Pharmaceutical ripoffs



The Soil theory 
Nature cure 
Health v medicine


Health vs medicine  

History of homeopathy  

Suppression of cures 

Rockefeller Drug Empire  

Pharmaceutical business with disease  

CODEX (worldwide supplement ban), WTO treaty overrides US law  

Eve Hillary's excellent CODEX expose  

Pan debacle  


Ghostwritten articles  


The soil theory 

Soil theory v germ theory 

150 years of hidden knowledge 


Seven stages of disease 

The 16 physiological laws of life 


Blood acidity 

Euroamericanhealth - acidity, pleomorphism

** Is the Cause of Cancer a Common Fungus?
The bicarb treatment 



Nature cure  

The retracing process 

Colon cleansing 

Bach flower remedies  

Australian bush flower remedies 


If I had cancer ...



About cellsalts  

Symptoms are nature's warning signs 

Combination remedies   


Bowel cleansing 

Going raw 

Virtues of bicarb 

Pure bloodstream (lack of toxemia)


Blood purification 

Calcium sulphate - the blood purifier

Calcium doses for horses 

Sodium v table salt 

Articles - silica  



The CODEX conspiracy ] CODEX by Eve Hillary ] Suppression ] Pan Debacle ] [ Pharmaceutical ripoffs ] Vaccinations ] Rockefeller drug empire ] Harmful drugs ] Spanish flu ] Bird flu hoax ] AIDS/Graves ] Heart surgeon speaks ] Pharm co "hit-list" ]

Pharmaceutical2 ]


The pharmaceutical “disease business” is the largest deception and fraud business in human history.            
--Dr Rath

The Laws of the Pharmaceutical Industry 

It is not in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry to prevent or cure common diseases but rather manage them in the most profitable way.

The maintenance and expansion of diseases is a precondition for the financial growth of the pharmaceutical "disease business".

1   The pharmaceutical industry is an investment industry driven by the profits of its shareholders. Improving human health is not the driving force of this industry.

2   The pharmaceutical investment industry was artificially created and strategically developed over an entire century by the same investment groups that control the global petrochemical and chemical industries.

3   The huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry are based on the patenting of new drugs. These patents essentially allow drug manufacturers to arbitrarily define the profits for their products.

4   The marketplace for the pharmaceutical industry is the human body – but only for as long as the body hosts diseases. Thus, maintaining and expanding diseases is a precondition for the growth of the pharmaceutical industry.

5   A key strategy to accomplish this goal is the development of drugs that merely mask symptoms while avoiding the curing or elimination of diseases. This explains why most prescription drugs marketed today have no proven efficacy and merely target symptoms.

6    To further expand their pharmaceutical market, the drug companies are continuously looking for new applications (indications) for the use of drugs they already market. For example, Bayer’s pain pill Aspirin is now taken by 50 million healthy US citizens under the illusion it will prevent heart attacks.

7    Another key strategy to expand pharmaceutical markets is to cause new diseases with drugs. While merely masking symptoms short term, most of the prescription drugs taken by millions of patients today cause a multitude of new diseases as a result of their known long-term side effects. For example, all cholesterol-lowering drugs currently on the market are known to increase the risk of developing cancer – but only after the patient has been taking the drug for several years.

8   The known deadly side effects of prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world, surpassed only by the number of deaths from heart attacks, cancer and strokes (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998). This fact is no surprise either, because drug patents are primarily issued for new synthetic molecules. All synthetic molecules need to be detoxified and eliminated from the body, a system that frequently fails and results in an epidemic of severe and deadly side effects.

9   While the promotion and expansion of diseases increase the market of the pharmaceutical investment industry - prevention and root cause treatment of diseases decrease long-term profitability; therefore, they are avoided or even obstructed by this industry.

10   Worst of all, the eradication of diseases is by its very nature incompatible with and diametrically opposed to the interests of the pharmaceutical investment industry. The eradication of diseases now considered as potential drug markets will destroy billions of investment dollars and eventually will eliminate this entire industry.

11   Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that optimize cellular metabolism threaten the pharmaceutical "business with disease" because they target the cellular cause of today’s most common diseases - and these natural substances cannot be patented.12

12   Throughout the more than one hundred year existence of the pharmaceutical industry, vitamins and other essential nutrients, with defined functions as cofactors in cellular metabolism, have been the fiercest competition and the greatest threat to the long-term success of the pharmaceutical investment business.

13   Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that effectively prevent diseases are incompatible with the very nature of the pharmaceutical "business with disease."

14  To protect the strategic development of its investment business against the threat from effective, natural and non-patentable therapies, the pharmaceutical industry has – over an entire century - used the most unscrupulous methods, such as:


Withholding life-saving health information from millions of people. It is simply unacceptable that today so few know that the human body cannot produce vitamin C and lysine, two key molecules for connective tissue stability and disease prevention.


Discrediting natural health therapies. The most common way is through global PR campaigns organized by the Pharma-Cartel that spread lies about the alleged side effects of natural substances – molecules that have been used by Nature for millennia.


Banning by law the dissemination of information about natural health therapies. To that end, the pharmaceutical industry has placed its lobbyists in key political positions in key markets and leading drug export nations.

15   The pharmaceutical "business with disease" is the largest deception and fraud business in human history. The product "health" promised by drug companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the "products" most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death. [I think the petroleum industry would have to appear somewhere on the list - i.e., for suppression of free energy.]

16   The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world’s largest investment industry.



The Pharmaceutical Cartel

The Pharmaceutical companies are certainly NOT "leading the search for cures" but are in fact responsible for "creating" some devastating diseases and squelching any independent research that does discover a cure.

"It used to be that drug companies simply gave grants to academic medical centres for the use of their clinical researchers to do a study and that was it. It was at arm's length. The researcher did a study and he or she published the results, whatever those results would be. Now, it's very, very different. 

