I have been doing a lot of research about Boston Scientific as you will know if you have been reading this blog. It is important to me to understand everything I can possibly find out about the company who made the implant that was put into my body and it left me disabled. I could not have done this research for a long time due to all I was going through, but now I feel it is imperative to my peace of mind and my ability to move forward.
When I wrote the blog about their reps showing up at doctor’s office’s before the deal was completely closed with AMS closing, I realized how terrible this company was and they have NO PRINCIPALS regardless of what they say. (You can read that blog at the end of this one) I also saw something on that letter that made me take note and I searched to find a video about how Boston Scientific teaches doctors. Understand that it is difficult to watch but first please do watch this video so you know what I am talking about. The video was uploaded in Jan 2010, just 2 months before my own implant surgery. Note how one doctor on the video says doing these surgeries are in a VERY COMPLICATED AREA OF THE BODY and by going to this school “We’ll feel much more confident in these places”. When you watch them work on pieces of cadaver, do you think it is possible to do this in live human bodies immediately after going to this school? I certainly don’t. This is why these surgeries go wrong because it is a blind procedure. There are no cameras to guide these doctors through the mass of nerves and muscles. They simply push a huge needle up and hope for the best. At the end of this video you will note that the comments have been disabled. I am sure we all know why……..
After watching this video there is no way that Boston Scientific can argue that they are not responsible for the implants they make. They are 100% responsible.
After one of my surgeries I had to have IV drugs in large proportion by IV, so a Pic line was put in me. Every precaution was taken and a camera guided them and two people did the procedure with a computer screen in front of them to watch what they were doing because the wrong move and you could die. However no precaution about turning you into a cripple is apparently necessary when it comes to the area which is filled with major nerves and muscles that control how you sit or walk. They believe they can do this with their eyes closed. This is why I am so darn angry because when it goes wrong, there is no recourse and no apology by anyone including the doctor who did the procedure. Not only that but you are stuck being a cripple and they refuse to believe it. But I will never stay quiet about what goes on and will continue to warn women all that can go wrong in what these doctors say are supposedly simple surgeries. They are NOT simple and you can wind up in a wheelchair, using a walker and a walking stick for the rest of your life. Plus, you will never have a single day pain free. And what is even worse these surgeries continue every day in the thousands all over the world.
While I watched it, I made a note of every doctor participating on that video and decided to learn more which I will share after you read this. You may even recognize the doctor who did this to you. First, during my research I came across an article written in June 2015. Here it is.
U.S. doctors and teaching hospitals got $6.49 billion yes
BILLION from drug and medical-device makers in 2014, according to new government data on the financial links between the companies and the people who prescribe their products.
The data released Tuesday range from the royalties paid to hospitals to help develop products to fees provided to medical experts to speak at a dinner with colleagues. The payments are listed in two broad categories: money to fund research and payments to entertain doctors or compensate them for consulting or other non-research purposes.
By disclosing information on the payments, the U.S. is seeking to bring transparency to the financial relationships between drugmakers and health care providers. Those ties can influence how physicians practice, even if they aren’t aware of it, said Jason Dana, a professor at Yale School of Management who studies decision-making.
“If we have a financial incentive to believe something or conclude something, we kind of trick ourselves into thinking it’s true,” he said. “And we’re not always aware we’re doing it.”
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created a website, called Open Payments, to let people search for data on their medical providers.
The disclosures cover payments to about 607,000 doctors and 1,121 teaching hospitals. Overall, companies made $3.23 billion in payments for research and $2.56 billion for other purposes, according to a summary posted on the website. The data also include ownership interests of $703 million.
Pfizer Inc., the biggest U.S. drugmaker, reported at least $234 million in research payments and $53.3 million in general outlays. Merck & Co. said it paid at least $97.7 million for research and made at least $27.5 million in general payments. AstraZeneca Plc spent at least $85.7 million on research and $72.5 million on general payments.
Quirks in the data make it difficult to get accurate totals for manufacturer payments. Many companies reported payments under various subsidiaries, which may not be apparent at first glance. For example, Johnson & Johnson has 32 reporting subsidiaries, according to spokesman Ernie Knewitz. Merck reported some payments under Comsort Inc.
