E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images / File
The American Red Cross is facing a new multi-million-dollar fine for problems with blood collection and distribution.
Federal health officials have fined the American Red Cross nearly $9.6 million for sloppy and unsafe blood management practices, the second multi-million-dollar penalty levied against the agency in the last two years.
The new Food and Drug Administration fine follows inspections at 16 Red Cross blood centers between April and October 2010 that revealed ongoing problems that appeared to endanger donors and to allow potentially contaminated blood into the nation’s supply.
An FDA spokeswoman said the agency found no evidence of actual harm to blood recipients and that officials remain confident about sources of blood in the U.S.
But, spokeswoman Patricia El-Hinnawy added, problems at the Red Cross, which supplies 40 percent of the nation’s blood, are worrisome.
“FDA cannot definitively say there was never any danger to the blood supply since the violations can create conditions that could lead to potential safety consequences,” said El-Hinnawy.
The violations were outlined in a 32-page letter sent Jan. 13 to J. Chris Hrouda, executive vice president of Biomedical Services for the Red Cross. They describe a blood collection system plagued with poorly trained staff and inadequate record-keeping where donated blood was mishandled or misplaced and, in some cases, potentially infected blood was transfused into patients.
“ARC has known of these continuing problems and has failed to take adequate steps to correct them,” wrote Evelyn Bonnin, director of FDA’s Baltimore District.
But a Red Cross spokeswoman said in a statement that the problems primarily centered on an inspection at a Philadelphia site conducted 15 months ago and that the agency has since addressed many of the issues.
“We are disappointed that the FDA believed it necessary to impose a fine for an inspection conducted so long ago,” wrote Stephanie Millian, director of biomedical communications. “We are not aware of any adverse donor reactions or patient issues due to the problems in the FDA report.”
The latest fine, however, follows a $16 million fine in June 2010 for similar failures and caps nearly two decades of trouble at the Red Cross.
About 17 million units of blood are donated each year and about 15 million units are transfused, according to a 2009 survey conducted by AABB, an international association of blood products groups.
The Red Cross has been operating under terms of a consent decree first issued in 1993 and then amended in 2003 to allow the FDA to impose stiff fines for ongoing failures to meet regulations and laws governing quality and safety of the nation’s blood supply. The problems detected then were the same ones that have not, apparently, been addressed now: overworked staff, sloppy clinical practices and inadequate record-keeping.
Despite repeated stiff fines and even the informal threat of criminal penalties from some FDA officials, the agency has not succeeded in improving its record, the latest sanctions demonstrate.
Problems outlined in the Jan. 13 letter include failure to process and review records of donor reactions and injuries, including a backlog of some 15,000 records in Charlotte, N.C.
Certain Red Cross sites have not been keeping an accurate list of deferred donors who should be barred from giving blood because of infections or other potential problems, the letter said.
Others weren’t conducting “lookback” investigations to track down blood from donors who turned out to have infections and to notify patients who might have received potentially contaminated blood.
Still others didn’t investigate complaints or other notices of problems, including a donor who was sprayed with blood during a mobile blood drive at the Heart of America regional center in Peoria, Ill., in 2009.
In Arizona in 2010, inspectors said a phlebotomist at a Red Cross center stuck herself with a needle and then stuck a patient with the same needle to draw a unit of blood, but no one reported the incident for a month.
FDA officials said that the Red Cross has taken steps to address previous violations, including new standardization of procedures, an upgrade and consolidation of national testing laboratories and increased oversight from biomedical headquarters.
El-Hinnawy stressed that donating blood is safe and that the risks of receiving a transfusion are far less than failing to receive blood when it’s needed.
“FDA strongly encourages people who are in good health to donate blood and become regular blood donors,” she said.
Related stories:
Donating your body to science? Nobody wants a chubby corpse
Too promiscuous to donate an organ? Maybe, CDC says
Super blood donors could be tapped in a disaster
Leave a Comment:
No big deal money wise for the Red Cross. Us tax-payers will give the money back. (As the world turns.)
Gee I guess we should let the states do this instead of the FDA - NOT!!!
The red cross is not a worthy charity. Most of all the money donanted to them goes for salaries and administrative costs. They are rippoing charitble people off and enjoying it. Google the salary of the head of the red cross, it'll scare you. They shouldn't be tax exempt if they are.
This is nowhere near true. The American Red Cross is a 3.5 billion dollar operation.
On the data that I found, the CEO's compensation accounts for about 0.01% of their budget.
Also on the data that I found: administrative costs (which includes salaries) account for only 3.9% of their budget.
The real scary part is the education system that taught you math, especially if you think that under 4% is "most of all the money."
Source.
Give the money back? Where do you think it came from in the first place? They just fined and are taking tax payer donations for this fine, it should come from the paychecks of those responsible not from donations.