"The drug companies increasingly design the studies. They keep the data. They don't even let the researchers see the data. They analyse the data. They decide whether they're going to even publish the data at the end of it. They sign contracts with researchers and with academic medical centres saying that they don't get to publish their work unless they get permission from the drug company. 

"So, you can see that the distortion starts even before publication. It starts in determining what's going to be published and what isn't going to be published. This is no longer arm's length. It's treating the researchers and the academic medical centres as though they were hired guns or technicians or something. 

"They just do the work. And the drug company will decide what the data show, what the conclusions are and whether it will even be published."
------ Dr Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Australian Broadcasting Corporation - LATELINE

Salk & Sabins' Tainted Polio Vaccine?"

The Cancer Cure you'll never get!

Numerous links on everything about Vaccines & much more

The Berlin Tribunal (Acrobat Reader file)



Study suggests adverse drug reactions are among the top causes of death in U.S.

Related article: Side-effects of drugs kill thousands  (The Guardian) 

CHICAGO—Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in U.S. hospitals may be responsible for more than 100,000 deaths nationwide each year, making it one of the leading causes of death, according to an article in the April 14 issue of The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA).

Bruce H. Pomeranz, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues from the University of Toronto, analyzed 39 studies of ADRs in the United States to estimate the incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions in hospital patients. To obtain overall incidence rates of ADRs in hospitalized patients, the researchers combined the incidence of ADRs in the hospital and the incidence of ADRs causing admission to the hospital.

The authors estimated that 2,216,000 hospital patients experienced a serious ADR and 106,000 deaths were caused by ADRs in the United States. This could account for 4.6 percent of all causes of recorded death in 1994, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death.

The World Health Organization defines ADRs as any noxious, unintended and undesired effect of a drug, which occurs at doses used in humans for prophylaxis [prevention], diagnosis or therapy. The authors define a serious ADR as one requiring hospitalization prolonging hospitalization, or one that is permanently disabling or results in death.

The researchers found no significant correlation between ADR incidence and year the studies were conducted. They write: "This result seems surprising since great changes have occurred over the last four decades in U.S. hospitals that should have affected the incidence of ADRs. Perhaps, while length of hospital stay is decreasing, the number of drugs per day may be rising to compensate. Therefore, while the actual incidence of ADRs has not changed over the last 32 years, the pattern of their occurrence has, undoubtedly changed," the authors write.

The authors determined that ADRs are one of the leading causes of death by using the highest and lowest possible estimates. Using the higher estimate placed ADRs as the fourth leading cause of death, behind heart disease (743,460 deaths), cancer (529,904 deaths) and stroke (150,108 deaths). Using the lower estimate placed ADRs as the sixth leading cause of death behind those previously mentioned, as well as pulmonary disease (101,077 deaths) and accidents (90,523 deaths). ADRs would then rank ahead of pneumonia and diabetes.

The authors conclude: "While our results must be viewed with some circumspection because of the heterogeneity among the studies and small biases in the sample, these data suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue."
(JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205)

Editorial: How Worried Should We Be?

In an accompanying editorial in the April 15 JAMA, David W. Bates, M.D., M.Sc., of Partners Healthcare Systems, and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass., cautions that there are several concerns about the way the study was done, although the authors adhered to the generally accepted criteria for meta-analyses. "First, an inherent limitation of meta-analysis is that combining the results of small, heterogeneous studies does not necessarily bring one closer to truth, particularly if the processes used to identify and to validate the presence of the events were heterogeneous. Second, the hospitals studied are probably not representative of hospitals at large. Such studies are more likely to be conducted in academic, tertiary care hospitals; these hospitals have sicker patients, and these patients have more ADRs. Another issue is whether the sites of care sampled within the institutions were representative of the institutions."

Dr. Bates adds: "Nonetheless, these data are important, and even if the true incidence of ADRs is somewhat lower than that reported ... it is still high, and much higher than generally recognized."
(JAMA. 1998;279:1216-1217)


Side-effects of drugs kill thousands

Sarah Boseley
Friday July 2, 2004
The Guardian,11381,1252321,00.html 

More than 10,000 people a year may die from the side-effects of medicines prescribed by their doctors and most of those deaths are unnecessary, says a new study.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal today, finds that one in 16 of all admissions to hospital is caused by the side-effects of a drug. The cost to the NHS of the mostly avoidable treatment of these patients is estimated at £466m a year.

The researchers investigated the reasons why 18,820 patients were admitted to two hospitals in Merseyside during a six-month period. They found that 1,225 were suffering from an adverse drug reaction (ADR). Most patients recovered, but 28 died.

The authors, Munir Pirmohamed, professor of clinical pharmacology at Liverpool University, and colleagues, say that their figures suggest that drug side-effects caused the deaths of about 5,700 patients.

They say that at any one time "the equivalent of up to seven 800-bed hospitals may be occupied by patients admitted with ADRs ... Measures are urgently needed to reduce the burden on the NHS".



Drug giant accused of false claims 
Whistleblower alleges illegal encouragement of off-label use

Scientist David Franklin says he became part of a broad mission at pharmaceutical company Warner-Lambert to deceive, even entice doctors to prescribe drugs to patients whether it was scientifically justified or not.

July 11 [2003] — The questions began with the confession of an insider at one of the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms. He says his former company deliberately distorted information about one of its drugs, possibly putting lives at risk, and costing patients and taxpayers millions of dollars. "Dateline" went looking for some answers and has the results of a year-long investigation into what may be one of the biggest medical deceptions in history. NBC’s John Hockenberry reports.

DAVID FRANKLIN: "I was trained to deceive, to lie to doctors."

John Hockenberry: "So these doctors were completely misled?"

Franklin: "Absolutely."
Who would train and then pay someone to mislead doctors? Scientist David Franklin says pharmaceutical company Warner-Lambert paid him to do that back in 1996.

Franklin: "It was my responsibility to leverage the trust that physicians had with pharmaceutical companies to corrupt the relationship between the physician and the patient."

John Hockenberry: "Your job was to find trust, and exploit it, to produce more sales for Warner-Lambert."

