Pharmaceutical fraud

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Is the FDA a threat to your health?

Fight for Your Health, Exposing the FDA's betrayal of America by Byron Richards.
"This book should be read by every American."
- Mike Adams, editor, NewsTarget.com
Learn the uncensored truth about:
  • The corruption of top FDA officials
  • Why the FDA is a danger to public safety
  • How drug companies conspire with the FDA to discredit alternatives
  • How the FDA uses scientific fraud and censorship to fool the public
  • How we can WIN the war on health freedom and take back our future!
"Managing" diseases is the trend in mainstream medicine, and it's the main message that pharmaceutical companies and the media market to consumers. "You have a mental disorder? That's okay. You can live a normal life, if you take these pills every day."
According to "AIDS: A Second Opinion" authors Gary Null and James Feast, the profits "stack up better" for pharmaceutical companies when people have to take treatments indefinitely for an incurable disease. HIV, for example, is a relative goldmine, since HIV-positive people have to take drug "cocktails" each day even before they develop symptomatic AIDS. Then, the profits add up even more after these people develop full-blown AIDS because they have to take drugs to treat opportunistic infections in addition to their regular drug cocktail.
Many people believe that pharmaceutical companies' hunger for profits triumphs over their desire to genuinely help the public, and that this blinded concern for profit above all has shaped -- and continues to shape -- mainstream medicine as we know it. The bottom line is simple: As Life Extension Magazine puts it, "Marketing issues frequently outweigh medical science in drug company decisions."
Modern medicine is a platform for profit, not health

This has implications that are more serious than one might initially think, especially considering the heavy role that pharmaceutical companies play in mainstream medicine. "Deep Healing" author Dr. Emmette Miller writes, "We have to remember that most medical research in this country is financed by pharmaceutical companies who are looking for new drugs they can produce and sell."

Now, things were not always this way. In his book, "Overdosed America," Dr. John Abramson describes the shift of medical research from the academic to the commercial sphere: "As the function of medical research in our society has been transformed from a fundamentally academic and scientific activity to a fundamentally commercial activity, the context in which the research is done has similarly changed: First in universities funded primarily by public sources, then in universities funded primarily by commercial sources, then by independent for-profit research organizations contracting directly with drug companies. And most recently, the three largest advertising agencies, Omnicom, Interpublic and WPP, have bought or invested in the for-profit companies that perform clinical trials." In my view, advertising agencies having financial ties to the companies that perform clinical trials – companies that are supposed to conduct objective research – is blatant conflict of interest; yet it's the basis of most mainstream medical research in the United States. In fact, according to Dr. Abramson, in the year 2000, only one-third of all medical research was performed in universities and academic medical centers.
Since, according to these and other sources, drug companies predominantly fund medical research, scientists have almost no choice but to mainly focus their time and effort on the most profitable, but not necessarily the most effective, treatments. Though an herb, which by its very nature cannot be patented, may treat and possibly even cure a disease, drug companies may nevertheless not fund research or marketing for it, leaving the general public largely ignorant of the herb's benefits. Mainstream medicine largely dismisses vitamins and minerals in the same manner as herbs.
Furthermore, research bias often continues into the doctor's office. As Gary Null writes in his Complete Guide to Health and Nutrition, "One report published in Fact magazine speculates that the principle reason vitamin C is not commonly prescribed is that it is not as profitable as those syrups and pills your doctor dispenses."
Stealing medicine from nature

However, this doesn't mean that pharmaceutical companies ignore plants and other natural medicines altogether; it's actually quite the opposite. According to Asian Health Secrets by Letha Hadady, approximately one-third of all pharmaceuticals are derived from plants' active ingredients. Though companies cannot patent natural plants in their whole form, they can patent plants' individual ingredients after a long, painstaking process of breaking down the plant into its components, isolating active ingredients and then claiming to have "discovered" these natural ingredients. However, this system, though profitable for drug companies, has a downside that Hadady reveals: "Many times the active ingredient does not work as well as the entire plant. According to tests done in Germany, Saint John's Wort, the entire herb, kills the AIDS virus in the test tube, while hypericum, the isolated active ingredient, does not." In other words, though the bottom line is simple, it means that this society is in a very dangerous predicament indeed.