Or spelling
$652,000 per year is exhorbitant by any mathematical standard, whether it meets your approval, or not. The drivers of the economy--the job creators--workers and customers are in the $50k range, and their contribution is far more important than any CEO. The head of a company (even a charitable one) is primarily responsible for the distribution of goods, services, and information. Any housekeeper can replace a CEO and do a satisfactory job with nothing more than a short training period. It takes years to master the art of a welder, teacher, cop, or electrician. Who is worth the big bucks here?
I have not checked the stats, looking for clarification.
If the Red Cross is a $3.5 billion dollar operation .01% is $35 million dollars. If the CEO is taking that much as a salary I am never donating to the Red Cross ever again.
Ken,
It seems you know little about the corporate world. You couldn't pay me 10x what my wife makes to work the hours she does, and she makes good money.
I will be the first to admit I don't want that lifestyle. I don't want to work that hard and that long everyday. Call it what you want, but I want to work and go home at the end of the day. Those welders, cops, electricians, and teachers go home at the end of the day and do whatever they want. A true CEO of a company never puts work down.
It's just the type of personality they have and not everyone can do it. On the contrary you can train anyone to do the jobs you mentioned. You can't train a work ethic, and it takes one hell of a work ethic to climb the corporate ladder.
I work at a school and most teachers are out of the building before the kids at the end of the day.
Ken
Your statement is incredibly weak. You have no idea what a leader of a billion dollar business does, do you? If the people running these businesses aren't important, why are they in so much demand? If you think a housekeeper can be a CEO, then you probably think a orderly can perform surgery.
From the information I was able to research, I found that the CEO of the Red Cross earned a salary of $652,000.00 in 2009, with expenses paid. Her name is Marsha Evans and she also enjoyed 6 weeks fully paid vacations for herself, husband and kids and a 100% paid medical and dental plan, for life.
I was appalled to read that with every dollar they bring in, only 0.39 cents actually goes to related charity causes.
Source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp
Why is there no outrage? Over 60% operating costs? I did learn something on the Vine today...No more money for Marsha Evans posh life.
Disgraceful. I've donated many times to the Red Cross and have been fooled. Even our charities are corrupted.
Just make sure it comes out of the CEOs pocket and not from money donated.
JM California needs to read the citation he or she provided above. The current American Red Cross CEO, Gail McGovern, makes $1.03M and the efficiency of the Red Cross is rated at 92% by Forbes, not the 39% in the scandalous email.
@Robert - You do not know what you are talking about. 92% of the money taken in by the Red Cross goes o their programs.
@Bobby Jones Bia - You need a math lesson .01% of $3.5 billion is $350,000 not $3.5 million.
@JM California - You linked to the Snopes article but apparently did not read it as it say the information you are quoting is false.
The Red Cross uses only 3.9% of it's budget for administrative expenses. Another 3.8% goes to fund raising efforts. The Red Cross uses 92.1% of the money it raises to support it's charitable programs. This is actually a very high number by the standards of most charities. The President/CEO Gail McGovern makes just a little under $1 million ($995,718) which is not a high salary at all when you consider that she is running an organization with revenues of just under $3.6 billion.
I guess we could fix this by discontinuing blood drawing for 6 months to get this all sorted out. By then, the blood supply would be non existent, people will be dying for lack of a blood supply. We all know the FDA can fix this.
JD in SD,
Is it South Dakota, or where I feared San Diego? I know the school systems there are not very good.
$3,500,000,000 x 0.01= $35,000,000
It seems you not only have a math problem, you also have a reading comprehension problem because I said it was $35 million. That is thirty-five million, not $3.5 million.
I stopped giving blood at the branch in Miami (kendall) because last time I donated blood they hurt my arm and even though I complained a couple of times ,they never sent me a doctor to take care of it. Then I found out that they sell the donated blood for a lot of money. I`m sorry I know blood is scarce, specially blood like mine (I`m O-) but next time I give blood, it will be in a real emergency , in a safer place and with a better phlebotomist.
How about accountability - Fire the CEO and top management that was in charge of the locations that had the problems. If the normal working person messed up they would be fired. I would definately donate to a local charity instead of this shameful sheister. Non profit's have totally gotten out of hand. They should only be non profit if 95% of the money taken in is used for programs. Situations like this is helping to kill the economy. They should at least have to pay tax on any money used for administrative cost.
To get a percent from a decimal number, you need to multiply that number by 100. 35 million dollars is 1% of 3.5 billion dollars. Your post also illustrates part of my original post where I stated:
--
This whole thread is full of failures. Your source specifically posts the data you quoted to debunk it. It states quite clearly that the efficiency is 92%, which means that 92 cents of every dollar goes where it is supposed to go. That 39 cents number is a lie.