Franklin: "Absolutely."
Since he was a little boy growing up in Rhode Island, Franklin says, he wanted to be a scientist. But he wanted to use that science to help people, doing medical research to cure disease. So Franklin got his Ph.D. in biology at the University of Rhode Island and from there became a researcher at the prestigious Dana Farber Cancer Institute. After more than three years as a researcher, Franklin wanted to get out of the lab. He found a job at Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert. He would be a medical liaison, using his scientific expertise to explain the scientific merits of drugs to doctors.

Franklin: "The medical liaison was supposed to be fair and balanced, where the physician could trust what the medical liaison was telling them."

Hockenberry: "So, doctors wouldn’t necessarily see you as a company guy, as much as they would see you as a scientist. As as a medical doctor, like them in a way."

Franklin: "Exactly. A person whose primary responsibility is to care of the patients, making sure that the doctor, to enable the doctor to practice the best possible medicine that science would allow at this point in time."

Hockenberry: "So, a doctor needs more drugs for their practice. They call the salesman. But if they have questions about the medical use of that drug, they call you."

Franklin: "Exactly."
But almost immediately, Franklin says, he became little more than a salesman. The job he thought would be about caring for people turned out to be little more than caring for the company’s bottom line. With his Ph.D. and the title of doctor, Franklin says he became part of a broad mission to deceive, even entice doctors to prescribe drugs to patients whether it was scientifically justified or not.

Franklin: "It was a matter of leveraging, corrupting, if you would, perverting the science, to greatly increase sales and profitability."
This corporate whistleblower, telling his story to "Dateline" in his first broadcast interview, has rocked the pharmaceutical industry to its core. Pieced together with confidential documents and taped voicemails, you’ll see a portrait of sales over science.

But mostly this is the story of how David Franklin helped one little drug become a star: Gabapentin, one of the drugs Franklin was responsible for, which goes by the brand name Neurontin. Neurontin is a useful and generally safe drug. The Food and Drug Administration approved it in 1993, but for only one use — to help control epileptic seizures and only if taken in conjunction with another drug.
But Franklin says he soon learned that Warner-Lambert had plans for Neurontin, the little epilepsy drug, a plan to go directly to doctors and get them to prescribe Neurontin for all kinds of uses the FDA hadn’t approved, called "off-label" uses.

Hockenberry: "Warner-Lambert basically told you, ‘The FDA says, scientifically, Neurontin treats epilepsy. But we can convince doctors. And here’s how you’ll do it, to use Neurontin for a dozen other things."

Franklin: "Absolutely. This was holding their hands and pushing them into to using Neurontin off-label."
And according to Franklin, the list of off-label uses was long, everything from attention deficit disorder to alcohol and drug withdrawal.
Now, off-label uses are nothing new. Doctors have been observing surprising new uses for drugs throughout history. Some of their discoveries become medical breakthroughs. One of the best-known examples is aspirin, once thought only good for pain, was found by doctors to increase blood circulation and prevent heart attacks.

Hockenberry: "So it’s legal for doctors to say, ‘You know what? I think this drug that is approved for your ear might be good for your throat.’"

Franklin: "Not only is it legal, but it’s good medical practice."
But what is not legal is for a drug company to promote such unapproved, off-label uses or to exaggerate or report unproven breakthroughs to doctors as a way to get them to prescribe their drugs. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Sheehan, one of the country’s leading prosecutors of health care fraud, says such regulation exists because off-label use can be unsafe.

Sheehan: "Every prescription drug is an inherently dangerous product with the potential to kill people as well as cure them. That’s why we have very strict regulation, that’s why we have rules about what marketing and promotion they can do. That’s why we have rules about what they can produce and how they produce it."
Franklin says the rules went out the window from the moment he arrived on the job. For instance, he was told not simply to wait for doctors to ask him for his scientific opinions, but to instead target doctors and convince them to prescribe Neurontin, even though he knew that there was no FDA approval for its off-label uses.
Franklin says he was actually "cold calling" doctors, showing up like a salesman unannounced, and he found one thing about him opened a lot of doors.

Franklin: "If I were to show up at a doctor’s office and say, ‘Dr. Franklin is here to speak to Dr. Smith,’ Dr. Smith is much more likely to respond, as opposed to his receptionist calling him in his office, and saying, ‘The Warner-Lambert sales rep is here to talk to you.’"
Franklin didn’t say that he wasn’t a medical doctor. Simply having the title of doctor, the Ph.D. he was so proud of, was all that mattered, Franklin says, and Dr. Franklin, it turns out, wore lots of hats, depending on whom he was visiting.

Hockenberry: "So, you could have had a Ph.D. in economics or metallurgy, and it would have been just as fine?"

Franklin: "As long as it granted me the title of Dr. Franklin."

Hockenberry: "What were you told to tell doctors about your background?"

Franklin: "We actually trained the sales representatives to introduce me as an expert in cardiovascular medicine."

Hockenberry: "Were you?"

Franklin: "Absolutely not. My Ph.D. was in microbiology. At 9 in the morning I was an expert in cardiovascular medicine. At 10 when we walked across the street to a neurologist office, I was an expert in neurology."

Was there a risk? Adams’ dosage was tripled. Neurontin is known to have few if any side effects, one of its big selling points. But Neurontin was now Adams’ only treatment for bipolar disorder, which was very risky because Neurontin, it turns out, does essentially nothing for bipolar disorder — and that’s a scientific fact.

Dr. Gary Sachs: "Neurontin’s a drug that has been studied under double-blind conditions twice. And in neither case did it prove to have any efficacy at all."

Hockenberry: "In neither case?"

Sachs: "In neither case."
Dr. Gary Sachs runs the Bipolar Treatment Center at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Hockenberry: "So, based on the science, someone with bipolar who’s only taking Neurontin is essentially untreated."

Sachs: "I think that’s a fair assumption."
And for a bipolar patient like Adams, being untreated can be life-threatening. On Neurontin, Adams’ manic behavior became uncontrollable. She says she tried to kill herself. She ended up in the hospital.

