Pharmaceutical industry

Pharmaceutical industry. According to IMS Health, a company which provides market intelligence to the pharmaceutical and health care industries; the estimated worldwide sales for prescription pharmaceuticals was about $400 billion in 2002. Americans spent roughly 200 billion dollars on prescription drugs in 2002, accounting for approximately half of all sales world wide. Yet, as of 2006, the U.S. infant mortality rate ranked at 21st in the world (under Greece and South Korea and slightly higher than Poland). U.S. life expectancy ranked at number 17. By 2008, IMS Health reported that sales for U.S. prescription drugs had reached $291 billion dollars a year.

History of pharmaceutical interests
In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities. The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to universities and medical schools which had drug based research. They further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical schools where research was drug based through their "International Education Board". Establishments and research which were were not drug based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the lucrative pharmaceutical industry. In 1939 a "Drug Trust" alliance was formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company I.G. Farben (Bayer). After World War II, I.G. Farben was dismantled but later emerged as separate corporations within the alliance. Well known companies included General Mills, Kellogg, Nestle, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Procter and Gamble, Roche and Hoechst (Sanofi-Aventis). The Rockefeller empire, in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase), owns over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the United States. It is the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world. Since WWII, the pharmaceutical industry has steadily netted increasing profits to become the world's second largest manufacturing industry;, after the arms industry.

The Rockefeller Foundation was originally set up in 1904 as the General Education Fund. The RF was later formed in 1910 and issued a charter on May 14, 1913 with the help of Rockefeller millions. Subsequently, the foundation placed it's own "nominees" in federal health agencies and set the stage for the "reeducation" of the public. A compilation of magazine advertising reveals that as far back as 1948, larger American drug companies spent a total sum of $1,104,224,374 for advertising. Of this sum, Rockefeller-Morgan interests (which went entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's death) controlled about 80%. See also AMA.

IG Farben & Auschwitz
Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben. On April 14, 1941, in Ludwigshafen, Otto Armbrust, the IG Farben board member responsible for the Auschwitz project, stated to board colleagues:


 * "our new friendship with the SS is a blessing. We have determined all measures integrating the concentration camps to benefit our company."

Thousands of prisoners died during human experiments, drug and vaccine testing. Before longtime Bayer employee and SS Auschwitz doctor Helmut Vetter was executed for administering fatal infections, he wrote to his bosses at Bayer headquarters:


 * "I have thrown myself into my work wholeheartedly. Especially as I have the opportunity to test our new preparations. I feel like I am in paradise."

After WWII, IG Farben attempted to shake its abominable image through corporate restructuring and renaming. So great has been their success that the public has no idea that it many of the men responsible for such atrocities, were able to carry on their work even after the collapse of the Nazi regime. Namely a medical paradigm that relies almost exclusively highly toxic drugs. Such men were in control of the large chemical and pharmaceutical companies, both well before and after Hitler. The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes. Incredibly, most of them had been released by 1951 and continued to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved IG Farben into Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF, each company 20 times as large as IG Farben in 1944. For almost three decades after WWII, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (Aventis) filled their highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime. Bayer has been sued by survivors of medical experiments such as Eva Kor who, along with her sister, survived experiments at the hands of Dr. Josef Mengele. See also Bayer.

Deploying doctors
Drug companies have new top salesmen: doctors. According to a mid-July 2005 report by the Wall Street Journal, hiring a doctor to speak about drug therapies to other doctors has proven to be a "highly effective" way for the pharmaceutical industry to market its drugs.


 * "An internal study done by Merck & Co. several years ago calculated the "return on investment" from doctor-led discussion groups was almost double the return on meetings led by the company's own sales force. According to the document, doctors who attended a lecture by another doctor wrote an additional $623.55 worth of prescriptions for the painkiller Vioxx over a 12-month period compared with doctors who didn't attend. Doctors who participated in the more intimate discussions wrote an additional $717.53 worth of prescriptions for Vioxx, which Merck pulled from the market last year over concerns about cardiovascular side effects. That compared to an increase of only $165.87 in Vioxx prescriptions by doctors who attended a meeting with a salesperson."

In 1996, researcher Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University studied nearly 800 scientific papers in prominent biology and medical journals. In one third of all cases, the author had financial interests in the company sponsoring the research. This information was not disclosed to readers in most cases. In a 1996 Stanford University study by Mildred Cho, a senior research scholar at the Center for Biomedical Ethics; found that 98% of university studies funded by drug companies reported new therapies to be more effective than standard ones. By comparison, only 79% of non-industry financed studies found new drugs to be more effective.