“We appropriately compensate doctors and institutions for their work to enroll patients and collect clinical trial data,” Pfizer spokesman Dean Mastrojohn said in an e-mailed statement.
“Merck is committed to the discovery and development of important new drugs and vaccines through collaboration with scientific leaders,” Merck spokeswoman Lainie Keller said in an e-mail. AstraZeneca had no immediate comment.
The U.S. released more limited data last year and updated it Tuesday. In the last five months of 2013, doctors and hospitals got about $3.43 billion from device and pharmaceutical firms.
The government has pushed to make the data more accurate by letting doctors and hospitals look over their records before they’re made public. CMS said today that payments accounting for about 30 percent of the total were reviewed. So there is plenty of room for liars.
President Barack Obama’s administration has been working to increase transparency in health care since the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In addition to the payments posted Tuesday, the law has also led to the disclosure of how much doctors across the U.S. are paid by Medicare.
“We have to know where the money is going to really understand the problem, to develop policy,” Dana said. “No pharma companies spend this kind of money in a disinterested way.”
Some companies began voluntarily disclosing the payments in 2010 after the Affordable Care Act was signed. A similar disclosure requirement begins next year in Europe, while U.K. firms began posting the information in 2013.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association said Tuesday that feedback from doctors helps device makers improve their products. The group, which represents device and diagnostics firms, said it supports the disclosures.
Drug industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said collaboration between doctors and drugmakers helps lead to medical breakthroughs and can improve patient care. It also gives them cart blanch to do anything they wish with the money.
The American Medical Association, which represents doctors, said the government should work to make it easier for health-care professionals to verify the data. Why make it easier? I have been book keeping much of my life and all it takes is you log what you took and what it was for and if you really want to comply, tell exactly what you did with the money. How hard is that?
All I can think about is if their products are so great, why do they need to pay off doctors to use them.
So I took notes and found this. So remember these doctor’s names when you continue and see if one is YOUR implant doctor.
Financial Incentives for Doctors
Here is a quick snapshot of five AUGS board members’ names and the corporations with which the doctor has been or is connected by direct financial ties.
• Patrick J. Culligan: CR Bard, Intuitive Surgical, AMS, Boston Scientific, Origami Surgical;
• Roger P. Goldberg: Boston Scientific, Endo Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK);
• Catherine A. Matthews: AMS, Boston Scientific, Pelvalon;
• Karen Noblett: Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Astellas, Allergan, Pfizer, GSK;
• Peter L. Rosenblatt: AMS, Ethicon (J & J), Coloplast, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, Olympus Gyrus, Allergan, Pfizer.
These are the doctors in the Boston Scientific video you just watched and I decided these men have a face and we need to see them so I added a photo of each of them. These are all men, but don’t think women aren’t being paid off by Boston Scientific. They are.
I found this written about him.
Boston Scientific Corp. and plaintiffs accusing it in the multidistrict litigation over its pelvic mesh products on Friday argued for the exclusion of each others’ experts, with plaintiffs targeting those including the inventor of the Uphold Pelvic Floor Repair Kit.
In separate filings in West Virginia federal court, the plaintiffs targeted Boston Scientific’s experts, including Roger Goldberg, who they claim has earned more than $1.4 million in royalties for the mesh device he invented.
This doctor is highly prolific and seems to be in great standing with Boston Scientific even though he does not have much experience. Read this and watch this. http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Roger_Goldberg/video
I also found this on a lawyers site about this doctor and he seems to be in big with Boston Scientific, Johnson & Johnson and AMS.
Corporate “Members” Undisclosed
AUGS fails to report this corporate support in its very public promotion of mesh for SUI. More importantly, it fails in its press releases – such as the Jan. 3, 2013 statement drafted by Charles Nager, Paul Tulikangas and Dennis Miller from AUGS – to disclose the conflicts of interests of at least five of its 13 board members. Conflicts of interest include arrangements where these doctors work as consultants, sit on advisory boards, accept research grants, work as speakers for, or even have proprietary interest in these companies. Dennis Miller has been a paid speaker for Johnson & Johnson, American Medical Systems (AMS), Boston Scientific, and has received substantial payments from each of those mesh-producing companies.