Also a failure is you thinking that "0.39 cents" is the same as "$0.39." A quarter, dime, and four pennies are not "0.39 cents," but rather are "39 cents," or "$0.39." Look up to where I say something about our education system and math.
A better question is this: why is there no outrage that our education system failed people such as yourself? You look at a site that shows the data you quoted, but has large, bold, font stating "MOSTLY OUTDATED AND INACCURATE" and you can't understand what that means!
Hell, Marsha Evans stopped working there in 2005 according to the source you provided further showing that you can't read.
You have been fooled far more than you think, and it's not by the Red Cross. Snopes, aided by Forbes, indicates that the Red Cross is far from corrupt but rather highly efficient with directing their funds appropriately.
Funny story about that: the number I found was $467,252, which I rounded up to $500,000. Plug that into 3.5 billion and notice that it comes to 0.014%, which I rounded to the common two digits of 0.01%.
--
You are again incorrect. 0.01 is 1%, not 0.01%. Don't criticize someone's math when you are incorrect.
Please don't make me have to find a source for this most basic piece of math to convince you.
Who's going to pocket all this cash? That's the question that needs an answer, and I bet it's the FDA people getting rich by fining places like the Red cross and others.
I suppose this is the bonus money for the FDA.
What's more amusing is .01 is 1% and I was multiplying by 1% and not 1/10 of 1%
My bad guys.
My wife died as a result of contaminated blood she received from a blood transfusion after 22 years of suffering. I didn't even recieve an appology from the Red Cross or the hospital that administered the infected blood, and we recieved nothing from them other than the hundres of thousands of dollars in medical expenses that my insurance didn't cover. No information on the source of the contaminated blood, no confirmation that the contaminated blood was purged from the blood supply. Nothing. 9.6 mil is a pittance when you look at the pain and suffering their mismanagement has caused.
This is why we have oversight. If the Federal government doesn't step in and take charge of the situation, we will continue to lose our loved ones to their lack of adequate management of the blood supply.
Bobby Jones Bia, I was about to point out your error when I saw your correction. And this tool won't let me delete my comment. Grrrrr.
No problem pile it on.
The irony is I had the reading comprehension problem. I have 1% on the brain from spending too much time here
You sure it's not 0.01%? :P
Lol, thread of the day :)
Arieus....a good point.
As I see it, the FDA needed to replenish funds after their New Years Eve blow-out.
"problems that appeared to endanger donors and to allow potentially contaminated blood into the nation's supply.
An FDA spokeswoman said the agency found no evidence of actual harm to blood recipients and that officials remain confident about sources of blood in the U.S"
So let me get this right...No one was hurt, no blood was contaminated, and there was no evidence of harm, but we need a $9 million dollar fine, just in case.
Blood transfusions are medieval medicine that is seldom actually needed. The only reason it is still done is because of the tremendous PROFIT the Red Cross makes from SELLING the blood you DONATED to the hospitals.
My father-in-law has had open heart surgery, a hip replacement, and tumor removed from his neck all without a drop of blood being transfused. How do they do it? First of all, you find a surgeon who is very skilled and careful when doing the surgery. If they are afraid to do a surgery bloodless, beware - they are probably NOT in the habit of being careful inside patients. Using a laser for cutting vs. a scaple also helps. There are also various machines that can salvage blood that has bled out, clean it up, and infuse it back into the patient. In the end, the doctors told us that my fatherinlaw recovered more quickly because he did not have a transfusion. Transfusing someone elses blood weakens the immune system and slows down healing after surgery, not to mention the obvious problems from exposure to unsafe blood.
Medieval medicine I tell you.
So which is worse? Dying by lack of adequate blood supply, or dying by blood infested with AIDS? This has been an ongoing problem since the discovery of AIDS in the mid 80's. Before that it was blood tainted with Hepatitis, Herpes or Gonorrhea. Which means there has always been infected blood and it happens. That is why I donate, but only with the consent that if I ever need surgery, I get my own blood FIRST. (And I don't donate to The Red Cross, try a local Plasma Center.)
Hahaha. Now that's funny! Way to take your rhetorical lashing with grace and humor, Bobby Jones. You're a class act.
good to see some have class to notice their own mistake without making up some other lie to cover, as is seen all the time here. a salute to you bobby jones
CEO income and executive income needs to be regulated.
Why? Because its wrong. No one in the American red cross should earn more then 5x the US Median wage. That should be ingrained in law.
We need people to be held accountable. Put the S.O.Bs responsible for over working the people in jail. Why fine the American red cross.? It was from individual actions. No one is held responsible.
The Big income for executives and upper management is used for corruption.
I might throw out there as well - my wife's cousin and his best friend were in a serious car accident with major internal injuries and blood loss. One had a ruptured spleen even.