Hockenberry: "If your doctor gives you something, your assumption is that it works, and that somebody’s shown that it works, right?"

Adams: "Right."

Hockenberry: "In the case of Neurontin, was any of that true?"

Adams: "Not for me."
We tried to talk to Adams’ doctor at Meridian Behavioral Healthcare in Gainesville, Fla. — and Adams said she had no problem allowing us see her medical records. But the company refused our request, issuing only a statement from her doctor acknowledging that Adams was treated with Neurontin but that the drug was discontinued when she "experienced a manic episode."
Adams is back on her old medication and doing fine.

Hockenberry: "What do you have to say to the drug company that might have been very interested in doctors’ prescribing their medication?"

Adams: "I think that they’re greedy, and they just are after money. And they don’t really care about the person who takes the medicine, obviously."
David Franklin says he was surprised how easy it was for him to get doctors to switch to Neurontin or to raise dosages.

Hockenberry: "And would they do it?"

Franklin: "It’s remarkable the high percentage of physicians that would do this."

Hockenberry: "How did you feel?"

Franklin: "I would leave a physician’s office in pain. There was no other way of describing it. This is — I was in — a combination of embarrassed by what I had just done, felt responsibility to the patient, to the doctor and the patient, that I had just misled this individual. And that some third party that wasn’t even in the room, some patient, may actually be impacted by it."
Parke-Davis’ own internal documents obtained by "Dateline" show the company couldn’t have been more excited about: "new indications for Neurontin," especially for people like Adams with bipolar disorder: "Bipolar disorders offer the greatest expected return on investment ... as much as $55 million."
Even though the 1995 memo later states "there is no pre-clinical evidence of efficacy in bipolar disorders." In other words, no real scientific evidence that it would work. Franklin says the company’s enthusiasm about off-label prescriptions translated into real pressure on the job — pressure, he says, to sell.

Franklin: "I was pressured to fill the gap that the sales team, the actual sales representatives weren’t filling. That the sales representatives weren’t as effective as medical liaisons. And that we had to, I think the quote was, to take the ball and run with it."
And Franklin let "Dateline" experience this sales pressure just as he did, through this recorded voicemail from his boss.

"You know there’s a Neurontin push that’s supposed to be on.... So what we need to do is focus on Neurontin, when we get out there - we want to kick some ass on Neurontin - we want to sell Neurontin on pain all right? And monotherapy...I don’t know if you guys are embarrassed, but I’m embarrassed with where we are with Neurontin."

Franklin saved this voicemail because he could barely believe what his boss was saying: sell Neurontin expressly for uses not approved by the FDA. Franklin was frightened. What he was being asked to do, he believed, was illegal. So he began to tape more conversations and messages from company officials. Here’s a quote from a senior Warner-Lambert executive on a conference call:

"I want you out there every day selling Neurontin... holding their hand, whispering in their ear — Neurontin for pain, Neurontin for monotherapy, Neurontin for bipolar, Neurontin for everything.... I don’t want to see a single patient coming off Neurontin before they’ve been up to at least 4,800 milligrams a day."

And then he said this:

"I don’t want to hear that safety crap either.... It’s a great drug"

We showed Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Sheehan that colorful quote.
Sheehan: "It would seem to me that’s a pretty clear advocacy for off-label use by the company. And therefore a violation of the FDA’s rules."

Hockenberry: "You know, I don’t know if I’d use the word advocacy. I might use, like, threat."

Sheehan: "When I look at this, Neurontin not for pain, not an on-label use, Neurontin for bipolar, not approved, no application for that either. Neurontin for everything, well, that’s pretty obvious."
And company sales people got to make this pitch right in the inner sanctum of doctors’ offices. Franklin would tell doctors they could get paid to let company sales reps go over patient medical records and to actually be there in the examining room while patients were being treated.

Franklin: "If you are willing to allow a sales representative to spend a day with you as you see patients, we’ll compensate you for that. We’ll pay you for it."
This is a voicemail Franklin recorded, in which a salesman boasts about his success after a day spent with a doctor and his patients:

"The doctor would review the chart of each patient with me in a one-on-one fashion. Then we would go meet the patient, the patient would be examined. I saw the actual prescription generated in front of me... that was certainly nice. I certainly felt that me being there, I had some influence on that medical decision."

Medical decisions that were very good business. From its introduction in 1993, Neurontin the little epilepsy drug, has rocketed to the top of the sales charts. Today it’s a more than $2 billion drug, outselling even blockbuster Viagra, and more than three-quarters of Neurontin’s sales, by the parent company’s own estimate, are from off-label uses.
But Franklin was having serious doubts about the safety of off-label use, about his job and about what kind of legal trouble he might be in. He would not make it through his first year at Parke-Davis. In the summer of 1996, he decided he’d had enough.

By the early summer of 1996, after four months working as a medical liaison for Warner-Lambert, David Franklin began to realize it was time to get out. He believed what he was doing was wrong and feared what would happen if he stayed.

Franklin: "I knew that in the period of time that I had been there, my own personal behavior was illegal, that I had done things that were simply illegal."
His biggest worry was that he was aiding and abetting a medical fraud. The scientist who reluctantly became a salesman now wondered if he had what it took to blow the whistle on a drug company worth billions.

Franklin: ""Either I needed to own up to this now and put it behind me, or at some point in the future, this could come back, and I’d find myself on the wrong side of this investigation. I did believe, when I left, that they were so aggressively ramping this up, that at some point, someone would expose what was going on there. And therefore, I would find myself in the equally, or even more difficult, position of trying to explain why I ignored an obvious illegal and immoral activity within the company."

So on July 29, he drove to a co-worker’s home, dropped off his office keys and company car and turned his back on Parke-Davis for good. Next stop? Greene and Hoffman attorneys at law.

Franklin: "I showed up to their office saying, I’ve— I’m in trouble. And I need some help out of this."
Franklin filed a lawsuit against Warner-Lambert and its Parke-Davis division charging the company with violations of the U.S. False Claims Act. He says he was not motivated by the fact that he stands to be in line for a percentage of the damages if the company loses or if it settles out of court.

Tom Greene: "We had no idea the extent of the Neurontin prescriptions, how successful this program had been."
Tom Greene is David Franklin’s attorney. He has spent the last seven years amassing Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis documents going back to 1994. He shared many of them with "Dateline" — they fill more than 160 boxes, memos and reports that prove, Greene says, that David Franklin was merely a cog in a grand marketing strategy to deliberately and illegally encourage off-label use.

Greene: "There are countless documents that support what he says and go far beyond his story and bring the level of knowledge of this illegal marketing program to the highest levels of the company."
For example, one memo shows that plans for marketing Neurontin for at least one off-label use were sent to top executives, including Anthony Wild, the president of Parke-Davis’ pharmaceutical division, and Lodewijk de Vink, president of parent company Warner-Lambert. Neither responded to our request for comment.
Other Parke-Davis documents, like one from 1997, show that there were teams inside the company not merely pushing the envelope on acceptable marketing practices but deliberately advocating going around the expensive FDA approval process, because the patent life of the drug was so short.
The "recommendation" is that Parke-Davis "not file" an application with the FDA but instead take the message straight to the doctors.
It was a full-court press. While sales reps and medical liaisons like David Franklin supplied company information in doctors’ offices, documents show company messages being planted aggressively in the scientific literature. Doctors simply trying to stay educated about new drugs would find themselves inundated with research, paid for by the company and made to look like independent scientific papers.

Greene: "They wanted to disseminate knowledge of these off-label uses throughout the medical literature. They hired outside companies to write articles about off-label uses so that the message about off-label use of Neurontin could be planted in the medical literature around the country, and indeed around the world."
Here’s one example of how what Parke-Davis called its "publication strategy" worked: A company called Medical Education Systems of Philadelphia (MES) was hired by Parke-Davis to put together a series of articles on off-label uses of Neurontin. MES would contact doctors hand-picked by Parke-Davis to author the articles. But in some cases, it appears that articles were essentially ghostwritten by MES, and the doctor’s name added later. As one MES status report notes: "MES draft completed — we just need an author."
And what did the doctors get for becoming authors of papers they sometimes didn’t write? Fees of up to one thousand dollars a pop.

Sheehan: "You are attempting to create a false impression, and you are making false representations, and you’re doing it for money. I just don’t see how that approach can be supported or can be viewed as appropriate."

Hockenberry: "You know, it’s always been my impression that the finding of an author precedes the actual writing of the paper."

Sheehan: "One would hope that’s what would happen."
Papers were just the beginning. Franklin says there was lots of money to go around.

Hockenberry: "Did you pay doctors?"

Franklin: "I personally did not pay physicians. What my responsibility was, was to let physicians know that there was money available to them."
In fact the documents show there were all kinds of ingenious ways for doctors to get paid for an education in the use of Neurontin. For instance, "honoraria" are fees paid to doctors to hear information or a presentation about Neurontin. Parke-Davis records show that these scientific presentations occurred in some unscientific places: "Bus to Yankee Stadium," "World Yacht Cruise" and "Braves Stadium."
Doctors were also recruited for teleconferences, seminars and trips to places like Jupiter Beach, Fla., perhaps better known for golf than for research.
Paying physicians like this, giving them drug company money to listen to information about the products they prescribe, may be legal and common practice in the industry, but to critics like Dr. Arnold Relman, professor emeritus at Harvard and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, it’s a conflict of interest — especially in the case of Neurontin.

Relman: "What you have is an unproven drug being widely used for difficult problems by doctors who are given a powerful economic incentive to do it, spurred on by a company that’s wildly aggressive in its marketing."
After seven years of legal motions and countermotions, Franklin’s lawsuit is now being scrutinized by the U.S. government and all 50 states to see if government medical programs like Medicaid may have been defrauded into spending millions on improper off-label prescriptions.
And in fact, in recently filed court papers, the Justice Department said that Franklin’s case "has presented evidence of an illegal off-label marketing scheme that is rife with false statements and fraudulent conduct all of which had one intended purpose and result — increasing sales ..."
Three years ago, Pfizer bought Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis, so now the biggest drug company in the world is the defendant in one of the highest-profile cases in the history of the industry. Pfizer officials would not speak on camera but did provide this statement: "...the events to which you referred are alleged to have occurred well before — in some cases years before — Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert. Pfizer completed the acquisition of Warner-Lambert in June 2000. It is long-standing policy that Pfizer has not and does not promote its products outside their FDA-approved labeling.... We are unable to comment further because of the pending litigation..."
But it’s litigation that will mean little to Regina Adams, who says she will always believe that her experience with bipolar disorder and the drug Neurontin almost ruined her life.

Adams: "Now that I look back, and that I know what I know now, I wouldn’t have ever taken the drug. I want everybody to know that’s taking this drug the truth about it."
Last year the FDA approved the use of Neurontin in the treatment of post herpetic neuralgia, severe nerve pain, in addition to epilepsy. It is still widely prescribed for pain and a variety of other unapproved uses, some of which have been studied and endorsed by scientists and approved for use in other countries.
And as for whistleblower Franklin, he may have escaped legal liability for what he did during his four months with Parke-Davis, but he hasn’t escaped his own conscience. He admits he should have known from the start that he was heading down the wrong path.

Franklin: "Actually interviewing for this position, I was asked about giving examples of where I had to bend the rules in the past and how I handled that and how comfortable was I working in gray areas."
This case could end up clarifying some of those gray areas and end up costing defendant Pfizer millions of dollars. And there’s one more thing. Because his lawsuit is filed under the federal False Claims Act, as a whistleblower Franklin stands to get a piece of any monetary damages, up to 30 percent, which could add up to millions. So the four-month job in sales that caused so much agony for this scientist, ironically, might in the end have set him up for life.

Hockenberry: "But even after you get a settlement, if you do, or a judgment if you do, or the case just completely goes away if it does, there are patients out there who took drugs based on decisions doctors made relying on your judgment."

Franklin: "Right."

Hockenberry: "They could be hurt because of that."

Franklin: "They may have been hurt. And that’s something that I wrestle with."

Hockenberry: "What’s to wrestle with? If they’re hurting, it’s because of you."

Franklin: "It’s because of me. There hasn’t been a day in six years that I haven’t thought about this and wrestled with my involvement in it and the guilt I feel associated with it, and the sense that I need to correct it."

Facts about the FDA, the AMA, ADA.

"The sincerest motives of the medical PROFESSION are derailed by the greed and power of the medical INDUSTRY."

The Medical System in the USA is guilty of deception, fraud, murder, and cover-ups. But this does not mean the entire system is useless. Rarely is anything bad w/o some good. An MD's skills are wonderfully used when they can save lives from accidents, gunshots, birth defects, and such. If you are ever shot or injured, the first place you want to go is the Emergency Room, staffed with well-trained, competent surgeons! It is not this area of medicine that is the problem. It is the area of treating illness or diseases where the problem exists, and the problem lies mainly with the system's control over what options the MD's have available.

For example: if you are ever diagnosed with cancer, you need to know that your MD or Oncologist is legally forbidden from curing your cancer. Their hands are tied by the FDA and AMA, who have used their power to pass legislation forbidding any licensed MD from treating cancer with anything other than treatments that have never proven to work - surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

"The thing that bugs me is that people think the Food and Drug Administration is protecting them -- it isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day." --Dr. Herbert L. Ley, former Commissioner of the FDA

Did you know? The average lifespan of the average American is 75 years, while the average lifespan of your MD is 58 years! Following your doctor's advice can cost you 17 years of your life (if you're lucky)!! Is there something our Doctor's are not being taught?

In spite of our supposedly superior medical technology, the USA is #1 in the world in degenerative disease and the 20th in life expectancy. - World Health Organization.

"Heart disease, cancer, stroke are the top 3 killers in our country [Despite the fact that all 3 of these diseases have been curable for decades]. The 4th major killer in the US is prescription drugs." - USA Today

Did you know that each of these diseases was cured over 20 years ago: diabetes, heart disease, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, osteoporosis, arthritis, ulcers and others? Yes, each of these diseases has been cured - in animals, not in people! Why not in us? Could there be something veterinarians know that our doctors are not allowed to tell us?

Any treatment that you can obtain and self-administer threatens to remove your doctor from the treatment program. Although your doctor may not object to this, the American Medical Association (AMA) is strongly opposed to such a trend. For this reason the American Medical Association has pushed for legislation to prevent the public from ever being exposed to alternatives.

The term conspiracy has become extremely unfashionable. It is popular to label anyone who points out a conspiracy as paranoid. This reaction is so prevalent that we have developed into a society of closed minds. Open up a bit and consider what powerful drug companies have accomplished after decades of a Congress for sale. The legislation that the Pharma-Cartel companies have managed to get passed has a real effect on anyone who becomes sick.

(For a full explanation and analysis of this issue, visit Quack Pot Watch and find out how you can protect your freedom of choice in health care. Don't let someone else's greed rob YOU of YOUR health!)

(Medical professionals kill over 300,000 patients a year as a result of medical negligence! - USA Today, 1/13/91)

Table of Contents



Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

  • 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery
  • 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals
  • 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals
  • 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals
  • 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications

These total to 225,000 deaths per year!!!

225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Journal of the American Medical Assoc.



Comparative cost: new drugs v older drugs
Select topic 'Health & medicine'

"The cost per pill is roughly ONE TO THREE CENTS per pill in contrast to A DOLLAR OR MORE per pill for some of the more expensive medicines that are currently available," Dr. Appel said.

Dr. Appel adds the results of the study may encourage doctors to prescribe diuretics more often for their patients with hypertension.

But then again maybe not, since he says the drugs are no longer aggressively made and promoted by large pharmaceutical companies.

JAMA link

JAMA. 2002;288:2981-2997


Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals

Pharmaceutical giants hire ghostwriters to produce articles - then put doctors' names on them 
Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday December 7, 2003
The Observer

Hundreds of articles in medical journals claiming to be written by academics or doctors have been penned by ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies, an Observer inquiry reveals.

The journals, bibles of the profession, have huge influence on which drugs doctors prescribe and the treatment hospitals provide. But The Observer has uncovered evidence that many articles written by so-called independent academics may have been penned by writers working for agencies which receive huge sums from drug companies to plug their products.

Estimates suggest that almost half of all articles published in journals are by ghostwriters. While doctors who have put their names to the papers can be paid handsomely for 'lending' their reputations, the ghostwriters remain hidden. They, and the involvement of the pharmaceutical firms, are rarely revealed.

These papers endorsing certain drugs are paraded in front of GPs as independent research to persuade them to prescribe the drugs.

In February the New England Journal of Medicine was forced to retract an article published last year by doctors from Imperial College in London and the National Heart Institute on treating a type of heart problem. It emerged that several of the listed authors had little or nothing to do with the research. The deception was revealed only when German cardiologist Dr Hubert Seggewiss, one of the eight listed authors, called the editor of the journal to say he had never seen any version of the paper.

An article published last February in the Journal of Alimentary Pharmacology , which specialises in stomach disorders, involved a medical writer working for drug giant AstraZeneca - a fact that was not revealed by the author.

The article, by a German doctor, acknowledged the 'contribution' of Dr Madeline Frame, but did not admit that she was a senior medical writer for AstraZeneca. The article essentially supported the use of a drug called Omeprazole - which is manufactured by AstraZeneca - for gastric ulcers, despite suggestions that it gave rise to more adverse reactions than similar drugs.

Few within the industry are brave enough to break cover. However, Susanna Rees, an editorial assistant with a medical writing agency until 2002, was so concerned about what she witnessed that she posted a letter on the British Medical Journal website.

'Medical writing agencies go to great lengths to disguise the fact that the papers they ghostwrite and submit to journals and conferences are ghostwritten on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and not by the named authors,' she wrote. 'There is a relatively high success rate for ghostwritten submissions - not outstanding, but consistent.'

Rees said part of her job had been to ensure that any article that was submitted electronically would give no clues as to the origin of the research.

'One standard procedure I have used states that before a paper is submitted to a journal electronically or on disc, the editorial assistant must open the file properties of the Word document manuscript and remove the names of the medical writing agency or agency ghostwriter or pharmaceutical company and replace these with the name and institution of the person who has been invited by the pharmaceutical drug company (or the agency acting on its behalf) to be named as lead author, but who may have had no actual input into the paper,' she wrote.

When contacted, Rees declined to give any details. 'I signed a confidentiality agreement and am unable to comment,' she said.

A medical writer who has worked for a number of agencies did not want to be identified for fear he would not get any work again.

'It is true that sometimes a drug company will pay a medical writer to write a review article supporting a particular drug,' he said. 'This will mean using all published information to write an article explaining the benefits of a particular treatment.

'A recognised doctor will then be found to put his or her name to it and it will be submitted to a journal without anybody knowing that a ghostwriter or a drug company is behind it. I agree this is probably unethical, but all the firms are at it.'

One field where ghostwriting is becoming an increasing problem is psychiatry.

Dr David Healy, of the University of Wales, was doing research on the possible dangers of anti-depressants, when a drug manufacturer's representative emailed him with an offer of help.

The email, seen by The Observer, said: 'In order to reduce your workload to a minimum, we have had our ghostwriter produce a first draft based on your published work. I attach it here.'

The article was a 12-page review paper ready to be presented at an forthcoming conference. Healy's name appeared as the sole author, even though he had never seen a single word of it before. But he was unhappy with the glowing review of the drug in question, so he suggested some changes.

The company replied, saying he had missed some 'commercially important' points. In the end, the ghostwritten paper appeared at the conference and in a psychiatric journal in its original form - under another doctor's name.

Healy says such deception is becoming more frequent. 'I believe 50 per cent of articles on drugs in the major medical journals are not written in a way that the average person would expect them to be... the evidence I have seen would suggest there are grounds to think a significant proportion of the articles in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Lancet may be written with help from medical writing agencies,' he said. 'They are no more than infomercials paid for by drug firms.'

In the United States a legal case brought against drug firm Pfizer turned up internal company documents showing that it employed a New York medical writing agency. One document analyses articles about the anti-depressant Zoloft. Some of the articles lacked only one thing: a doctor's name. In the margin the agency had put the initials TBD, which Healy assumes means 'to be determined'.

Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Journal of Medicine, admitted ghostwriting was a 'very big problem' .

'We are being hoodwinked by the drug companies. The articles come in with doctors' names on them and we often find some of them have little or no idea about what they have written,' he said.

'When we find out, we reject the paper, but it is very difficult. In a sense, we have brought it on ourselves by insisting that any involvement by a drug company should be made explicit. They have just found ways to get round this and go undercover.'

Written by Scott Tips

Three years ago a film came out of Hollywood that was conceptually great even if the execution was fatally flawed. Called Idiocracy, this
comedy follows the mishaps of a character named Joe Bowers who is not
the sharpest tool in the shed, but who, through a government
hibernation experiment gone wrong, awakens to a society in the year
2505 that has become so stupid because of mass commercialism that Joe
shines as a genius in comparison. After a predictable series of
mishaps, the point is clear: We are on the wrong track in pushing
dumbed-down, ‘me too' concepts and products. Society will only worsen,
not improve.
Organic vs. Artificial

It is a lesson that modern-day fighters for individual liberty learned
decades ago. In ensuring and protecting freedom for the individual, we
create a better society. On a pragmatic level, individual liberty is a
concept that sees the health and happiness of the parts as leading to
the health of the whole - not the reverse. Put another way, individual
liberty is organic - when not blocked artificially, it flows naturally
and creates healthy relationships in an ever-expanding web of mutually-
beneficial interactions among people.

On the other hand, much of today's political and economic structure is
not organic but artificial. It comes from the Top down, not the bottom
up. It does not flow naturally, easily, and quickly but with
artificial constraints that are marked by dissension, delays, and
waste. It is, by nature, coercive. ‘You do what we say because you
have to and at the ultimate point of a gun. You do not do it

With this in mind, we can see that the larger structures being created
or expanded in the 21st Century are not geared to preserving or even
considering individual freedom. Rather, they are all about mass
uniformity and commercialism in their worst forms. Whether it is the
European Union or the still-in-utero North American Union, their
object is the same: stifling individualism in favour of a
collectivistic uniformity. Yes, of course, lip service will be paid to
the individual with such hollow slogans as ‘Land of the Free, Home of
the Brave'; but it is still the Whole consuming the Parts. It is still
artificial, stiff, and unnatural.

Codex Alimentarius
For those readers not familiar with the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
it is just one more of these mass-uniformity structures. Originally
created in 1962 by the World Health Organization and the Food and
Agriculture Organization with the noblest of stated intentions - that
is, to protect consumer food health and eliminate barriers to
international food trade - the Codex Alimentarius Commission has been
engaged in developing food standards and guidelines that will be
imposed from the Top down. Captured by interests antithetical to
health freedom, Codex is now well on the path to promulgating food
rules that will lead to ‘dumbed-down' health - a kind of health
Idiocracy - for individuals throughout the World.

That is precisely why the National Health Federation (NHF)
(, an international nonprofit consumer health-freedom
organization, has been sending me to these Codex committee meetings
every year for ten years in a row now. Having obtained official Codex
observer status, the NHF is able to attend and speak out at these
meetings. It is also able to submit, and has submitted, written
arguments in favor of health-freedom positions at many of these
meetings. As the only health-freedom organization accredited by Codex,
NHF has almost always been the lone voice striving to eliminate
oppressive standards and guidelines while enhancing consumer freedom
of choice. The other delegates and organizations at these meetings are
basically FDA-style bureaucrats and trade organizations with their own
special commercial interests and agendas.

In particular, NHF has opposed the Codex Vitamin and Mineral Food
Supplement Guidelines that were adopted in framework form in
2004-2005, and that will limit access to healthy dietary supplements
as well as ‘dumb down' their potencies to non-beneficial levels. These
maximum upper permitted limits have not yet been set. However, if the
Germans, Danes and others have their way, then ridiculously-low limits
will be imposed that will ensure that supplements pose no competition
with their pharmaceutical industry. For example, the German Institute
(BfR) that has conducted ‘research' into this area has determined that
niacin is dangerous to consumers at levels higher than 17 milligrams
per capsule! This is the madness that they would impose upon the rest
of us as they die from their drug-and-sausage-induced heart attacks.
That is a party we have no intention of joining!

In another area, ironically enough, the EU and NHF have worked
together at the Codex Committee on Food Labelling meetings to see that
genetically-modified foods are labeled as such for the consumer. In
this case, the North Americans, joined by the Argentineans,
Australians, and New Zealanders, are the bad actors, contending, as
the American delegate has said, that "the consumer is too ignorant to
understand GM-labelled foods." So far, this battle has been a draw but
NHF has been aggressively vocal at each of these meetings arguing for
the right of the consumer to know what he or she is eating.

Codex guidelines and standards cover many more subjects than those
just mentioned. Ranging from oils and food additives to pesticides and
natural mineral waters, Codex is involved. And while these standards
are ostensibly to be applied to international trade, the Codex
Strategic Plan specifically states - and almost all countries agree -
that they will be applied domestically as well. It is just a matter of
time, they say.

Bigger Is Not Always Better

In the European Union, which began innocently enough as nothing more
than a Customs Union, decisions - important decisions - are
increasingly made by the European Commission in Brussels. Each year,
fewer and fewer decisions are being made in Dublin or London or Paris
or Madrid. The natural tendency of governments and their institutions
to grow over time is asserting itself, inexorably, like the laws of
gravity and space. Power is being sucked in to the Center. It is being
increasingly centralized.

And therein lies the major problem, for the more that you distance the
power wielders from those over whom they exercise that power, the more
corrupt and arrogant they will become and behave. It is ultimately
about accountability, and you cannot have true accountability when the
rulers are not immediately and directly accountable to the citizens.

The problem with the latest attempt to accumulate even more power in
the hands of the EU Superstate, through the Lisbon Treaty, is that the
rulers and the ruled will become even more distant from one another
than they already are! Centralization of power is the bane of freedom.
As rulers become less accountable to their subjects - or citizens -
they will become more corrupt and more likely to do harm.

But as unlikely as it may seem now, there is another, more important
reason to shun centralization: Increased concentration of power
attracts sociopaths to it like flames attract moths. Such power in one
place is irresistible to those who crave it. This is hard for the
average decent person to comprehend, but sociopaths do exist and they
do gravitate towards power. A more powerful Brussels will be an even
stronger magnet for the future power-mongers of the World. Do we
really need to invite another Hitler or Stalin to rain ruin down upon

The Banality of Centralization

While some might scoff at a future EU dictator in the same way that
the Germans scoffed at a Nazi Germany in the 1920s, even the scoffers
must accept the very real risk - I would say certainty - that a more
powerful and centralized European Union will result in the banality of
life - its ‘dumbing down' as political, economic, and social life is
forced into an artificial, bureaucratically-crafted mold of European

This is already taking place. The heavy hand of distant bureaucrats is
felt throughout the EU's member states over the littlest of details -
from weights and measures to employee relations to vitamin and mineral
food supplements. Think of any aspect of your life in the European
Union and the EU Superstate is involved at some level. Again, distant
bureaucrats making important decisions about your life.

Codex and the EU

This, too, is where the worlds of the EU and Codex intersect. Unknown
to the average citizen, the Codex Commission and Committees are
trundling along, each year, making rule after rule that its member
countries, the EU included, are expected to adopt - both in
international trade and domestic trade. There are treaties and
agreements that exist right now that commit the member states to
adopting these Codex ‘guidelines.' These include, but are not limited
to, the Technical Barriers to Trade and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Agreements, and the EU is a signatory to both of these.

At Codex meetings, the EU representative has been pushing his narrow
view that consumers must be protected from vitamin and mineral food
supplements. They are too strong in potency and there are too many
‘unproven' ones, he claims, so they must be ‘dumbed down' to a level
that will be of no benefit to anyone except to the pharmaceutical
companies whose profits are protected by the elimination of
competition. The EU representative at the Codex Committee dealing with
this issue has immense influence; and I have even seen him giving
instructions to the Committee Chairman right in front of the other
delegates during the meeting. That is how bold it has become!

So the EU Superstate - claiming all the while that it of course has
the best interests of the consumers in mind - is pushing reduced
potency and variety of supplements within the EU and internationally
through Codex. Within the EU, Ireland, Britain, Sweden, and the
Netherlands (being the most liberal countries, permitting the sale of
a wider variety and higher potency of supplements) will be the first
to fall (at the end of this year through EU Food Supplements Directive
- not because of Codex as some misinformed persons will tell you), to
be followed later at some as-yet-to-be-determined date by global Codex
rules. The United States and Canada, represented as they are by food
bureaucrats of their own, are happy enough to be along for the ride.

Unless resisted successfully, the end result will be EU markets full of foods that are less healthy without the availability of food supplements to bridge the gap. The Idiocracy will have arrived - literally - as the general population is starved of real nutrition for their brains and bodies. A compliant, non-rebellious citizenry, what more could our distant Rulers ask for?

Scott Tips is the President of the National Health Federation ( and the Editor of Health Freedom News magazine.