Scott Serels http://www.norwalkurology.com/
I just found this about the offering of clinical trials where he works. So he now wants to give treatment for overactive bladder and we all know what happens with mesh bladder slings and overactive bladders so they keep making money from badly injured bladders because of mesh by offering them other implants and they get paid to do it.
Urology Associates of Norwalk and the Bladder Control Center of Norwalk will soon be offering clinical trial opportunities for area patients so that our community has access to the latest treatment options. We will soon need participants for an overactive bladder study and others.
He was a witness in a trial and I found this.
The Howtons presented 16 witnesses at trial, including five expert witnesses in the fields of pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, economics, medical device marketing and pharmaceutical marketing. The Medtronic, Inc. legal team presented eight witnesses at trial, including four expert witnesses in the fields of urology, neurosurgery, FDA/regulatory and physical medicine/rehabilitation. Attorney Jack McGehee of McGehee, Chang & Barnes in Houston, Texas filed the lawsuit originally in July 2009 on behalf of Amanda and John Howton and included the physician, Peter Lotze, M.D. as a defendant as well. Dr. Lotze remained a defendant until the eve of trial, when a nonsuit was filed as to him during the pendency of his appeal.
I did not know what a non-suit was so I found this.
In Virgina, which does not follow the Federal Rules, a nonsuit is known by that name. A nonsuit is simply an agreement by the plaintiff not to proceed in that suit against that defendant, and is not a bar to bringing a future action against the same defendant. There are restrictions on when a Virginia nonsuit may be taken, and only one nonsuit may be taken against a party on a cause of action as a matter of right. Within the limitations, a plaintiff has an absolute right to one nonsuit. A Virginia plaintiff who takes a nonsuit may bring a new action against the same defendant(s) on the same subject matter within six months, regardless of the operation of the Statute of Limitations. The difference between a Federal Rule 41 dismissal and a Virginia nonsuit is more a matter of form than substance, although the Virginia statute does not require the consent of the defendant and can be taken at later stages in the proceeding.
A nonsuit is often taken by a plaintiff who anticipates a judgment or ruling that “imparts finality” against him, who wants to avoid the adverse judgment and preserve at least the possibility of prevailing on the merits of his case in the future
I found him but would have to pay for information regarding his expert witness profile. http://www.courtroominsight.com/expert-witness-challenges/101159
Peter Rozenblatt http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-peter-rosenblatt-2jxqc He is a consultant for AMS http://www.audio-digest.org/pages/htmlos/summary.html?sub1=UR3514
He too has testified at women’s trials.
Here are some of the doctors who are expert witnesses. http://www.expertwitnessprofiler.com/profiler_listing.php?p=h&group=97
I kept digging about payments made to doctors and then found this.
One of the more controversial aspects of the pharmaceutical industry is the influence it has on health care providers. You think? Many have alleged doctors receiving payments from big pharma companies increase prescriptions for certain medications, which has long been something they have denied. But for the first time, an analysis by ProPublica reveals doctors receiving payments from the medical industry do actually prescribe more name-brand medications than their colleagues who were not paid by drug and device makers. The more money they received, the more they prescribed brand-name medications on average. They owe this to the company for taking the money.
ProPublica matched payment records from pharmaceutical and medical device makers with corresponding data on doctors’ medication choices in the Medicare program. Older people are huge targets because they don’t ask questions. If their family doctor says “Here take this” they comply and many never blame the drug for doing terrible things to their body, because they don’t read the fine print and they don’t research. The analysis found doctors who accepted money from drug and device makers — even if it was just a meal — are two to three times more likely to prescribe drugs at an exceptionally high rate. Doctors receiving more than $5,000 from companies during a year had the highest number of name-brand prescriptions.