This horrific state of modern medicine is a uniquely American phenomenon, according to "Innocent Casualties" author Elaine Feuer. She writes, "Because the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that does not regulate the prices or profits of drug companies, prescription drugs generally cost 25 to 40 percent more than in other countries." In fact, drug companies rely on American sales for the bulk of their profits, even though many of their products are marketed worldwide, says "Natural Alternatives to Drugs" author Dr. Michael T. Murray.
Though this is bad for the average American consumer, it's great for pharmaceutical companies. According to Mike Fillon's book, "Ephedra Fact and Fiction," the global pharmaceutical market earned $364 billion in 2001, making it the world's most profitable stock market sector. Fillon writes that more than half of this revenue is from the United States alone, so although pharmaceuticals are more expensive for the American consumer, Americans still buy more prescription drugs than any other nation.
Hawking for Big Pharma

Now, at this point, you're probably wondering about the role the U.S. government plays in all this. In "Death by Prescription," Ray D. Strand writes, "The FDA is actually listening and catering to the industry's desires." According to Strand, the FDA facilitates the drug-approval process. Many people attribute the FDA's bias against herbs and other natural medicine to the agency's close "friendship" with the pharmaceutical industry, but it seems that they can't agree about the level of corruption. According to American Medical Publishing's book, "Prescription Medicines, Side Effects and Natural Alternatives," "The government is also part of the problem because it does not have the resources or the political will to do more about the dangers of prescription drugs. Also, powerful members of the American government, from the President on down, are all lobbied heavily by the cash rich drug companies."