Rather than going the blood transfusion route, they did alternative treatments. First of all, they did everything possible to stop the blood loss. Then they used saline to expand the blood volume and keep the blood vessels from collapsing. (For the first 24 hours that foreign blood is in your body, all it does it take up space anyway.) Also, in an emergency, the body releases a stored supply of red blood cells to replace lost ones, reducing the need for replacement via transfusion. There are also EPO shots to stimulate the body's natural blood cell production.
This was several years ago. Both men made a full recovery and are in good health now. They recovered more quickly, and the treatment cost the hospital much less than if they had done a blood transfusion.
If blood is in short supply, and the supply they have is not safe, why not adopt non-blood medicine? The answer? To quote a 70s song, "Money-money-moneeeeey-moneeeeey...MOOOOOOneeeey."
This is over the top. Two directly funded taxpayer organizations suing each other. Wake up people. Cut them out and take a hard look at NOAA too.
not so smart
What do you mean by that? Because one is a government agency and the other is a charity/ nonprofit organization.
notsosmart, the American Red Cross is a 501(c)3(c) tax-exmept charitable organization. If you choose to donate to them, a portion of your donation is tax deductible. I am not aware of any taxpayer money from the federal government going to the Red Cross than other by specific grants for specific activities such as Katrina. It is not a tax supported organization.
It is, however, a quite profitable enterprise as a result of selling your donated blood to the highest bidder.
Bruce-848280 -
The Red Cross receives a LARGE amount of public (tax payers) money via Congressional release of federal emergency funds, like those sent from Congress through FEMA and HHS during disaster response (e.g., Katrina and other hurricanes).
This is a little known fact - Red Cross, operating in concert with federal and state agencies, is eligible and does receive federal disaster funds for their efforts/troubles/expenses. Ask them just how much federal emergency money they receive and I bet they blush real nice like (it's a ton of money).
Well--that explains the user name. These "not for profit" are very profitable for their heirarchy. As you stated, there is no relationship between Red Cross and the US government.
While in the service in 1967 a friend had an emergency at home. The Red Cross loaned him the money to get air fare so he could get home. They charged him an arm and a leg for the loan.
Your story reminds me of the story my father once told me. He was in the Korean war and he said any time the Red Cross was there with coffee and donuts the troops were always charged. I will never support the Red Cross because of stories I have heard from other service men as well.
I support the Salvation Army and feel very comfortable doing so.
Why are you people arguing over who is funded how? The important question is how many people will now become sick or die from their shoddy practices and corner cutting. And how manyare already sick and dead.
Do not confuse American Red Cross Blood Services with the American Red Cross disaster and public assistance section. They are two separate and distinct operations. Blood services is not, repeat not ~ a "non-profit" enterprise ~ ~ ~ it is a "not for profit" enterprise. The difference is considerable. Red Cross would have saved itself a lot of money and embarrassment back in the 1990s had it not rebelled against FDA oversight. I worked for blood services during that dust-up and Red Cross in essence told the FDA to take a long pi$$ in the sea ~ ~ ~ "we invented blood banking ~ don't tell us how to operate one" ~ was the attitude shown to the FDA which obtained a court order to force compliance. Its a bitter and hostile relationship between the two and imposition of millions in fines will not improve that relationship.
If you have never needed the assistance of the red cross the STFU. 10 Years ago I was involved in a situation where my dumba$$ neighbor (apartment) lit a candle on the floor, which happened to be next to his bed, also on the floor. Consequently, he threw his blanket over it in the middle of the night. Thankfully, he only burnt a portion of his apartment and came out alive. However, the smoke damage was so bad in my apartment the the Red Cross stepped up, cleaned my whole apartment with a special procedure and processed all clothes and linens to remove the danger to me and my mother. On top of that they paid for 4 nights of hotel stay for us, otherwise we'd have been on the street. SO THANK ZEUS FOR THE AMC. Its a shame that instead of putting in place better procedures and adding some oversight, even paid for by the AMC, the dumba$$ FDA is doing people in need out of needed services. Shame on you , FDA. And whoa be it to those ever in need.
my father a U.S. Marine, would not donate a penny to them. He fought on Pork Chop Hill in the Korean war. He stated that many times the red cross charged the Marines and Soldiers a nickel (1952-54) for a doughnut and coffee.....when they came out of battle... I never new him to lie or exaggerate. Other charities were there who freely supported our troops-- of which he gave freely to them....
fining a charity makes no sense- when in the end--- they fine those who are kind enough to give to a disrespectful organization
During a particularly long below zero cold spell 2 yrs. ago, I saw a woman pushing a cart on the street who was obviously homeless and freezing. I stopped at the local Red Cross and asked them if someone came in who didn't have a warm coat nor any money to pay for one, would they give one to someone. They said "No. They would have to pay like anyone else." I told them I was under the impression they were there to help those in need as I pointed to all the coats they had hanging there. I repeated my question and was met by the head of operation there. He said the same thing. I was so appalled and firmly expressed my "displeasure" with their mind set and policy. I bought a couple coats and ran around town looking for this woman. She was so appreciative and told me she had been to the Red Cross in the small town of under 7,000 people, and had asked for help a few days before I stopped there and she was refused a coat or any type of help. We don't have very many homeless people in that town at all. She told me someone stopped her on the street and told her they had paid for a room for her in one of the smaller hometown motels and she expressed to me how grateful she was for the kind people in the town. I gave her the coats and she went to the room that some kind Soul had paid for her to stay in. I was and still am so angry at the Red Cross for denying her a basic piece of human survival in the cold weather we have here. Especially so, as they had rack after rack of warm coats she could have chosen one from and it wouldn't have hurt their profit one bit. I am more than angry, I am pi##ed, and will never set foot in that place again or donate to them like I have in the past. I felt so bad for this woman and was so mad at the Red Cross people that when I got home, I sat and bawled. I never saw the homeless woman again. When I told my friends what had happened they were as stunned as I was. This is how the Red Cross treats people? Is it like that everywhere or just here? Absolutely disgusting.
Nicodermus...if you read the article, then you would know the answer.... apparently none!
This is why those that desire "Government out" of the people's business, should think twice. If we get rid of these protective agencies, we all going to suffer the consequences.
This is an example of this administration coming down hard on a charitable organization. The administration wants the Government to provide services that organizations like the Red Cross already provide. The article says there have been ongoing problems for two Decades, yet they wait for an election year to fine them even though the relevant inspection was done over 1 1/2 years ago. If the NRC's procedures were such that they warranted 25 million dollars in fines they should have been shut down until proper changes were made. I have faith in our blood supply, and question the governments motives for such a large fine in an election year, especially when the NRC is just going to get more funds from the U.S. gov.
If you believe that the Red Cross is a chariable orginization, you need to have your head examined. You should also read the story how the red cross was selling tainted blood about 8 years ago, they weren't even testing the blood. Then their is the incident were they tried to have blood banks shut down. And don't forget about the CEO using their jet plane to take his family and friends on vacation.
ARC Blood Services is NOT a charitable organization. It markets its products ~ blood, plasma, cryo, and platelets for a competitive price with private blood banks. Any profits remaining at the end of the fiscal year have to be plowed back into the operation and cannot be used for charitable contributions. salaries, bonuses, etc. Blood Services should not be confused with ARC Chapters which engage in disaster relief and other individual assistance. They are two separate and distinct operations with neither reliant on the other for operating funds.
alspin
Awh! alspin you left out the teenage hookers and cocaine! Oh wait! That was the United Ways CEO and their jet. I used to give through work every paycheck but not anymore. These big "Charities" (and the ones who only act like they're a charity like ARC Blood Services) are poisoning the pool for nonprofits everywhere.
IRESPOND, did you read what you copied??
It did NOT say anyone was harmed or any blood was contaminated.
This is why those that desire "Government out" of the people's business, should think twice. If we get rid of these protective agencies, we all going to suffer the consequences.
YOu want consequences? We got the biggest fraud in the history of the world because the government stayed out of regulations and did not police the criminals in wall street.
http://www.ourfuture.org/features/no-sweetheart-deal-big-banks.
Imagine the injury, illness or death that could have occured due to unsafe practices. Good thing there is an FDA there to monitor that, and make the unsafe practices stop before someone gets hurt or killed. And this is the same FDA that "pro-life" Republicans and Libertarians want to get rid of.
And the same FDA that cowers to big pharm companies to approve their deadly drugs for our consumption. I put the word of the FDA at the same level as that of a blogger these days. I'm much happier making my own decisions.
Just how many "deadly drugs" are you referring to?
Not to be rude headhunter, but have you ever looked up the possible side effects of any pharmaceutical? There are deadly side effects on almost every one.
I couldn't keep anything down during my first pregnancy so my doctor prescribed Compazine, supposedly an amazing help for pregnant women in my position. I took it for 2 weeks, didn't like the side effect of dizziness and sleeplessness so I stopped and suffered through the vomiting. 3 months after my son was born a lawyer contacted me about a civil suit about Compazine causing birth defects, emotional issues in children, etc. These side effects had been known about for 2 years but the FDA approved it anyway.
Check the labels on your medicines even the over the counter ones, go online and look them up, you'll see.
Cameron, care to cite a bill where the Republicans sought to end the FDA.
Stupid obama sheeple.
CLAP CLAP CLAP Red Cross! And you profit off blood donations!
red cross is just a empire of "VAMPIRES" that sucks off our blood supply as well as our hearts and wallets too
In the mid 60s while in the army,I found out about the Red Cross and since that time I have not and will never give anything to them. Too many fellow GI's got screwed over big time.
My father said the same thing from his service in WWII. The one story I remember the best was when he was at the front lines, it was winter and the Salvation Army was right there with the soldiers with hot coffee and donuts. He said those donuts were hard as rocks but when he dipped then in the coffee - 'they were the best things he ever ate'. At the same time the Red Cross had no presence at the front. I won't go into the stuff he said about the Red Cross. Can't use that type of language here.
I'm not a religious person but based on his experiences I donate heavily to the Salvation Army in his memory. I will also note that a couple of men I worked with years ago had the same things to say about the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.
And, sadly, as many of us have learned, the American Red Cross is far from the image we've held. And yet it is the ONLY civilian organization in the national disaster plan. What's wrong with this picture?
My sister died because of there carelessness. and I still miss her very much.
The Red Cross killed your sister???
Sorry for your loss.
When will the government go after the fat cats from Wall Street that put our country in the toilet ?
Liz...it was the government, including your beloved obama, that put the country in the toilet.
The FDA goes after the Red Cross yet does nothing about the rampant abuse of the system and the money laundering that Big Pharma does and get's away with it. The adverse drug reactions in the US are the 4th leading cause of death. Blood reactions from whatever the Red Cross does is tiny.
Actually chronic lower respiratory diseases are 4th. Adverse drug reactions not even in the top ten. Where do you get your misinformation?
Probably from Chris "I get a tingle" Matthews, who said that obama has only created 13 government jobs, and did a great freudian slip with, "back in a moment on M.BS.NBC!"hehehehehe
Udunno,
here is the data you re tested.
http://www.growyouthful.com/tips/adverse-drug-reactions.php
Whenever you take a look at information, the first question you should ask yourself is this: "is this information accurate?"
Considering that this information is from a book this guy is selling and not in medical journals, the answer to that question is "no, it is not accurate."
Keep in mind that "adverse drug reactions" is not a tracked cause of death, so it is not exactly easy to estimate how many people die per year since it relies on statistical analysis.
When this statistical analysis is used to help scare people into buying a book, the credibility further diminishes.
Here are the real facts: "adverse drug reactions" has not been studied well enough (statistical estimates vary wildly) for you to trumpet that it is the 4th cause of death.
AMEN William.
Here are a couple more studies for you
<
<
Well heck.. just look it up.. type in how many deaths yearly from pharmaceuticals? You'll get hundreds of studies, and most estimate that 100 thousand people die each year from side effects, not from medical malpractice, but side effects of pharmaceuticals.
I don't doubt that many people die per year from drugs -- it's a known fact.
However, you state that there are hundreds of studies, and most estimate more than 100,000 deaths per year, which is false. You are seeing the same study cited on a variety of websites, not many different studies.
There are very few studies on the subject, and even fewer legitimate studies on the subject -- that figure of 100,000 per year does not appear in any medical journal, which speaks to its (lack of) credibility.
Scientific American, which is well-known and considered by many people to be the Grande Dame of science magazines and the definitive source for science news, states that total US accidental deaths per year (which includes car accidents and drug deaths, to name two) totaled 117,809 in 2005. Of that 117,809 figure, car accidents were the number one cause of accidental death with 39,252 fatalities, and drug sources (which comprised mainly overdoses of both prescription and illegal drugs) was second.
Yearly deaths from pharmaceuticals is nowhere near what you think it is. You just need to look at legitimate sources for your information.
Notice who is stating your "more than 100,000 per year figure" and you'll see that it's someone trying to sell you something. And while you may or may not have purchased their book, you did buy their lie.
And even if it was not a lie, 100,000 deaths per year accounts for under 0.03% of the US population. To put this in context, more babies are born than that in the United States every 10 days.
Boom!
Thanks.... William should have been tipped-off by the author of the article referencing his own book as a source.
Boom! You are the bomb ;-) Thanks for educating William and the others who might be misled by this type of information.
Actually Boom I got my information from the government sites of warondrugs.org, and the cdc.gov as well as a few others. I tried to post the web addresses but for some reason no matter what I do to post them I always end up with blank space between the <> signs.
Many years ago, I was honored by an invitation to become a member of the Board of Directors of our regional Red Cross. I quit after six months.
Folks, the Red Cross is a profitable not-for-profit. Think about having a free source of supply for a product that is sold internationally on a market not dissimilar to wheat, soy or pork bellies. That is what blood and plasma are - commodities.
The alliance between the Red Cross, hospitals and health insurers is an unholy one indeed, too. The flow of cash is much more important to all of these institutions than ready access to blood and plasma.
The first thing to know about any non-profit is that ALL non-profits are scams.
What a desperate and pathetic move to get money. Shucks the Feds the may just try to get blood out of a stone next. How about cutting all state and fed bonuses; including Admin bonuses.. And BTW; In consideration that Congress is currently failing at its job-----why have they not been suspended without pay? An employee would be and they are employees of the people!
Back to this issue of fining the Red Cross---I wonder how many members of Congress wash their hands after going to the bathroom. And Gosh sure hope none of them are in a disaster and need blood some day------and their supply may be delayed due to the lack of planes/cars and funds once donated but used to pay off a ridiculous fine----- rather saving your life!
How stupid!
Silly, pray that if and when your need for surgery comes, that you will not be infected by a contaminated blood transfusion.
The American Red Cross, by the way, is a very, very profitable not-for-profit. Take a look at my experience as a member of the Board of Directors of one of the regionals - see post #10.
Oh and Bruce and all you other naysayers and "they are very profitable" morons. I hope like hell you don't need them should a disaster occur in your neighborhood. They HAVE to have some money in the coffers for the "just in case" scenarios. What would you do if you needed their help and they simply responded 'WE are waiting for enough donations to come in so that we can mobilize. You see as a non-profit we are not allowed to have reserves set aside for immediate and extensive relief mobilizations. Thanks for calling and we will get to you as soon as we can".
If you need a blood transfusion,remember the people that died from comtaminated blood from the red cross.In 1994 I had to have several tranfusions and my doctor had me take several HIV tests over the next year because he said that the blood supply from the red cross just might not be safe. i did not get infected but that added a lot of stress.The rat bast..ds went to my workplace begging for more blood donors even though they were charging the insurance over 100 dollars a pint for the blood.
@talk to the hand- You must work for the red cross. I was in the military, too and I saw first hand what the red cross does to help people. HAH!!!!!!!!
The Red Cross is not a government agency. It is a private non profit organization. It falls under the FDA rules and inspections due to it's pharmaceutical branch that collects and sales blood and blood products.
The blood it collects may be donated but the blood it provides to patients is NOT free. It sales the donated blood. While I grant there are expences involved in the collection, storage, and distribution so fees have to be charged for the supplied blood they do seem a tad over the top coming from a supposed non profit.
This is not the first time there have been issues with ARC blood collection and distribution. They actively covered up that HIV was indeed transmitted by blood products such as clotting factors for Hemophiliacs back in the early days of the spread of HIV. Many young men and children died because they were told their medication was safe when it was already known that was not true.
I am very grateful there are two universal donors in my immediate family so we are not at the mercy of this organization should one of us need blood.
The greatest costs for blood products is not from collection, storage, and distribution. It is from testing mandated by the FDA and applicable to all blood banks. Preparing transfusable products is not a perfect science ~ it will never be. But because of the required tests now imposed on blood products, coupled with donor qualifications which reject potential donors, it is among the safest of products available. Remember, blood is a living organism and as such poses certain biological hazards ~ even well tested, approved blood. Few end users will accept whole blood ~ it is filtered to remove undesirable characteristics and the plasma is extracted. Its a costly process.
Red Cross brings in about $5M a day collecting and sellng blood (of course they have expenses, but....) - this fine hurts, but let's be real here, not THAT much. In fact, the Red Cross has been fined under this same blood program more than $38M since 2003. Nothing ever changes - they just keep paying the fines.
seems more like a shakedown.
kinda like a corrupt cop taking "tribute" from the mob for looking in the opposite direction.
If more people would give the value would go down. I have donated over 18 Gallons over the years (although usually to a hospital or a blood bank) and still donate when ever I can. Once enough people have a little of "me" in them, my subtle plan is to "take over the world" LOL
Really people roll up your sleeves and give, they will give you a cookie and some juice. You will save a life and the blood supply won't come from indigents
To add to what chuck hedman # 6 said I too found out about the red cross while in the US army, mid 60's red cross came to army bases in Korea looking for donors to give blood which was to be sent to Vietnam,turns out they were selling the blood in the US to for profit hospitals. Another incident, my house burned, we lost everything except our car and our lives,I asked the red cross for some help,they offered to loan me 40 dollars,but I had to sign a note that the money would be paid back. I have not had anything good to say about the red cross after that.
When hurricane Hugo hit my town (HARD!) every business was shut down (including Walmart) - the Red Cross showed up and CHARGED people $14 per blanket (circa 1989) that Walmart was selling for $10 just the day before. If you didn't have money, you didn't get a blanket. Very classy Red Cross, very classy (I'm joking, of course).
Red Cross doesn't like people (they do however, love money)
The Red Cross helps in so many ways. I hate to see them take a hit. They were on the scene in Miami when Hurricane Andrew hit and provided relief to my family. If they are "fined" will victims of natural disasters or man-made disasters be left out in the cold?
NO,the rat bast..ds will just show pictures of the disaster,and beg for more money from thier donors
Obama will bail them out. All they need to do is change their Red cross to Green. He likes to throw money away for worthless green pursuits.