The analysis also found significant state-to-state differences in the proportion of doctors who take industry money. For example, the percentage of doctors taking payments in Alabama, Nevada, Kentucky, and South Carolina was at least twice as high as in Vermont, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine. These States have a lot of low income people who also often take what is prescribed and the government agency Medicaid pays for it. Overall, however, payments seem to be widespread. Nine in 10 cardiologists nationwide who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions for Medicare patients in 2014 were taking industry money, while 7 in 10 internists and family practitioners did, according to the analysis. In other words, the more affluent in position a doctor is, the more they are on the take.
While these findings do not prove causation, it does suggest doctors have some financial incentive to prescribe the drugs that benefit pharma companies the most. We all know that in any business, offering an incentive such as a free cruise, is great marketing. Everyone wants something free but this should not happen with doctors. It should be outlawed.
According to Dr. Richard Baron, president and chief executive of the American Board of Internal Medicine, doctors almost have to go out of their way to avoid taking payments from companies. These doctors are more likely to doubt the value of brand-name medications; but on the flip side, doctors that work to cultivate strong ties to companies are probably more receptive to brand-name drugs. Strong ties? Yes, they dine and party with these companies.
“You have the people who are going out of their way to avoid this, and you’ve for people who are, I’ll say, pretty committed and engaged to creating relationships with pharma,” Baron explained. “If you are out there advocating for something, you are more likely to believe in it yourself.”
Many studies have shown that generic drugs work as well
as name brand drugs for most patients. They must meet Food and Drug Administration standards just the same, but aren’t advertised as much as its expensive counterparts. There isn’t much of a difference between generics and brand names when it comes to patient satisfaction, either. Yes our television is filled with big adverts of smiling happy people who are taking a name brand drug. This is called brain washing.
Dr. Kim Allan Williams Sr., president of the American College of Cardiology, believes the relationship between companies and doctors is circular. The more doctors learn about a drug’s differentiating characteristics, the more likely they are to prescribe it, he said. However, they don’t seem to learn about the serious side effects of a drug, or they don’t want to know. One again it is all about making money. And as a doctor prescribes a drug more and more, the more likely they are to be selected as a speaker or consultant for the company. How’s that for a huge incentive. Free trips where you can stand up and tout how great a drug is and everyone thinks you are important and then you go off to play golf.
“It again confirms the prevailing wisdom…that there is a relationship between payments and brand-name prescribing,” Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. “This feeds into the ongoing conversation about the propriety of these sorts of relationships. Hopefully we’re getting past the point where people will say, ‘Oh, there’s no evidence that these relationships change physicians’ prescribing practices.'”
After this, I began looking into Boston Scientific’s record of payments to doctors and found the following. Now note how much they give to doctors and think about your own case where you offer was next to nothing and had to be shared with lawyers, insurance companies and anyone else who was given the privilege of dipping into it.
Boston Scientific paid $2.42 million to the following top doctors to do with women’s pelvic organ prolapse. However, this is only a small amount of money they received during Aug. 2013 to Dec. 2014. When you click on ‘Here’ it will give you a complete breakdown of everything this particular doctor received for anything else. Scroll down to see it all. It can be quite profitable to take money from Pharmaceutical Corporations.
This man is obviously one of the top dogs for Boston Scientific.
Dennis Miller Wauwatosa WI $957K. (almost one million dollars) See what he was paid for here
Roger Goldberg Evanston IL $343K . See what he was paid for here
George Mamo Baltimore MD $143K. See what he was paid for here
Ricardo Caraballo Voorhees NJ $31.379. See what he was paid for here
This man is also in that video. Peter Rosenblatt Cambridge MA $26.185. See what he was paid for here
Nathan Guerette Turnersville NJ $22.425. See what he was paid for here
Karen Noblett Orange CA $15.776. See what she was paid for here
William Porter Charlotte NC $13.409. See what he was paid for here
Marcy Abel Nashville TN $12.137. See what she was paid for here
Ricardo Gonzalez Houston TX $11.384. See what he was paid for here
Next is money Paid to top teaching hospitals in the U.S by Boston Scientific.