In order for mainstream medicine to reach the level of effectiveness that it can and should attain, the inner workings of the medical community must change, starting with the pharmaceutical companies' hold on the government agencies that are supposed to protect American consumers. As Burton Goldberg writes in "Alternative Medicine," "To realize effective health care with cost reduction requires unlocking the strangulation hold of the pharmaceutical companies, the American Medical Association (AMA) and ... the FDA on all forms of fully effective, low-cost alternative, complementary, integrative, holistic medicine." Until then, mainstream medicine will remain the same, and that's the last thing American consumers need. It's time to put concern for public health, medicine and genuine science over corporate profits.
The experts speak on pharmaceutical companies and profits:
There is probably nothing more profitable to the drug companies than interminable treatment of patients with drugs that do not work. Yet countless patients, at great cost to our nation, are kept on these treatments because they have been proven to help two-thirds of people and health-care providers have no policies or procedures to do otherwise. When those who pay the bills realize how much of their money is being wasted, and how much can be saved by requiring policies and procedures to identify patients not helped by standard treatment and select alternatives for them, it may happen.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 458
Diabetes is such a profitable business that physicians will put pre-diabetic patients, with only marginally high blood sugar, onto diabetes drugs before even trying weight loss and exercise.
Prescription Alternatives by Earl Mindell RPh PhD and Virginia Hopkins MA, page 403
With the growing epidemic of obesity, the drug companies can look forward to a financial windfall. Many millions of Americans will be taking their statin drugs to lower their cholesterol levels. And they could each be spending $3 a day, or $1100 a year, for the rest of their lives.
Health Care Meltdown by Robert H Lebow MD, page 229
Drug companies are profit-driven entities, so marketing issues weigh very heavily. Manufacturers feel great pressure to keep costs down while hastening new drugs to market. And drug companies aren't held responsible for the huge costs of dose-related side effects to the healthcare system. The result is that marketing issues frequently outweigh medical science in drug company decisions.
Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 723
We have to remember that most medical research in this country is financed by pharmaceutical companies who are looking for new drugs they can produce and sell. Psychoneuroimmunology research is aimed at showing that the body is capable of producing its own healing substances. The bottom line is that stockholders of the companies that invest in medical research can't see how they can profit from such research and so will naturally put their developmental money into the money-making ventures instead.
Deep Healing by Emmette Miller MD, page 138
As the function of medical research in our society has been transformed from a fundamentally academic and scientific activity to a fundamentally commercial activity, the context in which the research is done has similarly changed: first in universities funded primarily by public sources, then in universities funded primarily by commercial sources, then by independent for-profit research organizations contracting directly with drug companies. And most recently, the three largest advertising agencies, Omnicom, Interpublic, and WPP, have bought or invested in the for-profit companies that perform clinical trials.
Overdosed America by John Abramson MD, page 110
Moreover, if a drug company's profits increase because of slanted research, hasty marketing, and misleading advertising, other companies must adopt these same methods in order to remain competitive--and the race to the bottom accelerates. This is why in any area of endeavor, codes of behavior must be periodically reexamined. Doing so is a common occurrence in politics and sports, and it is what the drug companies must now undertake.
Overdose by Jay S Cohen, page 168
An independent research center could study other uses of new medications that were not studied by their manufacturers. It could research new uses or problems with generic drugs, which drug companies do not study because the patents of generic drugs have lapsed and there is little likelihood of profit.
Overdose by Jay S Cohen, page 175
In the United Sates, pharmaceutical companies support most medication research and development. Because they really can't earn a profit from natural substances, which they can't patent, they're reluctant to fund studies on plant estrogens. Fortunately, many medical centers are helping to bridge this research gap by establishing departments of complementary and alternative medicine. At the Rosenthal Center of Columbia University, for example, scientists are conducting studies of black cohosh and other phytoestrogens.
The Rhodiola Revolution by Richard P Brown MD and Patricia L Gerbarg MD, page 179
One of the reasons for this is economic. Herbs, by their very nature, cannot be patented. Because of this, drug companies cannot hold the exclusive right to sell a particular herb and they are not motivated to invest in testing or promoting herbs. The collection and preparation of herbal medicines cannot be as easily controlled as the manufacture of synthetic drugs, making profits less dependable.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 252
The FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars. They say they need two million users of a substance just to break even. Since natural substances cannot be patented, there is even less room for profit in them.
Scientific Validation of Herbal Medicine by Daniel B Mowrey PhD, page 291
The pharmaceutical industry is, obviously, a very powerful force in American science, medicine, business, and politics. The industry must make large profits to realize a return on investment, particularly in a regulatory system where it costs $100 to $200 million dollars to bring a new drug to market.
Choices In Healing by Michael Lerner, page 613
While it is in the interest of such companies to find patentable cancer treatments, there is no corresponding incentive to develop non-patentable natural methods. Since it currently costs around $200 million to develop a new drug in the US, mainly to comply with Byzantine FDA regulations, the drug companies claim they must seek enormous profits from each and every drug.
Cancer Therapy by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 14
In order for pharmaceutical companies to earn a profit, they must develop drugs that are potent enough to patent and can be approved by the FDA. To gain FDA approval, these drugs must demonstrate an acceptable safety profile. However, the safe dose of potent drugs can vary considerably among individuals. What is safe for some people can be a lethal overdose for others. Yet doctors and drug companies usually recommend the same dose for everyone, even though lower doses of many prescription drugs can achieve the same beneficial effects, while dramatically reducing side effect risk and the cost of the medications.
Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 708
In addition, since niacin is a widely available generic agent, no pharmaceutical company stands to generate the huge profits that the other cholesterol-lowering drugs have enjoyed. As a result, niacin is not intensively advertised like the other drugs. Despite the advantages of niacin over the cholesterol-lowering drugs, niacin accounts for only 7.9 percent of all lipid-lowering prescriptions.
Encyclopedia Of Natural Medicine by Michael T Murray MD Joseph L Pizzorno ND, page 352
Unlike the standard treatments for heart disease, coconut oil is cheap, has no adverse side effects, and is readily available to everyone. Because it is a natural product that is already widely available, pharmaceutical and medical industries have no desire to fund studies or promote interest in this area. There is no profit for them. Since most of the information on MCFA and coconut oil are buried in scientific literature, few people are aware of the benefits. Knowledge about the true health aspects of coconut oil has to come from experienced clinicians, authors, and researchers who are familiar with the true facts about coconut oil. Yet they face an up-hill battle because they must fight prejudice and misguided popular opinion that is fueled by powerful profit-seeking enterprises.
Healing Miracles of Coconut Oil by Bruce Fife ND, page 85
By their very nature, prescription drugs are the perfect product for a monopoly. Drugs are patented and available from only one manufacturer, and prices can be increased at the discretion of the company with few consumer complaints. How many people who are ill question the cost of drugs prescribed by their doctor? During the 1980s, inflation rose 58 percent and pharmaceutical companies managed to triple their prices. In 1990 the drug industry was the most profitable industry in America, with 13.6 percent annual profits, more than triple the average Fortune 500 company. The 1991 median profit of a Fortune pharmaceutical company was $592 million. Because the U.S. is the only major industrialized nation that does not regulate the prices or profits of drug companies, prescription drugs generally cost 25 to 40 percent more than in other countries. For three out of four elderly Americans, prescription drugs are their biggest expense.
Innocent Casualties by Elaine Feuer, page 73
Drug costs are higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Most major industrial nations employ profit-control measures that limit how much a drug company can charge for a drug. Because most drug companies market the same drug throughout the world, they rely on American sales for the bulk of their profits.
Natural Alternatives To Drugs by Michael T Murray ND, page 23 The global pharmaceutical industry--which generated revenues of more than $364 billion in 2001--is the world's most profitable stock market sector. According to IMS Health, the leading drug industry market analyst, half the global drug sales are in the U.S. alone, with Europe and Japan accounting for another 37 percent.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I wrote a paper on corparate deviance back in 2002, and the Pharmaceutical industry was one of the key industries my paper focussed on. The average cost to bring adrug to market was $238 million at that time. This is often what Pharmaceutical companies say is the reasoning behind high drug prices, yet there are drugs like Premarin which has been around for 50 years and the price per dose has almost doubled in that time. In fact some drugs have increased by as much as 75% since 1985. Thousands of people die every year because they can't afford the drugs they need. If you get Gaucher's disease you can expect a price of about $270,000 a year. Further, 104 of the 287 most prescribed drugs are harmful and in some cases lethal. Then we have the rediculous amounts of cash being speant on advertising campaigns which further increase the price of drugs and serve to pad quarterly earning estimates.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I wrote a paper on corparate deviance back in 2002, and the Pharmaceutical industry was one of the key industries my paper focussed on. The average cost to bring adrug to market was $238 million at that time. This is often what Pharmaceutical companies say is the reasoning behind high drug prices, yet there are drugs like Premarin which has been around for 50 years and the price per dose has almost doubled in that time. In fact some drugs have increased by as much as 75% since 1985. Thousands of people die every year because they can't afford the drugs they need. If you get Gaucher's disease you can expect a price of about $270,000 a year. Further, 104 of the 287 most prescribed drugs are harmful and in some cases lethal. Then we have the rediculous amounts of cash being speant on advertising campaigns which further increase the price of drugs and serve to pad quarterly earning estimates.
My particular problem is with the drug giants trying to corner natural medicines, then have the originating plant put on the controlled substance list.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Cool, I see Andem has been reading this post, he may have some insight, lol.

