all the time, he'd sweat at night. At 16, Karttik was diagnosed with HIV and hepatitis C. He died in 2004.

Heather Carlson, 25, stood nearby holding a picture of Karttik. They were best friends for eight years.

"It was hard. It was hard watching this beautiful person slip away. He was always well dressed; looked good. Then he got sick and sicker and thin," Carlson said, gripping the photo. "This wasn't even a slap on the wrist, (the judge) gave them praise for being "responsible" at the time."

Steps away, Shah looked up and began to cry again. "I just can't deal with it anymore," she gasped before breaking down again.

Noella Baker, whose husband died from hepatitis C he contracted from tainted blood, ran to her side and the pair embraced. Others rushed to join.

"This decision is a slap in the face for the victims who are still living," Shah said. "They relied on the judicial system for hope; to show some kind of fairness. You and me, we can have untainted blood. They were sacrificed."

ANALYSIS

TheStar.com | News | Acquittals won't sate primeval need to lay blame

Acquittals won't sate primeval need to lay blame

Oct 02, 2007 04:30 AM

Thomas Walkom
National Affairs Columnist

With the acquittal of all those charged in the tainted blood affair of the 1980s, Canada's worst – and longest-running – public health scandal has finally come to end.

The saga leaves none covered in glory. The blood scandal destroyed the reputation of the once mighty Canadian Red Cross.

It revealed the weakness of the institutions set up to protect Canadians against public health menaces. And it left the former federal Liberal government that inherited the problem defending itself against charges that it was callow and unfeeling.

Justice Horace Krever, whose 1997 report still represents the last word on the affair, found few heroes. In the '80s, as blood-borne diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis C spread across North America, just about everyone was asleep at the switch.

The federal health department didn't bother to calculate the risks associated with certain blood products. Both it and the Red Cross, which at the time was in charge of the country's blood supply, made decisions based on little or no scientific evidence.

Federal regulators, Krever wrote, failed to exercise their authority. Manufacturers ignored scientific evidence that indicated their blood products might be unsafe.

Throughout, money was always the problem.

The Red Cross didn't want to spend money on expensive tests that might prove unnecessary. Nor did it wish to impose new regulations that might discourage its already dwindling base of voluntary blood donors.

Meanwhile, firms that made the blood products used by hemophiliacs and others were equally reluctant to adopt expensive new methods of screening for HIV and hepatitis C.

For governments too, money was never far from the centre.

When Krever presented his 1,138-page report, the Liberal government of the day was quick to issue an apology to all victims of tainted blood. But it was reluctant to compensate them all.

In particular, the government balked at compensating those who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood before 1986 or after 1990, arguing there was nothing more anyone could have done for those unlucky enough to have fallen sick during those periods.

It said that to bend on this would leave the public treasury open to claims based on sentiment rather than fact.

That fight ground on in Parliament until last year when Conservative Health Minister Tony Clement announced that Ottawa would pay $1 billion to roughly 5,000 hepatitis C victims excluded from the earlier deal.

That was the systemic side of the picture – profit-conscious companies, cost-conscious bureaucrats, precedent-conscious governments.

But there was another, more primeval part of the scandal. Many wanted someone – anyone – to take responsibility and pay a price.

They literally wanted blood.

In Japan, France and Switzerland, similar scandals had led to criminal charges.

In this country, such charges weren't laid until 2002 – against former Red Cross medical head Dr. Roger Perrault, two former Health Canada officials, a vice-president of a New Jersey blood company, the company itself and the Canadian Red Cross.

Three years later, the charges against the Red Cross were dropped after it pleaded guilty to a lesser offence.

Yesterday, the other defendants were all acquitted.

Given that the case centred on the state of knowledge about what were, in the 1980s, relatively mysterious diseases, the Crown's task was daunting.

Nor was it helped when, early on, the main prosecution witness changed his mind as to the defendants' culpability.

In the end, Justice Mary Lou Benotto ruled the charges against the defendants "were not only unsupported by the evidence, they were disproved."

Perrault still faces additional criminal charges related to allegations that blood donors weren't adequately screened. But even if the Crown goes ahead, these charges will mark a denouement rather than a climax.

For in a typically Canadian way, this tragedy is over. People died. A royal commission was held.

Bureaucratic changes have been made. And life, such as it is, goes on.

Another item in the coffin of Geodon ..

FDA accuses Pfizer of false advertising

Pfizer's ad for anti-psychotic drug misleading, omits health risk info, says FDA.

By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer

August 14 2007: 3:07 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The FDA on Monday accused Pfizer of false advertising for its anti-schizophrenia drug Geodon.

The Food and Drug Administration, in a letter posted on its Web site, said that a Pfizer (down $0.33 to $23.56, Charts, Fortune 500) advertisement appearing in a medical journal "is false or misleading because it omits important risk information and contains unsubstantiated superiority claims."

There is no cure for psoriasis, but there are plenty of treatments for this chronic skin condition. CNN's Judy fortin reports. Play video

The FDA said that Pfizer omitted health risks that have been attributed to the injectable drug Geodon, including diabetes, high blood pressure and neurological disorders.

Sicko IS a must see film - Mike Adams' review

http://www.newstarget.com/021906.html

I have been waiting to read Mike Adams' review of Sicko ever since I first heard the documentary was coming out. Mike Adams and I see most health topics "in the same light". Big difference though: he is still living in the US and is in good health. I live in Canada, on disablity, and I do not enjoy "good" health: I simply cannot afford it. But we do have the national health care model people are so het up about. What would he SAY ...? He knows the drill. Here is his review. Mine will follow after I have seen it.
From Newstarget

America's disastrous health care system is heaving the country head-first into near-certain economic collapse. Just about everybody's either financially strained or going broke due to spiraling health care costs: the people, the employers, state governments and even the federal government. Multinational corporations are fleeing the United States due to health care costs, taking jobs and economic productivity with them. Meanwhile, 50 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to medical expenses.

But not everybody's doing badly. The drug companies, surgeons, medical specialists, health insurance companies and private hospitals are making out like bandits, raking in multi-million dollar CEO salaries and -- I'm not making this up -- greater than 500,000% markups on prescription drugs. And while the American people get sicker, the drug companies, insurance companies and many health "care" providers (it's really more like "sick care providers") are rolling in cash. Drug companies are now among the richest corporations in the world, and they got there by inventing fictitious diseases, then selling drugs to people who mostly don't need them. See my CounterThink cartoon, Disease Mongers, Inc. to learn more about this topic.

Meanwhile, the American people are the most diseased people in the world among advanced nations. We spend more on health care than anyone, we pay the highest prices for medications, and we're constantly told that we have the best medical technology in the world. But if our health care system is really so good, why do 50 million Americans have no health insurance? Why are hospitals literally dumping uninsured patients on the street, abandoning the sick to protect profits while our politicians actually negotiate on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure Americans keep paying the highest prices in the world for medications? (Click here to see our CounterThink cartoon on President Bush's price negotiations with drug companies.)

What's wrong with America's health care system?

SiCKO is a must-see documentary

SiCKO creator Michael Moore answers that all-important question in his best documentary yet. Forget whatever criticism you may have heard about SiCKO -- this is a Michael Moore masterpiece: A courageous, impactful and outrageous documentary that exposes the arrogance of modern medicine and the utter failure of America's corporate-controlled sick care system to provide decent health care to the people. Watching this movie will leave you either steaming mad or shedding tears (or both). It reveals the deep-rooted corruption in America's health care system and explains why the whole system was actually designed to deny health care to the American people.

I've been ranting about America's health care failures for years, and as I've consistently stated to the amazement of some, the health care corporations actually have a plan to keep people sick. There's no money in preventing disease, especially in the cancer industry. Click here to read my recent report on the American Cancer Society's refusal to help prevent 77% of all cancers using affordable, scientifically-proven vitamin D supplements.

In SiCKO, what Moore does very effectively is tells this story to a mass audience, weaving together the emotionally-charged stories of American citizens who lost husbands, daughters and other family members to preventable disease, all thanks to intentional, well-planned payment denials by health insurance companies. In one segment in the film, he features archival footage of former President Nixon, who strongly approves of a new 1970's health care concept called the "HMO" where the more patients are denied health care services, the more money the hospitals and health insurance companies rake in!