Adventist Health System-Sunbelt Inc Orlando Florida $262K
Baystate Medical Center Springfield MA $64.345
University North Carolina Hospital Chapel Hill NC $54.000
Scott & White Memorial Hospital Temple TX $44.043
University of Alabama at Birmingham AL $40.554
University of California Orange CA $29.840
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center West Hollywood CA $25.095
Washington Hospital Center Washington DC $10.220
Vanderbuilt University Hospitals & CL Nashville TN $%.000
Mayo Clinic Phoenix AZ $5.000
This is where you will find this information and you can track down your own manufacturer of the implant that was put into your body and the doctor.
If you want to know about the doctor who implanted you, you can look them up and find out how much they were paid. I decided to look up Gazala Siddique, my own implanting doctor. This is what I found
Look up YOUR doctor here
This is very useful information to have if you are seeing any doctor in the U.S to know what products or drugs they will push on you.
If you are reading this and you don’t know what has happened to women because of pelvic mesh, read this blog. http://www.meshangels.com/mesh-is-an-illness/
You can read other blogs I wrote about Boston Scientific & Other mesh manufacturers by following these links.
You can also learn more about filing a lawsuit by following these blogs.
So after reading this, how do you feel about it? Were you as disgusted as I am? I grew up realizing that knowledge is power but I am afraid my education was sorely lacking when it came to medical and that made me very vulnerable. No longer will I take anything or have any surgery unless I know the full facts long before the surgery date. I will go with my gut instinct and not be persuaded by any doctor who gives me a good bullshit session, trying to convince me to do it. I have a mind and I will use it to research and decide for myself. I am no longer vulnerable, I am now aware…………..
I was unable to post this blog due to problems on the Internet, but when my email came in this was in it.
Boston Scientific added to an existing strength in endoscopy by acquiring Xlumena for up to $75 million plus undisclosed sales milestones. The startup has a stent to drain fluid from around the pancreas as well as the endoscopic ultrasound system that is used to place it. The device player already markets needles for use in endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage.
Last quarter, Boston Scientific had $354 million in endoscopy revenues, which was a gain of 5% over the same period a year earlier. That was driven by a 7% growth specifically in biliary, which relates to the accumulation of bile and the health of the pancreas.
In fact, Mike Mahoney, president and CEO of Boston Scientific, specifically called out biliary products within endoscopy as a promising area for the company. On endoscopy, he said, “We grew 5% in the fourth quarter and 5% in the full year. We think that’s slightly faster than the market,” he said.
Boston Scientific announced on May 15 that it is acquiring Bayer AG’s interventional division for $415 million to bulk up on devices for the treatment of peripheral vascular disease.
Devices to be added to Boston’s portfolio include the AngioJet Thrombectomy System, the Fetch 2 Aspiration Catheter for the removal of blood clots and the JetStream Atherectomy System for removing plaque from peripheral arteries.
“These technologies help physicians save both limbs and lives, and we believe this transaction will enable us to reach more effectively the greater than 27 million patients worldwide who suffer from the debilitating effects of peripheral vascular disease,” said the company’s CEO, Mike Mahoney in a statement.
Now check out recalls.
The FDA publicized three previously disclosed recalls from Boston Scientific, Dräger and Insulet. From time to time, the agency sends out alerts about important recalls over website and via email, adding a sense of urgency to the trio of Class 1 corrective actions, which are reserved for situations in which the use of the faulty devices may cause serious injury or death.
More than 5,600 of Boston Scientific’s Chariot guiding sheaths have been recalled due to complaints of the shaft of the device separating, potentially causing small pieces of the device to break off and obstruct blood flow. The recall covers all units of the sheath manufactured between March 17, 2015, and Nov. 10, 2015.
Boston Scientific issued a recall letter in December, and has received 14 complaints of the device separating.
Boston Scientific is initiating a recall of some of its biliary drainage catheters after 11 reports of device fragmentation, according to the FDA’s recall database. The recall is labeled Class II, meaning the device “may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences.”
The FDA says the most serious foreseeable risk posed by the faulty versions of the Expel Drainage Catheter and Kit is reintervention to remove the fragment. A total of 289 units were recalled in four U.S. states and various European countries.
Boston Scientific sent a recall letter in February to affected customers, describing the action needed to be taken by the customer. The recall is ongoing, according to the FDA. The agency’s recall notice contains the affected lot numbers.