Sorry Andem, you put that module at the bottom, showing whos reading,lol.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
In 2000, Allan Rock announced Health Canada would begin regulating natural remedies. At the time the department said that over 50% of Canadians were using these remedies. Can't find anything on Pfizer or GSK getting involved though, but I'm sure they probably are. Theres too much money in alternatives for them not to be.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
In 2000, Allan Rock announced Health Canada would begin regulating natural remedies. At the time the department said that over 50% of Canadians were using these remedies. Can't find anything on Pfizer or GSK getting involved though, but I'm sure they probably are. Theres too much money in alternatives for them not to be.
Ya but now we have big corps trying to corner the market on what was originally seen as a fringe healthcare. It is taking its toll on what is available.

I can only think of the few I have seen disappear from the seed markets...

bloodroot
alumroot
coltsfoot
and so on.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
Pharmaceutical companies get a bad reputation, but they are a business like any other. The grocery store down the street makes a profit too, but not many people seem to complain about that. I don't expect the grocery store to give me my groceries for free. Pharmaceuticals save lives, and they are obviously worth the cost, otherwise people wouldn't be buying them. In other words, what would happen if pharmaceutical companies didn't exist?

However, this system, though profitable for drug companies, has a downside that Hadady reveals: "Many times the active ingredient does not work as well as the entire plant. According to tests done in Germany, Saint John's Wort, the entire herb, kills the AIDS virus in the test tube, while hypericum, the isolated active ingredient, does not." In other words, though the bottom line is simple, it means that this society is in a very dangerous predicament indeed.

It is possible that two or more compounds have a synergistic effect, however, this is very rare. And if that is the case, then not all of the active compounds are known. There is, at most, two or three compounds needed to be active, the rest of the plant is useless. Of course, the other side of the coin is that if a whole plant is indeed more potent than it's individual constituents, that means it could also be more toxic and have more side effects.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Pharmaceutical companies get a bad reputation, but they are a business like any other. The grocery store down the street makes a profit too, but not many people seem to complain about that. I don't expect the grocery store to give me my groceries for free. Pharmaceuticals save lives, and they are obviously worth the cost, otherwise people wouldn't be buying them. In other words, what would happen if pharmaceutical companies didn't exist?



It is possible that two or more compounds have a synergistic effect, however, this is very rare. And if that is the case, then not all of the active compounds are known. There is, at most, two or three compounds needed to be active, the rest of the plant is useless. Of course, the other side of the coin is that if a whole plant is indeed more potent than it's individual constituents, that means it could also be more toxic and have more side effects.
That's all well and good, but the grocery store doesn't lobby the government to have plants banned or made unavailable to the pulic, so they can corner the market on them. I can still buy apple seeds.