In contrast to all this, Moore shows us the universal health care systems in countries like Canada, the UK, France and even Cuba... all countries where health care is free to everyone. It's called universal health care (or "socialized medicine"), and it's a system followed by nearly every modern nation in the world... and even some not-so-modern nations. Only America practices medicine in the Dark Ages, tied to a hopelessly corrupt system of financial exploitation and monopoly price controls, where Big Pharma gets richer, the FDA gets more powerful, and the American people get the shaft.

See my CounterThink cartoon, The Disease Economy, for a visual representation of this mess we're in, or read my book Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them to see just how evil and corrupt our modern health care system really is.

Why Moore is being so vicious attacked

Moore, as usual, is being targeted by all sorts of critics who would like nothing better than to see this guy disappear and stop rocking the Good 'ol Boys boat that seems to be floating just fine in America (as long as you're part of the wealthy elite, anyway). For starters, U.S. government officials are investigating Moore for violating travel restrictions to Cuba. And why? Because Moore gathered a dozen Americans who were denied health care in the U.S. and brought them to Cuba where they received free, quality health care in a modern Cuban hospital.

The message is hard to miss: Cuba takes better care of its citizens than America does. In fact, Cuba is willing to take care of a few American citizens that America abandoned! That kind of "in-yo-face" embarrassment to U.S. officials isn't appreciated much in police-state America these days, where practically anyone who dares question the wisdom of the government is branded a terrorist. Moore is clearly being targeted not merely because he took some 9/11 heroes to Cuba and got them health care, but because he dared to make it all public. Humiliating the King is a quick way to find your head on a chopping block. Just ask all the scientists who publicly disagree with the Bush Administration's hopelessly politicized view on climate change...

Other critics of Moore are either the greedy, corrupt corporations impacted by his film (drug companies, health insurance providers, hospitals and so on) or juvenile stay-at-home back-seat Internet critics who don't like Moore for the simple fact that he dares to stand up and say "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" Nearly all the criticism leveled against Moore is without substance. People attack Moore personally, but they won't dare debate what he's presenting in the movie. Why? Because Michael Moore is right. America's health care system is an embarrassment to the nation, and to the world. It's so bad that most informed world citizens wouldn't be caught dead in this country, unless of course they actually visit America and have an accident that lands them in the U.S. health care system.

Personally, I opted out of the American health care system long ago. I'm a holistic nutritionist, and I exercise, eat right, get lots of sunshine and gorge on superfoods and raw berries. I have no need for a doctor, or a pharmaceutical, or a health insurance policy. I don't get annual physical exams, and I have zero risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes or other common health conditions. (I posted my health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org if you want to see my blood workup.)

At the same time, I realize that not everybody is in such a fortunate health position. Most people simply don't take care of their own health, and while I could argue for days about the need for more patient responsibility alongside corporate responsibility, the fact is that relentless advertising from drug companies and food manufacturers has bred a mindset of disease, junk food consumption, pharmaceutical dependence and patient victimization. We have a health crisis in this country, and it's going to take genuinely radical reforms to turn this around and save America from a financial wipeout exacerbated by runaway health care spending.

What's missing from SiCKO

The material that's in SiCKO is hard-hitting, and it accomplishes what it sets out to do. But there's something missing from the film: A serious discussion about how a nation can prevent disease using nutrition, medicinal herbs, sunshine, clean water, avoidance of toxic chemicals, smart dietary choices, banning the advertising of junk foods and pharmaceuticals, and so on. Of course, that's not really what SiCKO set out to do, and this topic would require another film all by itself, but personally I wouldn't have minded a stronger nod towards solving our nation's health care problems through genuine prevention (rather than the current policy which is basically centered around waiting for everybody to get sick and then treating their symptoms while ignoring the true causes of their disease).

Of course, it might be tricky for Moore to argue for disease prevention given that he is obviously not the poster boy for ideal physical health. But he never claims to be. So the critics who attack Moore's own personal health are missing the whole point of the film. Moore is simply pointing out what's wrong with America's health care system, and he does so brilliantly and convincingly, regardless of his own personal health status. And besides, if you want to argue about the health of "experts," just walk into any hospital and take a look at the health of all the people who work there. Many aren't any healthier than Moore, and they work in the industry! The average lifespan of a U.S. doctor is less than a Cuban peasant. That's not a joke.

Regardless of Moore's present physical fitness challenges, he's obviously operating with a great degree of healthy skepticism about the way the U.S. operates today. Moore is an independent thinker who simply refuses to follow the crowd, and with this film, he's doing the job that the American people should have been doing all along -- questioning the sanity of our health care system. But sadly, the truth is that most Americans are sheeple who just follow the herd and do what they're told. A recent poll revealed that nearly 45% of Americans still trust the FDA! That's astounding, given that I've solidly established the Food and Drug Administration is far more dangerous to the health and safety of the American people than all the terrorists in the world. To learn more, read my article The lawlessness of the FDA, Big Pharma immunity, and crimes against humanity.

How will SiCKO play?

I think SiCKO's timing is perfect, and I think the movie will be a significant factor in the upcoming 2008 elections. Those politicians who run on a platform of radical health care reforms are likely to pick up a lot more support than those unwise enough to try to defend the current system.

This is a tough call for Republicans, since most Republicans support Big Pharma and the corporate control of modern medicine, usually at the expense of the people. Democrats, though, are also on Big Pharma's payroll, as was obvious with the recent voting record on the FDA Revitilization Act co-sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. The truth is, Big Pharma owns virtually all the politicians in Washington (except Rep. Ron Paul, of course).

The movie will definitely get America talking about serious health care reforms. But as I've pointed out in a previous article, Where's the Health In Health Care Reform?, almost nobody is considering proposals that would genuinely solve the health care problem in America today. You can't "treat" your way out of a nation that has become so over-drugged, over-fed and over-diseased that even the little children are now being put on speed (also called "Ritalin"). Nearly 50 percent of American adults are now taking pharmaceuticals, most of which are utterly unnecessary from a medical point of view. Drug advertising has taken over the media, the FDA has suppressed natural alternatives, and the American Medical Association continues to peddle such health nonsense that it's amazing the AMA hasn't yet been invited to join the Smithsonian's Museum of Outdated American History.

The American Cancer Society, in my opinion, is a supremely corrupt, big-business front group that actually takes steps to ensure more cases of future cancer by "preventing prevention," the American Diabetes Association takes money from candy and soda manufacturers, and the American Psychiatric Association is so steeped in Big Pharma money that they've practically become inseparable. (Click here to see my CounterThink cartoon on this topic.)

The future of America looks dim

Clearly, something has to change in this country if we're going to survive as a nation. Under the current system of massive debt spending, widespread political corruption, war mongering and health care failures, the United States of America will simply not survive another generation. No nation that abandons the health of its people can expect to have a future. As Moore points out, however, there is a chance to save America, but only if we make significant changes starting now.

Truly radical changes must be put into place. I've offered many suggestions in a popular article, The health care reform legislation that Congress should pass, but won't. Lawmakers, you see, have no interest in actually saving America from financial demise. They're only concerned about the next election, and raising campaign reelection funds means kow-towing to the interests of the powerful corporations that really run Washington.

Personally, I don't see that meaningful reform is possible under the current system of politics in America. The Big Business sick care industry has a stranglehold on the American political system, and the whole ugly thing will mostly likely have to collapse and be rebooted before we'll see significant change.

And make no mistake: that's what's coming. I predict America will not survive its health care crisis. It won't be the first empire to crumble from arrogance and corruption. In fact, it will join a long (and growing) list of civilizations that have risen and fallen, securing its place in the pages of history as yet another imperialist nation that thought it could rule the world while abandoning the needs of its own people.

The bottom line on SiCKO

It's a must-see documentary. It's surprisingly even-handed and well grounded, never resorting to unsubstantiated claims merely to shock the audience. In fact, as a person who has been writing about America's health care problems for four years, I didn't detect a single false statement in the film. It's all true, and it's pretty damn scary. Go see it. It opens on June 29th.

And if, like one person featured in the film, I ever have to choose between reconnective surgery for my middle finger at $60,000 vs. my ring finger at $12,000, I'll choose to have my middle finger sewn on first just so I can visually demonstrate to U.S. Senators precisely how I feel about America's health care system today.

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a passion for teaching people how to improve their health He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org