Short term research & long term side effects
Conventional medicine has consistently insisted that its methods are verified by science. However, medical history has shown a pattern of discovery and application of drug treatments. Initially, there is great excitement over a drug and research has seemingly proven safety and efficacy. However, over time minor concerns about drug side effects emerge, until further research and clinical practice reveal more serious concerns about its side effects. Eventually, it is generally acknowledged that the drug does not work as well as assumed along with recognition of increasing, serious side effects. However, these problems are not really problems as a new drug emerges with short term research indicating that it is superior to the previous one. Like the fashion industry, the drug industry profits on the newer drugs rather than on the older ones.

According to a January 2006 Consumer Reports, twelve types of drugs sold in 140 prescription medications had "rare but serious side effects" that went unnoticed prior to their market approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The report contends that FDA scientists faced tight deadlines and pressure from superiors to approve drugs without thorough review; even when they had reservations about side effects.

Medicine, drugs, vaccines & animal testing
A landmark article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on April 15, 1998 entitled, "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients", evaluated serious and fatal adverse drug reactions (ADR)s in U.S. hospitals. The study revealed that in 1994, ADRs accounted for 2,216,000 serious events and 106,000 hospital deaths. According to a 2003 comprehensive study of medical peer-review journals and government health statistics, there are an additional 199,000 fatal ADR outpatient deaths in the U.S. annually. , According to the study, there are approximately 783,936 iatrogenic (medically induced) deaths every year in the U.S. Furthermore, the actual figure is estimated to be much higher, as only a fraction (between 5% and 20%) of iatrogenic acts are ever reported.

Researchers from Harvard and Boston Universities concluded that medical measures (drugs and vaccines) accounted for between 1 and 3.5% of the total decline in mortality rate since 1900. Scores of animals were killed in the quest to find cures for tuberculosis, scarlet fever, small pox and diphtheria. Dr. Edward Kass of Harvard Medical School asserts that the primary credit for the virtual eradication of these diseases must go to improvements in public health, sanitation and general standard of living. Additionally, 88% of doctors queried agreed that animal experiments can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans.

Thousands of rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, and primates are killed in "pre-clinical" tests for new drugs (including all ingredients and even minor differences in formulas). Following an extensive battery of animal testing, drugs generally undergo three phases of clinical trials. The fact that months or years of human studies are also required suggests health authorities do not trust the results. In 2004, the FDA reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials, subsequently fail human trials. , See also animal testing, sections 1 through 3.

Placebo effect
In 2003, a senior executive for GlaxoSmithKline announced that the vast majority of drugs, more than 90%; only work in 30 to 50% of the people. Dr. Allen Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University spoke at a scientific meeting in London:
 * "Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine."

30 to 70% is considered to be placebo effect. Vivisectors often claim undue credit for advances in medicine and public health which have no relation to or were even impeded by animal testing, simply due to the fact that animal testing was used (often an unavoidable legal requirement.) Frequently, they will cite animal experiments without disclosing the pioneering previous non-animal discovery.

Rewriting medical history
There is a surprising amount of medical documentation of vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, small pox, polio and Hib outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations. ,, , , In 1989 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that measles outbreaks occurred in schools where 98% of the children had received immunizations. Outbreaks and epidemics have occurred in all parts of the country after immunizations, including areas that had not reported measles for years. In 1984, the CDC reported a measles outbreak in population that was documented as 100% vaccinated. According to a study conducted in 1996, measles has become a "disease of immunized persons". In other words, the measles vaccine produces immune suppression and increases susceptibility to infection.

On March 29, 2008, CDC chief Julie Gerberding admitted that vaccines trigger autism in a subset of the population with mitochondrial disorders on CNN's House Call with Dr. Sanjay Gupta. (right)

Decline in disease/mortality & non-medical factors
Vaccines are purportedly responsible for declines in polio, the "disappearance" of smallpox and other infectious diseases. The media assures us that science is working on an AIDS vaccine that will end that affliction. However, the incidence of infectious diseases first started dropping rapidly in the 1930's and continued dropping after World War II, coinciding with improved living standards. Clean water, central heating, the availability of citrus fruits and vitiman C, etc., were the predominant factors in the downward curve. According to the Australian Nurses Journal:


 * "A careful study of the decline in disease will show that up to 90 percent of the so-called ‘killer diseases’ had all but disappeared when we introduced immunization on a large scale during the late thirties and early forties."

According to the Medical Journal of Australia:


 * "The decline of tetanus as a disease began before the introduction of tetanus toxoid to the general population. The reasons for this decline are the same for the decline in all other infectious diseases: improved hygiene, improved sanitation, better nutrition, healthier living conditions, etc."

There was a 97% decline in measles preceding vaccinations and a 79% decline in pertussis. In fact, the rate of decline during the post-immunization in the 20th century is virtually identical to the pre-immunization period rate of decline. A study conducted by the British Association for the Advancement of Science found that childhood diseases decreased by 90% between 1850 and 1940 due to improved hygiene and sanitation. According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the 4 leading causes of death from infectious diseases in the USA from 1911 to 1935 were diptheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough (pertussis) and measles.By 1945, the combined death rates from these diseases had declined by 95%; before the implementation of immunization programs. This decline was attributed to better public sanitation, nutrition and improved and less crowded housing conditions. According to a report in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of July 30, 1999, improvements in sanitation, water quality, hygiene, and the introduction of antibiotics have been the most important factors in disease control in the past century. ,

According to vaccine manufacturers, vaccines have almost single handedly been responsible for the control of epidemics. However, epidemics have followed the complete immunization of entire countries. For example, Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. There were 29,979 deaths by the year 1892 and all had been vaccinated.

Redefining polio
Between 1954 and 1957, there appeared to be a marked decline in the incidence of Polio. However, while this historical decline in statistics coincides with the Salk vaccine trials, it also coincides with the radical redefinition of polio. According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg's 1960 transcript of a meeting discussing the Salk vaccine:


 * "Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used."

According to researcher-author Dr. Viera Scheibner, whose work has been controversial, 90% of polio cases were eliminated from statistics by this redefinition of the disease before the vaccine was introduced. In fact, the Salk vaccine was continuing to cause polio induced paralysis in several countries where there were no epidemics from the wild virus. For example, thousands cases of viral and aseptic meningitis are reported annually in the U.S. which were diagnosed as polio before the Salk vaccine. Also, the numbers of cases required to declare an official epidemic, increased from 20 to 35. Furthermore, the requirement for the inclusion of paralysis in the statistics changed from symptoms lasting 24 hours to 60 days, in paralysis statistics was changed from symptoms for 24 hours to symptoms for 60 days. Given such radical changes in the official definition and reading of statistics of Polio, it is not too surprising that incidence decreased radically (at least on paper). It should be noted that Scheibner has been described as an "anti-vaccination campaigner."

Increases in polio after immunization
In New England, six states reported an increase in polio one year after the Salk vaccine immunizations. Incidences increase 642% in Massachusetts and doubled in Vermont. By 1959, 77.5% of Massachusetts' paralysis cases had received 3 doses of IPV (injected polio vaccine). During 1962 U.S. Congressional hearings, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Dept. of Biostatistics for the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified that polio cases increased substantially after the introduction of mandatory vaccines. Although there was a 50% increase from 1957 to 1958 and an 80% increase from 1958 to 1959, he also testified that statistics had been manipulated by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression. In 1985, the CDCP reported that between 1973 and 1983, 87% of U.S. Polio cases were vaccine induced. They later declared that all but a few imported cases since were also vaccine induced. Most of the imported cases occurred in fully immunized persons.

Dr. Jonas Salk senate hearings & VAPP
Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV, testified before a senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine. At a workshop on polio vaccines sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the CDCP, Dr. Samuel Katz of Duke University noted the 8 to 10 annual cases of "Vaccine Associated Polio Paralysis" (VAPP) from the oral polio vaccine to a four year absence of polio in the west. Jessica Scheer of the National Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center in Washington, D.C., also noted that most parents were unaware of that polio vaccination entailed "a small number of human sacrifices each year". However, due to low reporting and misdiagnoses of vaccine reactions, it is likely that the small number of VAPP sacrifices is much higher than CDC's figures.

The cancer industry
See also War on Cancer.

The AIDS industry
See also AIDS industry.

Lobbying
According to a USA Today data analysis by the non-partisan groups Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and Political Money Line, 49 senators who voted against drug importation received approximately five million dollars from industry executives and political action committees since 2001. This amount comprises almost three quarters of all industry donations to current Senate members.

FDA funding fees
Regulators don't negotiate their budgets with industries they oversea, with the exception of the FDA. In the early 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry began paying the FDA millions of dollars in user fees in order to speed up the drug approval process. These fees "now fund more than half the agency's critical drug-review process." Industry groups and the FDA renegotiate the fees and how they're used every five years, giving drug makers "considerable input into which programs receive funding." In 2006 the FDA negotiated an agreement with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and Biotechnology Industry Organization. Industry groups pushed for even faster decisions on labeling and other "conditions" of new drugs and the FDA negotiated more funding to monitor drug safety following approval.

SourceWatch articles

 * Alternative Medicine
 * American Medical Association
 * Anthrax vaccine
 * Avian flu pandemic
 * Bush Administration Plan for Flu Outbreaks
 * California's Proposition 78 (2005)
 * Direct-to-consumer advertising
 * Disinformation
 * Drug companies and clinical trials
 * Drug company gifts to doctors
 * False animal test results & damages caused
 * Foster child drug trials
 * Health Care
 * JPMorgan Chase
 * Meat & Dairy industry
 * Medical paper ghostwriting
 * National Institutes of Health
 * Patient Groups
 * Pharmaceuticals
 * Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water
 * PR Companies and Clinical Trials
 * Rockefeller Foundation
 * Shaw Science Partners (Drug marketing/advertising/PR company)
 * Swine flu
 * Ten Worst Laboratories
 * U.S. Department of Agriculture
 * Women in Government
 * Xenotransplantation

Drug manufacturers

 * Abbott Laboratories
 * Allergan
 * AmerisourceBergen
 * Amgen
 * AstraZeneca
 * Baxter International
 * Bayer
 * BiogenIDEC
 * Boehringer Ingelheim
 * Bristol-Myers Squibb
 * Cargill
 * Celgene
 * Centocor
 * Eli Lilly
 * Emergent BioSolutions
 * Genentech
 * Gilead Sciences
 * GlaxoSmithKline
 * Merck
 * Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals
 * Novartis
 * Pfizer Inc.
 * Proctor & Gamble
 * Roche
 * Sanofi-Aventis
 * Stiefel Laboratories
 * VaxGen

Brand name drugs
Abilify, Alli, Ambien, Avandia, Avastin, Baycol, Byetta, Exubera, Forteo, Gardasil, Herceptin, MimyX, Neurontin, Premarin, Prexige, Retrovir, Tamiflu, Trasylol, Vioxx, Viramune (Nevirapine), Vytorin, Xenical, Zyprexa

Contract Research Organizations

 * Charles River
 * Covance Laboratories
 * Huntingdon Life Sciences
 * Sinclair Research Center
 * SNBL

Laboratory animal breeding/importing facilities

 * Charles River
 * Covance Laboratories
 * Huntingdon Life Sciences
 * National Primate Research Center System
 * Oregon National Primate Research Center
 * Sinclair Research Center
 * SNBL
 * Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research
 * The Jackson Laboratory

Pharmaceutical lobbies & front groups

 * Americans for Medical Progress
 * Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry
 * Bone Measurement Institute
 * Cancer United
 * Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
 * Citizens for Better Medicare
 * Citizens Against Unfair Health Care Taxes
 * Constella Group
 * Foundation for Biomedical Research
 * Health Care America
 * Medicines Australia
 * National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)
 * National Association for Biomedical Research
 * Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
 * SANE Australia
 * Shaw Science Partners
 * Speaking of Research
 * 60 Plus Association

Medical research groups

 * International Association for the Study of Obesity
 * International Obesity Task Force

Drug industry watchdog groups & projects

 * Center for Public Integrity pharmaceutical industry project
 * Healthy Skepticism (based in Australia but global)
 * Kaiser Family Foundation
 * Media Doctor (Australia)
 * Media Doctor (Canada)
 * PharmedOut
 * Prescription Access Litigation
 * The Prescription Project
 * Consumer International Marketing Overdose website

Case studies

 * Chandler Chicco fills the news hole
 * Clinical suppression
 * Disease Mongering
 * GlaxoSmithKline, the Diabetes Drug Avandia and The Intimidation of Dr. John Buse
 * Medical Journals and Conflicts of Interest

General health & medical

 * Abortion
 * Animal products & health issues
 * Bush/Republican Initiatives
 * Community Pharmacy Action Group
 * Emergency Medical Care
 * genetic engineering
 * genetics
 * Health Care
 * Healthcare industry
 * Healthcare industry/Clinical studies
 * Healthcare Leadership Council
 * HIV/AIDS
 * Medicare
 * Medicare Prescription Drug Bill Vote Scandal, 2003
 * Mental health care
 * Off Label Prescribing Of Prescription Drugs
 * Patient Groups
 * Patient Groups/Australia
 * Pharmaceutical Industry APPG
 * State of the Union 2004
 * U.S. prescription drug system
 * U.S. prescription drug system/importing drugs

Critical websites

 * Marketing Overdose
 * PharmedOut
 * Prescription Access Litigation
 * The Prescription Project
 * The Drug Industry Document Archive

Drug industry opinion polls

 * Harris Poll #81: Majorities of U.S. Adults Think Oil Companies and Pharmaceuticals Should Be More Regulated, Harris Interactive, November 2, 2005

External external articles, resources & books
See also Pharmaceutical industry external links.