MIGHT HAVE TO BE DECLARED . . . IN WRITING!
By AL Whitney © copyround 2017
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged.
Last January 2017 a close family relative suffered a serious medical emergency requiring hospitalization. His condition was so critical his kidneys shut down. While in the hospital he was given extremely potent drugs in an attempt to stop life threatening abnormal heart beats. A week later his wife received a letter from his cardiologist’s office informing of the need to monitor his liver function via blood tests after his release. The drug he was receiving that required monitoring was Amiodarone.
We researched Amiodarone online and were shocked by what we discovered.
Amiodarone had been approved by the FDA WITHOUT ANY clinical trials. In fact, the FDA had issued an alert in 2005 warning that it could cause severe (even lethal) pulmonary and or liver conditions and that it could worsen the arrhythmias it was being used to treat. My relative’s cardiologist HAD NOT disclosed these all important facts to him or to his family. The drug was continued even though his chest x-rays revealed that he had newly developed pulmonary “infiltrates”, a lowered oxygen saturation level and was experiencing bouts of shortness of breath. When I informed my sick relative of these side effects, he discontinued the Amiodarone himself.
Then in February the same close family relative developed a post surgical blood clot. His doctor asked him to choose a blood thinning drug. Here are the choices he was given. They were written on the white board in his hospital room:
- Xarelto (FDA approved in spite of proven fraudulent clinical trials)
- Eliquis (FDA approved in spite of proven fraudulent clinical trials)
By offering him three choices, the physician put both the decision and the liability onto him. The fact that both Xarelto & Eliquis have a common side effect of increasing blood creatinine – when his poorly functioning kidneys were already causing his creatinine level to be abnormally high – was neither considered nor revealed. If his choice resulted in his death, it could be said that he had been fully informed (which he had not), had consented (had chosen), and was therefore personally responsible for the outcome.
As the info provided to him by his physician was sketchy at best and he was in the hospital without access to detailed information about these drugs, I did the investigation for him. After reviewing the information I gave him, he chose Coumadin as it was the only one of the three with an anecdote – Vitamin K – and the only one without risk of increased damage to his already injured kidneys.
[My relative took the Coumadin for 10 weeks. Fortunately, he had no new blood clots, no incidence of bleeding, and his creatinine level did not worsen.]
While the American Hospital Association claims that all patients have the right to “informed consent”, they don’t disclose that the patient must inform himself of the benefits and risks prior to consenting or dissenting. This lack of reliable information regarding treatment risks also occurs across the country when it comes to vaccines and their many potential (even life threatening) adverse reactions. Continue reading