As for toxicity and such. I have been using wild plants to take care of common ailments since I was taught them as a kid. Common Plantain, for bug bites, Birch bark as an antiseptic, yes even Crimson weed has its merits and I know them well and so on. The drug companies, see dollar signs and not the health of common folk.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
That's all well and good, but the grocery store doesn't lobby the government to have plants banned or made unavailable to the pulic, so they can corner the market on them. I can still buy apple seeds.

Do you have evidence that pharmaceutical companies are lobbying the government for bans on plants, and that those bans are in place? The closest thing I have found in this thread in Tonington's post about regulating natural remedies, which probably has more to do with safety than anything, considering that pharmaceuticals are also regulated. Imagine the outrage if the government decided to stop regulating pharmaceuticals...so why are plants not treated the same way?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Do you have evidence that pharmaceutical companies are lobbying the government for bans on plants, and that those bans are in place? The closest thing I have found in this thread in Tonington's post about regulating natural remedies, which probably has more to do with safety than anything, considering that pharmaceuticals are also regulated. Imagine the outrage if the government decided to stop regulating pharmaceuticals...so why are plants not treated the same way?
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=161

Canadian connection...
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/intactivit/codex/index_e.html
http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/310

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs, video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Talking about fraud I am incensed about the health and pharmaceutical industry's inability to carry the ball on vitamins. For decades we were told by government health gurus that all we needed was a well balanced diet and supplements wouldn't be necessary. What a bunch of hooey. This week's mindblowing announcements on the benefits of Vitamin D follow similar disclosures over the last year. The National and the Globe reported yesterday there is no bigger weapon in the fight against many cancers than Vitamin D. Taking 2000 units a day will halve breast cancer rates and more startlingly reduce colon and related cancers by two-thirds. This is shocking information. How many lives would have been saved if vitamin D had been given the importance it deserves years ago?
Kevin Trudeau in his bestseller on preserving your health also lauded the vitamin and criticized the health lobbyists who promote sunscreens and staying covered at all times. Looks like he and many others like him were prescient: if you want to feel good and stay healthy you need sun exposure and when you don't get enough enhance your body's vitamin production through supplements.
I'm all for it!
And I'm still angry!
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
Talking about fraud I am incensed about the health and pharmaceutical industry's inability to carry the ball on vitamins. For decades we were told by government health gurus that all we needed was a well balanced diet and supplements wouldn't be necessary. What a bunch of hooey. This week's mindblowing announcements on the benefits of Vitamin D follow similar disclosures over the last year. The National and the Globe reported yesterday there is no bigger weapon in the fight against many cancers than Vitamin D. Taking 2000 units a day will halve breast cancer rates and more startlingly reduce colon and related cancers by two-thirds. This is shocking information. How many lives would have been saved if vitamin D had been given the importance it deserves years ago?
Kevin Trudeau in his bestseller on preserving your health also lauded the vitamin and criticized the health lobbyists who promote sunscreens and staying covered at all times. Looks like he and many others like him were prescient: if you want to feel good and stay healthy you need sun exposure and when you don't get enough enhance your body's vitamin production through supplements.
I'm all for it!
And I'm still angry!

Be careful:

The prescription of high doses of vitamin D in the absence of a deficiency can result in hypercalcaemia - excessive calcium in blood. If this condition is prolonged, it may lead to heart and kidney damage. Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include nausea, vomiting, anorexia, headache, weakness, apathy, polyuria and bone pain. As vitamin plays an important role in mineralisation and calcification of bones, the symptoms of excessive ingestion of vitamin D are the result of abnormalities in calcium metabolism. These are largely due to hypercalcaemia which cause calcification of soft tissue and produce renal impairment. http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/bulletin/sun/1996/sun44.html

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/v/vitamin_d_overdose/intro.htm

most vitamins can be dangerous in large quantities. this is why supplements are to be treated with care. Too many idiots will upend a bottle of vitamin C every day and think that'll turn them into a superhuman.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Herman, good advice! But I still went down and bought some Vitamin D today. I love the sun and get lots of it in the summer. But if there's any advantage to a supplement of Vitamin D it has to be now. I'm going to add D to what I take already. But I thank you for your precaution.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
This industry is a killer, it is reaponsible for addiction and death, cure us, not likely, the plan is to keep us swallowing the junk every day of every month, much of it dosn't work and or isn't what it says it is.
Just another cess-pool (copyright ITN INTERNATIONAL) of capitalist pigs (SORRY PIGS), that cheat steal and kill for money.:wave: