By Mike Adams
Those of us who have long been describing the pharmaceutical industry as a “criminal racket” over the last few years have been wholly vindicated by recent news. Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a whopping $3 billion for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been sued by the nation’s pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an “overarching anticompetitive scheme” to keep generic cholesterol drugs off the market and thereby boost its own profits.
The picture that’s emerging is one of a criminal drug industry that has turned to mafia tactics in the absence of any real science that would prove their products to be safe or effective. The emergence of this extraordinary evidence of bribery, scientific fraud, lying to regulators and monopolistic practices that harm consumers is also making all those doctors and “skeptics” who defended Big Pharma and vaccines eat their words.
To defend Big Pharma today is to defend a cabal of criminal corporations
that have proven they will do anything — absolutely anything
– to keep their profits rolling in. It makes no difference who they have to bribe, what studies they have to falsify, or who has to be threatened into silence. They will stop at nothing to expand their profit base, even if it means harming (or killing) countless innocents.
Let’s take a look at recent revelations:
GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty to bribery, fraud and other crimes (more…)
by Jon Rappoport
March 1, 2013
Perhaps you remember the ill-fated Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory.
The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.
Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing. Let’s get down to the core of the crime.
Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”
Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled. (more…)
Is it bad science; marketing deception or outright medical malpractice within the cancer industry? There is growing evidence that pharmaceutical-sponsored, breast cancer studies are producing fraudulent data. Honest researchers reveal that patient outcomes and adverse side effects of phase three clinical trials are being twisted to favor the drug companies – even when the results suggest serious problems with using these drugs.
Breast cancer patients must be told the truth (more…)
Everyone agrees the Sandy Hook shooting was a tragedy. Lots of people subsequently exploited the deaths of those children to push a political agenda of disarming Americans by claiming “guns kill people.”
But compared to what? Swimming pools kill people. Horseback riding kills people. And yes, even childbirth kills people. (Does that mean we should criminalize getting pregnant?)
To make any sense of death statistics, we have to ask, “Compared to what?” Because if we compare deaths by firearms to other causes of death, the picture is very, very different from the doomsday fear mongering scenarios CNN and other gun control pushers have whipped up into a nationwide frenzy. In fact, as the following infographic shows, doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined. (more…)
How corporate dollars corrupt research and education Marcia Angell
This article is part of Big Pharma, Bad Medicine, a forum on the impact of the pharmaceutical industry on medical training and science, and the responsibilities of physicians.
In May of 2000, shortly before I stepped down as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, I wrote an editorial entitled, “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” It was prompted by a clinical trial of an antidepressant called Serzone that was published in the same issue of the Journal.
The authors of that paper had so many financial ties to drug companies, including the maker of Serzone, that a full-disclosure statement would have been about as long as the article itself, so it could appear only on our Web site. The lead author, who was chairman of the department of psychiatry at Brown University (presumably a full-time job), was paid more than half a million dollars in drug-company consulting fees in just one year. Although that particular paper was the immediate reason for the editorial, I wouldn’t have bothered to write it if it weren’t for the fact that the situation, while extreme, was hardly unique. (more…)
Modern medicine serves up every stage and aspect of life to Profit. After destroying the methods and knowledge of the old ways, what will be left to replace them?
This has become the picture of how we die. It utterly lacks humanity and respect, treating the dying patient as nothing more than a bunch of failing body parts. (more…)
What Went Wrong is not a question, it’s a statement of fact in the raging war between alternative cancer therapies and allopathic medicine’s standard of cancer care with drugs, chemo and surgery. I added the word Again, because these battles have happened countless times and have cost countless lives.
Dr. Nick Gonzales begins his book, What Went Wrong, with the following words.
“From 1998 to 2005, my colleague Dr. Linda Isaacs and I worked closely with physicians and scientists from Columbia University, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), developing and pursuing a formal clinical trial comparing our nutritional treatment to chemotherapy in patients diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer. When the project first began we were excited by, and grateful for, this opportunity to have our regimen tested under what we hoped would be rigorous academic supervision. In a personal sense, the study represented the culmination of nearly 15 long years of our own research efforts and our battles to have our therapy properly evaluated and eventually mainstreamed. We also hoped that in a more global sense, this effort would help usher in a new era of cooperation between mainstream institutions and serious alternative practitioners with promising new treatments. In those long ago days we truly believed that the endless and fruitless war between academic medicine and more unconventional approaches might be coming to an end, to everyone’s benefit. (more…)