Check and see how much federal money was given to them for that flood and please remember that the help they gave you was from federal funds, not their money.
Thanks FDA for protecting blood donors two years later. :eyeroll:
redcross is just VAMPIRES feeding off of donations
I refuse to give blood. Some of their technicians are too inexperienced to stick needles. Their donation sites are seedy. Their staff are not friendly and treat you like dirt. And this is not in the area noted in the article. If we have depend upon the red cross in a disaster we are in trouble. The ASPCA does a better job for animals.
100% agree with you Dennis - the Red Cross donation sites are often seedy and their staff are miserable (I heard they don't get but MINIMUM wages and are treated very badly).
Imagine that, malfeasance in a non-profit. That's never happened before.
True but can we trust the word of the FDA? I mean this is the same FDA that makes dairy farmers who DONT us Bovine Growth Homrone label their products saying that there is nothing wrong with the products from the farmers who DO use it.
The FDA is bought and paid for by Monsanto, plain and simple, they can't be trusted any longer to do the job we hired them to do.
We are all the "proud parent of a monsanto lab rat!"
$25.6 million dollars in government fines to a charitable organization that serves the public good since I helped vote Obama into office. Is this just another one of the Democrat Party's ways of taxing the people without making them feel thay are being taxed? No evidence of harm to patients or blood supplies? Sneaky way of funding another government agency if you ask me. The FDA inspectors are making sure their paychecks are covered.
You are so ill informed about the red cross, what ever help they give is federally funded. They sell the blood that you donate so they can pay the large salaries to the executives.
What's so uniformed about stating the simple fact that one government agency fines another agency that is federally funded, as you say? You seem to think that the Red Cross doesn't perform anything worthwhile. I can tell you from experience that they are the first to react to emergencies. Feet on the ground before those wonderful feds of yours can organize a conference call to discuss what is going on and what to do next? Then again, I guess it's only the 47% of us that pay taxes that take the time to contribute to charitable organizations. The rest of the population expects us to carry that load as well.
Ron, the American Red Cross is NOT a government agency and is NOT federally funded. In some emergencies such as Katrina, the Feds provide specific grants to the Red Cross to do specific activities. Read some of the other posts for some real horror stories about the Red Cross. They do, however, have a very good public relations program.
Bruce, I was responding to alspin's comment about them being federally funded. My experience with the Red Cross has been positive, sorry. I know Red Cross folks here in Hawaii that have been sent to different emergencies on the mainland several times and I know they have done good work. Who do you think should take their place, FEMA? In a major emergency, they'll show up after the Red Cross' foot troops have been there for weeks. Everytime a family's home burns here, the Red Cross is the first to show up to provide assistance with temporary shelter. Who is there to help in your area?
Could not read whole article. Could not find remove "X" to delete ADs covering story. Kept taking me to AD. Was it put there by competitors to make us mad?
My father told me stories of WW2 when the red cross was at their camp site they charged the soldiers for coffee and donuts, the salvation army gave the soldiers coffee and donuts at no charge. When you donate to the red cross less than $.25 cents for every dollar is to help, the rest goes to executives. The red cross should be taken over by true volenteers and not run by profit taking CEO's who use the company jet to take family and friends on vacation. Join a local blood bank, that way if you or your family ever need blood, it is free. Check it out. The red cross sells your blood and gives you nothing.
My mother told me the same stories. The Red Cross got all those donations but charged the soldiers for the goods. She was a nurse. She never liked the Red Cross after that.
That's the truth. And they admit to it because of a letter sitting in the National Archives in Washington, DC (you can Google it). During WW2 the Secretary of War sent a letter to the ARC stating it was not fair that our Allies were forced to pay for coffee and doughnuts from their support services but our troops were getting theirs free so if the ARC wanted to continue operating in the theatre of war they must charge or the Secretary of War threatened to have them removed. And by the way, I hate the ARC, they're full of fraud on both the disaster and biomedical side...but I have seen this letter.
If you pay minimum wage you get minimum work.
Does this mean the Money I donated to the Red Cross just went to waste?
Seems like they could have addressed this in another way then fining them, I mean the Red Cross does good work right? It's not like they're criminals.
Maybe I shouldn't donate to them anymore because my donations just went to pay fines?
Something is just not making sense here...
Ted, yes it is too bad they continuously screw up and get fined. It's also too bad that the blood that is donated to them is never provided without payment. The Red Cross makes an awful lot of money behind the charade of being a not-for-profit organization. Read some of the other earlier posts to see what I mean.
Yes they could have done something els, but the Federal Government would rather have the money that you donated, so they just TAKE IT.
They have always thought that they were better as spending your money than you are.
How mant time has the Government fined the FDA for their many %&*# up's ?
Donor funds to pay multi million dollar fines? Fire all the top people.